But upon further inspection, significant excitement over the UC policy is unfounded. As it stands, the policy is contradictory because of a loophole allowing faculty members to submit waivers on a per-article basis to opt out of open publication.

The university cannot call its policy an open access one when it allows some research articles to be exempt to open access over others. The waiver essentially disincentivizes those who work for a public institution from sharing all their research and allows them to pick and choose where their research goes, thereby creating a divide between those who can afford access to a private academic journal and those who cannot. It also isn’t much different from the way faculty members originally differentiated between publishing privately in an academic journal versus publishing for public access.

Additionally, as a co-founder of The Open Access Initiative at Berkeley pointed out, the waiver option is a problem because it could lead to uncooperative publishers taking advantage of authors. Also, by giving faculty members the choice of opting out of open access, there is a good chance the best research will remain in expensive journals exclusively, meaning it will once again be inaccessible to those cannot afford subscription fees.

It is true that some professors will want to choose whether to submit their research for public access or to academic journals. According to Christopher Kelty, a UCLA professor and Academic Senate committee member who drafted the policy, the opt-out clause was included at the faculty’s request. But this clause will misrepresent a movement that is proudly portrayed as universally open. The policy sets a dangerous precedent for other schools to adopt similar policies, thinking that it is acceptable to have open access movements in which openness isn’t actually guaranteed.

The point of The Open Access Initiative at Berkeley was to disseminate UC research for the public’s benefit, whether the public is at UC Berkeley or across the globe. The UC Academic Senate had the opportunity to accomplish this goal, but instead it passed a watered-down version of the policy that probably will fail to accomplish the original goals.

The post Open contradictions appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Nathaniel Solley/Staff

When former ASUC senator Sadia Saifuddin was appointed to the position of UC student-regent designate at this month’s UC Board of Regents meeting, what should have been a conversation focusing on the candidate’s qualifications devolved into a shameful spectacle.

The conversation to approve Saifuddin failed to assess her preparedness to be a successful student regent in favor of demonizing her for co-sponsoring a campus divestment bill this spring. The bill, which would have divested ASUC funds from companies that provide resources to the Israeli military, initially passed in the senate but was later found to have violated ASUC bylaws and stripped of its financial effects.

In a rare gesture, UC Regent Richard Blum abstained from the vote to approve Saifuddin, stating that he disagreed with Saifuddin’s point of view but did not know her well enough to warrant a negative vote. He justified his abstention by stating that Saifuddin’s support of divestment would alienate the student body and make her too divisive of a figure.

This is flawed reasoning. For one thing, not one current UC student stood up at the regents meeting to speak out against Saifuddin’s nomination or say that she would fail to adequately represent them. In fact, students and alumni, including former student regent Jonathan Stein came to her defense, saying that Saifuddin brought students together in the spring by inviting them to Muslim and Jewish student halls to discuss divestment.

Furthermore, given that UC Berkeley originally passed the resolution with more than half of its student senators in support of the bill and that similar resolutions have cropped up at at least three other UC campuses this past year, it’s clear that the issue is important to many UC students. For that reason, Blum’s claim that her support of divestment will make Saifuddin divisive feels more like an attempt to stifle legitimate political debate than to preserve student unity. Blum’s comments were out of line and seemed to be aimed at appeasing lobbyists critical of divestment.

It would be one thing if the board itself did not pick Saifuddin for the role. But the process of choosing Saifuddin is the same one that is used every year: Applicants must go through a series of interviews with campus and UC student government leaders before being interviewed and selected by a special committee of the UC Board of Regents.

If the regents felt Saifuddin would not be an adequate representative of the student body, they should have voiced their concerns earlier. Some of the regents said that though they respectfully disagreed with Saifuddin, they still respected her appointment through the long-standing student regent selection process. Blum should have taken a similar stance instead of focusing so heavily on divestment.

