One of the selected plans was submitted by the Berkeley Student District Campaign, a group that aims to give students more representation in city government through the creation of a district with a student supermajority. A student supermajority would increase the likelihood of a UC Berkeley student being elected to Berkeley City Council.

“It’s important to note how historic of a move the council took last night (by) indicating that one of their top proposals is one submitted by students,” said Shahryar Abbasi, ASUC external affairs vice president. “It’s quite a shift in the discourse and the dialogue.”

About 45 UC Berkeley students, including Abbasi, attended the City Council meeting in support of the campaign. While seven different plans were considered at the public hearing Tuesday night, only two did not include a student-majority district.

The only remaining competition to the Berkeley Student District Campaign is the “simplicity” plan, which focuses on straightforward district divisions. The plan’s author, Eric Panzer, openly endorsed the Berkeley Student District Campaign’s plan and said that he hopes his proposal will be considered only as a “worthy alternative.”

The City Council may favor Panzer’s plan due to its clarity, according to ASUC External Affairs Vice President Redistricting Director Noah Efron.

“There are certainly some council members who want clean lines on their map,” Efron said. “The council still has full control.”

Throughout the hearing, multiple City Council members expressed their support for a student-majority district, which has never existed in the city of Berkeley. The only UC Berkeley student to ever hold a seat on the City Council was current State Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, who served from 1984 to 1992.

The plans were made possible by the passage of Measure R last November, which amended the existing city charter to eliminate the 1986 boundary lines and adjusted the district boundaries to reflect the city’s updated population.

According to ASUC External Affairs Vice President-elect Safeena Mecklai, a student district would allow students a say in major city issues like safety, economic development and other issues that impact students and residents equally.
“I think we would benefit from more voices of young people,” said Councilmember Jesse Arreguin last night. “It accomplishes the goal but keeps a lot of major neighborhoods intact.”

The next public hearing, during which the City Council is slated to select a plan, will be on July 2.

Though the meeting will take place during the summer, Mecklai said the campaign plans to build a coalition of students to attend and express their support.

“We certainly took (last night) as a great victory, and it certainly feels more tangible now than it ever has,” Efron said. “(But) until we hear that they have officially adopted it, we won’t be celebrating.”

Contact Claire Chiara at cchiara@dailycal.org.

The post City Council to consider two proposals that include UC Berkeley student district appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The UC Berkeley campus has witnessed an absolute tragedy this last week. The roots of our student government, our institutional traditions and even American history have been thrown to the wolves. Earlier Wednesday, I spoke with a freshman on the condition of anonymity due to his fear of repercussions. The student, almost in tears, lamented the fact that he was “really saddened that the ASUC did not take up the opportunity to represent me and effect true change.”

What has caused all of this campuswide sadness?

ASUC Senator Mihir Deo nobly attempted to pass a piece of legislation entitled “A Bill in Support of Free Soda from Chipotle.” This bill uses the power of the ASUC Senate as a representative body of more than 30,000 students to urge Chipotle to give back the deal that once gave free soda (and healthier options) to Cal students. Graduating seniors reminisce in those glory days when this dream was a reality, and they can only hope that deal will one day return.

Sadly, Deo met the hand of silencing resistance at the external affairs committee meeting this past week. The committee rejected the Chipotle bill in defense of the ASUC’s honor by purporting that the passage of the bill would make the ASUC look like a joke. Ironically, it is that committee that resembles the ultimate joke by rejecting the bill.

Our student body of more than 30,000 makes up the vast majority of customers who enter the beloved Chipotle on Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue. Something tells me that Chipotle would listen far more to our representative body than the regents would to that same political body. Why not support the wallets of students on the ground, and urge that business to bring back its magnanimous deal? Not only would Chipotle, at the very least, make an official response to this bill, but other businesses would also respond by giving students more deals to compete over who is most student-friendly.

Something that appears as a joke at face value can ultimately have a serious and widespread effect. You can often have the best shot at moving those mountains by working for the little things — not that free soda at Chipotle is a little feat.

Hey, you future ASUC of 2025 — never be scared to take yourselves lightly every once in a while — it can be what finally makes the student body take you seriously.

Noah Ickowitz is the SQUELCH! party chair and a former Daily Cal columnist.