We are also very disappointed in the way that much of the commentary on Saifuddin’s appointment, both during public comment at the meeting and elsewhere, has been openly Islamophobic and perpetuated stereotypes that have nothing to do with the work she has done as a student senator or how she will perform in the student regent position.

We believe Saifuddin is a qualified candidate and worry that her reputation has been wrongfully damaged by some of the comments made at the board’s meeting. Student government representatives should be able to openly address controversial issues like divestment and involve the student body in honest political conversation, even when there is disagreement among students. The board hindered this conversation at its meeting by focusing on just one aspect of Saifuddin’s experience.

The post Overstepping boundaries appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Because the Supreme Court did not issue an overarching mandate regarding the use of race in admissions policies, it is the duty of public universities to ensure representation of all races in their schools. This is currently done with varying success and through a variety of methods at public universities around the country. In addition to considering applicants’ race, Texas follows the Top 10 Percent Plan, which guarantees high school students who are in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating class automatic admission to any public university in Texas. The University of California has a similar plan, with high school graduates in the top 9 percent of their class guaranteed admission to at least one campus in the University of California.

However, California’s version is race-blind because of Proposition 209, a 1996 ballot initiative that prevents state-funded institutions from considering factors such as race or ethnicity in admissions or hiring decisions. Because of Prop. 209, individual campuses within the University of California have seen a decrease in admission and enrollment of hispanics and black students since the late 1990s. In 2011, an estimated 11 percent of the student population was Chicano/Latino at UC Berkeley, while an estimated 49 percent of the state’s college-aged population was Hispanic. It is important that public universities ensure that their student bodies reflect the racial makeup of the state in which they exist. California’s current methods do not allow for such a student body.

By not forcing the University of Texas to change its admission policies, the Supreme Court rightfully allowed the University of Texas at Austin to maintain diversity in higher education. Other states should also have that opportunity.

The post Maintaining diversity appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Implementing a high GPA requirement can lead to a hyper-competitive environment in which succeeding in a class becomes more about getting a good grade on a test than actually learning. Students will inevitably fall behind and be less motivated to catch up with their fellow peers due to the gaps created based on grading. Some students perform well on paper depending on the grading of a specific class, while others have a different type of skills that present themselves in alternative ways. A GPA requirement does not recognize these differences and might only benefit those who test well.

A higher GPA requirement should not be implemented to account for a higher number of admittances to a given major. This was one of the reasons cited for the higher GPA requirement. If the computer science major would like to balance the number of enrollees with the amount of resources it has, a more holistic way of screening applicants should be implemented.

A higher GPA requirement will also make it harder for students looking to major in computer science to get into the major. Students taking lower-division courses in the College of Engineering, which are required to declare the computer science major, are expected to receive an average GPA of 2.7 in the courses. According to the electrical engineering and computer science grading guidelines for undergraduate courses, a GPA outside the range of 2.3 to 2.7 is considered “atypical.” This could make it difficult to get the overall minimum GPA of 3.0 in order to be accepted into the computer science major.

Still, in the Bay Area, a computer science degree is highly coveted, and many employers do not place as great an emphasis on applicants’ grades as this campus does. Hence, some students may not take classes as seriously since their degrees are what is in demand. If these students are failing their classes, they should not be let into the major. But some might argue that instituting a high GPA requirement will motivate the students who do not settle for above-average grades to in fact strive for a B-average.

Instituting such a high requirement ultimately has the potential to lessen the quality of education at UC Berkeley. Getting into the major and doing well in school will be more about getting good grades than actually learning. School then becomes a means to an end as opposed to a place where students can learn and grow prior to entering the professional computer science industry.

The post Unreasonable standards appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In an editorial from June 10, The Daily Californian wrote, “In comparison, residents of apartment buildings do not have a choice about whether or not their neighbors smoke, but they can make a choice to keep their living situations smoke-free.”