The post Moving mountains with free soda at Chipotle appeared first on The Daily Californian.

It looks something like Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s statement that was recently released in response to SB 160, the ASUC bill that calls for targeted divestment from companies complicit in Israeli apartheid and illegal settlement.

Birgeneau explained his opposition to SB 160 just hours after the student senate passed the bill but waited over two weeks to condemn an April 1 assault on a Students for Justice in Palestine member.

The SJP member was publicly attacked in Sproul Plaza for vocally affirming Israel’s status as an apartheid state – a description which notable figures like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, award-winning author Alice Walker, former President Jimmy Carter and former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair agree with.

When the chancellor is quick to condemn a decision by the student senate majority but drags his feet before condemning an assault on a SJP member, it should be obvious which group is being marginalized.

Moreover, the chancellor downplays the severity of the assault by writing in his statement that the SJP member was “struck in the face.” In reality, the SJP member was punched in the face with a closed fist and knocked to the ground by a much larger assailant. The blow was so forceful that a witness reported shortly after the assault that the assailant’s knuckles were bleeding.

Birgeneau’s statement was insensitive, and it employed victim-blaming rhetoric. He argued that it was the divestment campaign that caused a divisive, hostile climate on campus. Nothing could be further from the truth. Divestment is in actuality an effective, nonviolent and legitimate tactic in the struggle against Israeli apartheid.

The chancellor argued that the campus is divided, but who stands on which side?

Thirty-one student organizations endorsed targeted divestment from Israeli apartheid, but Birgeneau sided with a small number of pro-Zionist students. It should be clear that the major division is not within the student body but between students and the administration.

To continue employing rhetoric that builds on a narrative of conflict between “students of color” and “Jewish students” is to disregard developing bonds of solidarity between Palestinian students and diverse networks of allies, including Jewish and Israeli students who supported SB 160.

Even Noah Kulwin, an opponent of SB 160, stated in a Daily Californian opinion blog that Palestine solidarity activists are constantly “demonized,” “delegitimized” and held to an unfair “double standard.” When Palestine activists face hostility, their victimhood is often removed from them, and they are blamed for their own victimization. Merely holding a political opinion is perceived as hostile, and violent reactions to such a “hostile” political opinion are seen as a natural reaction — as if saying violent response to Palestine solidarity activism is only to be expected. As if saying divestment is to blame for violent reactions – not the perpetrators of such violence. Such is the underlying rhetoric being employed in the aftermath of the inexcusable assault on a member of SJP.

UC Berkeley has a rich history of activism – from the Free Speech Movement to the Third World Liberation Front to the divestment campaigns against South African apartheid – that we should ultimately be proud of. What many of us take for granted today – free speech, ethnic studies and the end of South African apartheid – were once deemed “controversial,” publicly demonized and met with repression from authorities.

Whereas the campus administration has repeatedly attempted to suppress students’ activism and democracy, students and community members have nonetheless persisted in connecting many struggles in our own community to the struggle for justice in Palestine. There is a clear connection between American imperialism allied with Israel in the Middle East and the austerity, racism, militarization and violence here in the United States.

We say no to Israeli apartheid and illegal settlement. We say no to victim-blaming and the scapegoating of divestment. We demand recognition and reversal of these policies, and we stand as students united in solidarity for justice in Palestine – and for justice at our school.

Ley Cerezo is a sophomore at UC Berkeley and Alex Schmaus is a current student at Berkeley City College.

The post Coming together for campus justice appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Most senators know, or at least should know, about Article IX, Section 2, Clause A, of the ASUC Constitution. It states: “The ASUC Senate, the Judicial Council, and the Graduate Assembly shall not take action on any main motion unless and until that motion has been publicly posted for at least one week.” But no materials were posted in advance for the SB 160 meeting and, in fact, this lack of public notification has been the standard operating procedure all year. So here’s my question: Why did the ASUC Senate even discuss SB 160 – or SB 158, for that matter – if no agenda was published? In fact, why did the ASUC Senate take action on most things this year if the agendas were hardly ever published on time? Technically, it’s  all unconstitutional… rendering the 10-hour Senate meeting to discuss SB 160 entirely inane.

That’s not the only problem. The ASUC website is a mess: It still, for example, says the Senate meets at Eshleman Hall … last I checked, Eshleman isn’t really accessible. Bills up for consideration aren’t published until after they’re approved. But most importantly, ASUC agendas aren’t being published in advance. In my role as a staff member for a nearby local government, part of my job involves posting city agendas week after week. And sometimes, I admit, it seems like a waste of time. I’ve even asked myself: “Who the hell reads this? Who the hell cares?” But those questions are beside the point. It’s the government’s obligation to serve the people and to follow the guidelines and rules it puts foward in its bylaws. And I believe the people have the right to know what’s going on – especially at UC Berkeley, where students often take pride in their activism and involvement.

About two weeks ago, a day before an ASUC meeting, a friend asked multiple senators about the meeting location. They all replied, “I don’t know.” I understand that Lower Sproul is under development and that many events are being shuffled around, but that’s no excuse for the senate’s failure to communicate properly with the students it claims to serve.

We live in an era of transparency. Everyone cries for it. The senate even passed “A Bill in Support of Transparency, Accountability, and Enforcement” earlier this year. Yet, for some reason, the ASUC fails time and again to follow its own rules. The meeting on SB 160 brought the room to maximum occupancy, so it’s safe to assume that a decent portion of the UC Berkeley community knew about it.

But what about the less controversial topics that may well affect students more than the ASUC striking down foreign policy? Isn’t it our right to know about those issues too?

Surprisingly, only after I casually brought up the notion of taking legal action with ASUC staff members did agendas get posted, and even that took place days after the fact.

The crafters of the ASUC Constitution thought the community should know what the senate is doing. That’s why Article IX, Section 2, exists. I believe the current senate should act in accordance with this founding principle. I call upon the new ASUC Senate, the executive officials and their staff to take responsibility for their actions, and stop hiding behind unpublished agendas. Be transparent and accountable. You care about this school and what happens with it. So have some respect for the rest of us, who care too, and let us know what the ASUC is up to.

Nir Maoz is a freshman at UC Berkeley.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this op-ed incorrectly stated that ASUC Senate office manager Jordan Tauber sent no agenda packet on the day of a April 17 ASUC meeting scheduled to discuss SB 160. In fact, Jordan Tauber did send out an agenda packet to ASUC senators and other members of the campus community listing SB 160 as a special order item.

The post Demanding transparency from the ASUC appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The event was organized by the ASUC Office of the President in conjunction with ASUC senators Sadia Saifuddin, Rosemary Hua and Megan Majd. In order to raise awareness of such crimes on campus, victims of sexual assault shared their stories.

According to a Berkeley Police Department crime report, there were 39 reported incidents of sexual assault in the city of Berkeley in 2012, up from 20 incidents in 2011.

“(Sexual assault) is something that doesn’t discriminate against color or gender,” Saifuddin said. “It’s something that happens to a lot of people.”

According to Bay Area Women Against Rape training coordinator Agustina Perez, 85 percent of sexual assaults are committed by a person whom the victim knows, and only one in 10 victims report the crime.

Student attendees included members of the campus sorority system and the ASUC. The workshop was facilitated by UCPD, University Health Services and BAWAR.

“(Events like Fight Back) allow survivors of sexual assault who are silenced to have a voice,” Hua said. “But it also allows for facetime between UCPD and students (and) facilities a discussion.”

Speakers at the event noted the importance of discussing sexual assault in an open and safe environment.

“The reason why sexual violence is rising at such alarming rates is because people don’t talk about it,” Perez said. “Anything that will get people to talk and create safe spaces is a step in the right direction.”

Community leaders provided attendees with resources to defend themselves against attack.

During the workshop, UCPD officers offered a pepper spray demonstration as well as basic self-defense techniques. Officers said one of the most basic but useful techniques in the case of an assault is to shout for help. The workshop also offered free pepper spray to participants.

“There is nothing that anyone can do that warrants (or) causes rape,” Perez said during her presentation. “The only person responsible for rape is the one committing it.”

Director and Title IX Officer Denise Oldman of the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination said that it is important to know that there are allies in the community for sexual assault victims. She addressed the various resources available to students, including medical, psychological and emotional health services, residential needs and prevention help.

Members of the ASUC and campus community alike said they hope events like Fight Back will educate the students that attended and continue to raise awareness about sexual assault and violence within the UC Berkeley community.