In housing with shared walls, if your neighbors smoke, you do, too. You cannot keep your “living situation smoke-free” as your editorial claims, because a percentage of the air in apartment buildings seeps through walls, doors, ventilation systems, lighting fixtures and windows. My neighbors typically air out their smoke-filled apartment by sending their smoke into our apartment building’s common areas, and we neighbors, who can’t afford to move, know we’re getting exposed even while we sleep. We have a very high incidence of cancer and heart disease-related deaths in our very small building because of a very few smokers who smoke constantly and indoors.

Your editorial does not seem to recognize that this proposal is so weak that it will not address these smokers at all, who will only be offered but not obligated to sign new leases with smoke-free provisions. It saddens me that the Senior Editorial Board did not read the ordinance, which wholeheartedly salutes a disease-filled status quo instead of taking a stand for public health.

It’s true that this ordinance will have the most impact on low-income renters and people of color. But most of those low-income renters and people of color do not smoke; have an equal interest in protecting themselves and their families from the effects of secondhand smoke; and deserve safe, healthy air as a simple matter of essential habitability. To suggest otherwise is a familiar racism most often cited by the tobacco industry.

Smoking sections, once typical of early efforts to compromise with the very few smokers who still smoke inside their apartment units in Alameda County, only succeed in guaranteeing 100 percent unhealthy air for all residents. And reducing the fines for smoking reduces any incentive to respect the health of those who are forced to smoke involuntarily.

Please read the ordinance again; the weakness you seem to hope for is already there in black and white.

— Carol Denney,
Berkeley resident

The post Letter: June 17 – June 24 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The proposed ordinance, which would ban tobacco smoking in leased multiunit housing — such as apartments, fraternities, single occupancy hotel rooms and senior living facilities — aims to protect Berkeley residents from exposure to secondhand smoke. The ordinance has an important goal but brings up some serious concerns.

For one thing, the council must recognize that there is a difference between student multiunit housing, like cooperatives and fraternities, and regular apartment buildings. In communal living situations like student cooperatives, residents enter with the understanding that they could be exposed to secondhand smoke or that by living in a communal space, they might have to relinquish their right to smoke.

In comparison, residents of apartment buildings do not have a choice about whether or not their neighbors smoke, but they can make a choice to keep their living situations smoke-free. The ordinance fails to consider the difference between the two living situations and should account for this difference in its final language.

Further, the ordinance could disproportionately impact lower-income and temporary city residents who cannot afford to own a home. These city residents often occupy a large percentage of leased housing and do not have a choice about where they get to live in the city due to financial circumstances.

If caught exposing other residents to secondhand smoke, residents would have to pay a fine of $100 to $250 for each occurrence. This could hit low-income residents the hardest.

The goal of the law is admirable, as it attempts to limit the effects of secondhand smoke around the city. But if people cannot smoke in their own homes and have been largely barred from smoking in public places, the ordinance could be seen as a criminalization of smoking altogether. The city should consider telling apartment landlords to designate certain areas for smokers so that they do not impact the health of unheeding residents but can still choose to smoke.

There are a variety of ways of moving toward a city where residents are not involuntarily exposed to secondhand smoke; this might not be the right one.

The post Smoke-free zone appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Sarachan has submitted an application to the city to build an organic ice cream shop called Dream, which will be housed inside of Rasputin. The store, which would have a takeout window opening out into Channing Way, would sit directly across the intersection from existing ice cream and cookie sandwich shop C.R.E.A.M.

Luckily, on May 21, Berkeley City Council decided to postpone approving Sarachan’s application and instead hold a public hearing to receive public input on the matter. The decision came after C.R.E.A.M. put in an appeal, impeding Sarachan’s grand plans. The council made the right decision.

“It is a very confrontational place,” said Councilmember Kriss Worthington at the meeting. “If it was in another place, there might not have been issues.”