“I feel like it’s important to have events that raise awareness about how critical an issue (sexual violence is) both on campus and in general,” said sophomore Taylor Fugere, who is a member of Greeks Against Sexual Assault and involved in the Gender Equity Resource Center.

UCPD Officer Brendan Tinney said he hopes to see more involvement with sexual assault prevention from other groups on campus, such as fraternities.

“I think there’s some interest specifically in the part of fraternities, at least some of them,” Tinney said. “But I’m waiting for them to reach out. You don’t (only) teach the group that’s interested in the topic.”

Contact Jennie Yoon at jyoon@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that there had been 39 incidents of sexual assault on the UC Berkeley campus this year, a 95 percent increase from 19 incidents the previous year. In fact, there were 39 reported incidents of sexual assault in the city of Berkeley in 2012, up from 20 incidents in 2011.

The post ASUC holds workshop on sexual violence and safety appeared first on The Daily Californian.

About 80 students and faculty members attended the forum at Anna Head Alumnae Hall. Students asked questions that spanned student athletics, Dirks’ time as dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Columbia University and his relationship with the UC Board of Regents.

At the event, Dirks said he supported UC Berkeley’s public mission and that he hopes to have a positive influence on the university.

“I believe that UC Berkeley is not just the greatest public university, but it is the best university because it is public,” Dirks said. “I want this university to be a place that educates both undergraduate and graduate students and makes them future leaders.”

Dirks also said he hopes to work closely with student groups and the ASUC, noting that at Columbia — where he previously worked — there was no student group like the ASUC that directly represents the interests of students.

“Berkeley has a long tradition of making students’ voices heard, and I am willing to listen to those issues and address them,” Dirks said.  “I want to set up regular evening sessions in the University House with multiple student groups and have open discussions to bring attention to not only problems in the student community but to solutions as well. Together, we can resolve any issue.”

ASUC President Connor Landgraf said it was valuable that students met Dirks at the forum so they could see he was willing to take on the challenges facing UC Berkeley.

“I think it’s really important for him to meet with students,” Landgraf said. “This shows that he wants engage with students and know them personally.”

On Wednesday, Dirks met with the ASUC Senate at its weekly meeting. Dirks aimed to address senators’ concerns and answer their questions, Landgraf said.

“The meeting last night went very well,” Landgraf said. “He is very respectful to students and their concerns, and he spent a lot of time answering questions. I think he will be a fantastic chancellor because he understands the students’ needs and concerns. I’m excited to see what he does.”

After the forum, campus freshman Riley Murray said he believes that Dirks’ background makes him well-suited to address the problems facing the university. Murray was impressed by Dirks at the meeting and thinks the chancellor-designate will have a calming influence on the university.

“He’s not what I expected,” Murray said. “He made it very clear that he hasn’t yet gone into the intricacies of all of (UC) Berkeley’s issues, but he displayed a curiosity and a willingness to solve these problems rather than just being obliged to solve them.”

Contact Seif Abdelghaffar at sabdelghaffar@dailycal.org.

The post Dirks speaks with students, faculty at Anna Head appeared first on The Daily Californian.

1. His increasingly croaky voice has made it hard to give speeches. Though he is certainly eloquent in his words and impeccable in his demeanor, it would be undoubtedly difficult for anyone to command the attention and respect of thousands of 20-year-olds — unless that someone has the light-tempered voice of Morgan Freeman.

2. He’d like to move to a house that isn’t prone to being attacked. Back in 2009, a number of protesters made the upward trek to the University House and attempted to reenact a scene from Game of Thrones, laying siege to the house — albeit, for a matter of minutes — by attempting to torch it and break windows and lights. For whatever reason, the aggressors included students from UC Davis, and we’re sure that the Chancellor is excited to spend more time in his physics office — where he might have some particle accelerator beams to protect himself.

3. He is no longer rolling in green. No, not the usual type of green that’s associated with the Cal campus. Think state funding, of which he has lost over 58% over his tenure. Birgeneau referred to this massive drop as a “disinvestment by the state” in the UC system.

4. He’d like to enjoy his time at Berkeley without being questioned or interrupted. At the end of 2011, his speech to the ASUC senate was cut off by protesters in the crowd, to which Birgeneau responded with folded arms and a sarcastic smile. Following his handling of a series of protests, a petition that had garnered thousands of signatures was brought to the ASUC, calling for Birgeneau’s resignation. Thick skin and a favorable vote from Student Action kept him in power Why Chancellor Birgeneau is ready to step down — for a while, at least.

5. He was supposed to be liberated from his job five freaking months ago! The original plan was for him to step down at the end of the 2012 calendar year, something he announced close to his birthday. Instead of going through with his plan as a 70^th birthday present to himself, he extended his stay even further — a stay that was originally supposed to be seven years will now end at nine and a half.

It’s probably true that the tumult of Birgeneau’s life will decrease dramatically once he’s officially replaced as Cal’s Chancellor. But it won’t be gone completely — he may be a retired Chancellor, but he’ll still be a member of three departments on campus, a far cry from the lives of old men retiring from pristine positions like the papacy. But don’t expect him to stop making headlines: he claims he still has “one more truly significant… experiment to come” in his academic career.

Image source: The Daily Californian (left and right) & Andrew Ratto (center) under Creative Commons

Contact Uday at umehta@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter at @mehtakid.

The post Why Chancellor Birgeneau is ready to step down appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Former external affairs vice president Joey Freeman and former SQUELCH! senator Noah Ickowitz, a former columnist for The Daily Californian, have jointly filed charges alleging that the ASUC Senate violated the ASUC Constitution in its passage of SB 160.

Ickowitz and Freeman filed the petition early Friday afternoon, and it is currently pending review. The charges, if accepted, would lead to a trial addressing the alleged violations of SB 160.

“I strongly believe the ASUC should follow the correct procedures in passing these bills,” Ickowitz said. “Because SB 160 has such an intense conversation around it, to not follow the procedures does a disservice to the campus.”

The root of the charges lies with the language of the bill, which Ickowitz said “presupposes that the bill has the authority to restrict spending and funding without having gone through appropriate channels.”

The charges begin with the fact that the bill was not passed with a two-thirds senate majority, which the ASUC Constitution states is required for deliberations regarding ASUC financial appropriations or revenue reductions.

They also argue that the bill “restricted” the ASUC’s investment practices, a responsibility that lies with the Investment Committee and requires consent from the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee. The bill, with its “commanding” language, oversteps these bodies and “overextends the powers of the ASUC Senate without due process,” Ickowitz said.

In the charges, Ickowitz and Freeman suggest that SB 160 be sent back to the senate for a two-thirds vote to either follow or suspend the bylaws requiring review by these committees.

Before filing, Ickowitz and Freeman notified Student Action Senator George Kadifa and independent Senator Sadia Saifuddin, author and sponsor of SB 160, respectively, of their intent to petition the bill.

“I’m disappointed that the students who brought the charges didn’t bring these up earlier,” Kadifa said. “I’m a little curious, now that the bill has passed, why they’re bringing this up now. If the petition is accepted, we would rewrite the bill to ensure there are no violations.”

The petition has joined other suits that the ASUC Judicial Council must review in the coming weeks, including charges against Safeena Mecklai, a Student Action senator and external affairs vice president-elect.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran said Ickowitz and Freeman raised some “interesting points,” noting that both of them have a “strong understanding of ASUC policies.” Tran said that should the petition be accepted and litigation begin, a trial would hopefully be scheduled before the end of the semester — if not, it might be held during the summer session.

Ickowitz said he felt that there was a “high likelihood the charges will be accepted,” emphasizing that the arguments were made on legal rather than ideological grounds. However, he did note that ideology was part of the impetus for filing.

Ickowitz pointed to the charges filed by Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco and Student Action Senator Mihir Deo against ASUC President Connor Landgraf’s executive order to place the health and wellness referendum on the ballot as an example of people filing “that which is relevant to them.”

Notably, the senators did not charge the Class Pass referendum, even though it allegedly violated the same bylaws as the health and wellness referendum.

“When people sue over legislation, it’s not at all out of the ordinary that legislation is relevant to them,” Ickowitz said. “It’s also coupled with relevance to me and my community.”

View the petition evidence below:

Contact Sophie Ho at sho@dailycal.org.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the petition as a charge sheet.

The post Charges allege senate violated constitution in passing divestment bill appeared first on The Daily Californian.