Sarachan set himself up for confrontation by putting in an application to build his shop across from C.R.E.A.M. Accordingly, C.R.E.A.M. raised a number of concerns with Sarachan’s application, among them that the shop would decrease ADA accessibility and increase the amount of traffic on Channing Way as a result of a takeout window being installed for Dream. Though the Zoning Adjustments Board ultimately found no indication that these concerns would come to fruition, the board only takes into account that a food establishment will be built when making its decision — not the specific kind of food that is to be sold.

In fact, just west of Telegraph, down Durant Avenue, Michelle’s Yogurt and Sweets advertises ice cream sandwiches for $1.50 — $0.50 less than C.R.E.A.M.’s sandwiches. Just across the street from Michelle’s, Yogurt Park advertises daily frozen yogurt flavors with a takeout window open late into the night. Another block over on Telegraph and Bancroft Way, Yogurtland has a variety of flavors and toppings available at affordable prices based on weight. And, two blocks down on Telegraph and Channing, Honeyberry boasts tart frozen yogurt flavors, tapioca drinks and baked goods.

Which is all to say that another ice cream shop in such close proximity to C.R.E.A.M. and its cohorts isn’t just ridiculous — it has little to no chance of succeeding.

“Calling your ice cream takeout ‘Dream’ is very provocative,” said Councilmember Susan Wengraf at the meeting. “You could have named it anything. The motivation for doing that is questionable.”

Provocative, indeed — instead of going for an ordinary name like Sarachan’s Ice Cream or even Rasputin Ice Cream, Sarachan has purposefully chosen a name that rhymes with the one his shop will sit right across from. Competition is one thing, but having a business selling almost the exact same thing with a rhyming name? That’s just too much. Like Wengraf, we also have to wonder what Sarachan is thinking.

At the meeting, Sarachan argued that C.R.E.A.M. has a monopoly on the ice cream business in Berkeley and that he needs the ice cream shop because Rasputin is ailing. Yet by building an almost identical business across the street, Sarachan will encounter the very problem he is trying to escape — another ailing business harmed by the overcompetition of identical stores in close proximity. Why not build the ice cream business in the Blondie’s Pizza building, which Sarachan also owns? Why not build it a block down from Rasputin on his vacant lot at Telegraph Avenue and Haste Street, which has sat empty since a hotel fire in 1990?

“I fear the impact it will have on existing business … (it) does not meet purposes of the district,” said Councilmember Jesse Arreguin at the meeting.

Arreguin’s apprehension rings true. Though the city shouldn’t block Sarachan’s final application, it should make him rethink his business location and name; Southside already has enough takeout ice cream shops. Furthermore, by doing nothing with his existing vacant lot, Sarachan has failed to prove himself to the city. If this new ice cream business fails, what’s to say we won’t have another vacant storefront for another 20 years?

The post The creaming of a Dream appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Moore, a 41-year-old transgender Berkeley resident, died of an accidental drug overdose while in police custody in February, but the details of her death did not come to light until the release of the report on May 3 — nearly 3 months after her death.

A death in police custody is inherently an extremely sensitive situation — one which the department needed to communicate with the public about quickly and extensively.

Instead, not only was an autopsy report not released in a timely manner, but the police failed to provide a meaningful reason for the delay to the public.

Furthermore, before the death occurred in police custody, the autopsy should have been done by an outside agency other than the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Bureau to ensure its validity and rid the police department of unnecessary suspicion.

Employing an outside organization to complete an internal investigation is not unheard of. Following the events of Occupy Cal in November 2011, an independent review of police actions were ordered to make certain that no bias was involved.

Although department spokesperson Jennifer Coats apologized for the lengthy delay and noted that the department wanted to ensure a “proper and thorough investigation for Moore,” an apology is not enough.

If Berkeley Police Department expects to be valued and trusted by the people it aims to protect and serve, it needs to be prompt and accountable regarding its own conduct.

The department should learn from this incident and create a better procedure for the future — one in which it moves forward with transparency as a fundamental value.

The post A deplorable delay appeared first on The Daily Californian.