After an initial settlement, charges against ASUC President Connor Landgraf’s executive order that put the health and wellness referendum on the spring 2013 ballot have been refiled.

Cooperative Movement Senator Jorge Pacheco opted to reopen the case against Landgraf around noon Thursday and said he filed the new charges around 6:30 p.m. The new charges request that the ASUC Judicial Council overturn Landgraf’s executive order, an action that would effectively annul the referendum.

The health and wellness referendum seeks to use student funds to build new fitness and wellness centers on campus.

The student body passed the health and wellness referendum by a slim margin in a vote of 6836-6139.

In his legal briefs, Pacheco argues that Landgraf “overstepped his authority” and “damaged the integrity and process of the Spring 2013 ASUC Elections,” and he asks the Judicial Council to “restore the balance of power of the ASUC infringed by (Landgraf’s executive order).”

The new charges come shortly after Landgraf received a letter from Pacheco offering to settle the case if Landgraf agreed not to veto the controversial divestment bill SB 160, which passed in the senate 11-9.

The original charges against Landgraf, which were filed by Student Action Senator Mihir Deo jointly with Pacheco, were dropped when the Judicial Council threw out a proposed settlement between the two parties. This original settlement included concessions that the new center have two trained physical therapists and two disabled students on its advisory board. The agreement borne from those settlement negotiations will still be part of the referendum.

Deo said that he and Pacheco had very different reasons for filing the original charges against Landgraf’s executive order. While Deo sought to secure additional concessions for the new fitness centers favored by the disabled community, Pacheco was concerned about the constitutionality of the way the referendum was put on the ballot. The memorandum of understanding does not address issues of constitutionality but did meet Deo’s demands.

ASUC Attorney General Hinh Tran says that he is confident Landgraf would prevail in court should the case go to trial.

Contact Jeremy Gordon at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post Senator refiles charges regarding health and wellness referendum appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The protest, organized by a mix of students in various Jewish student groups, started with around 20 people and grew to around 30 as passing students joined. The students linked arms across the central entrance of Sather Gate in protest of the ASUC Senate’s passing of SB 160, a bill that urges the divestment of ASUC and university funds from companies related to the Israeli armed forces.

The bill triggered immense controversy and was passed 11-9 after a 10-hour public comment session.

“We’re protesting against what the ASUC did,” said Baruch Nutovic, a protester and a former editor in chief of the Berkeley Jewish Journal. “We tried to put forward an alternative bill. It was completely rejected.”

On Wednesday, the ASUC tabled SB 160′s alternative bill, SB 158, which called for the ASUC to help end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, acknowledging the harm inflicted on both sides and supporting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. If passed, SB 158 would also indicate that the ASUC supports a two-state solution.

“We want (SB 160) repealed,” said Jacob Lewis, a protester and former president of Tikvah: Students for Israel. “(The) narrative put forth by this bill is completely ignoring the Israeli side.”

The protesters placed duct tape over their mouths, held Israeli flags and handed out fliers that read, “Do not silence our voices.”

“A lot of people on campus don’t really know what is going on,” said Grant Fineman, a recently elected ASUC senator who participated in the protest. “(There) is a silent majority who don’t know anything about it.”

Nick Slater, who works in the campus financial aid department, was walking by the rally when he stopped to discuss with protesters his opposition to the protest’s message. While he opposed their anti-divestment stance, he said there should be recognition of both sides.

“A lot of Jewish students feel that their stories aren’t being recognized,” Slater said. “I accept that. I want to see a solution which recognizes the interests of Israelis and Palestinians.”

ASUC Senator Sadia Saifuddin, who co-sponsored SB 160, expressed similar sentiments.

“I commend the college and the community for moralizing and being able to express that side (of the debate),” Saifuddin said. “It adds to the diversity at Cal.”

However, Arielle Gabai,  a protester and a former president of the Jewish Student Union, said that the climate on campus remains tense and hostile toward Jewish students and those who oppose divestment.

“It’s unacceptable that Berkeley calls itself such a beautiful, diverse place (that is) accepting of all communities, except for one,” Gabai said.

Contact Tara Hurley at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post Students stage silent protest at Sather Gate against ASUC divestment bill appeared first on The Daily Californian.