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.

Under Napolitano, the Department of Homeland Security instituted the federal program “Secure Communities,” which deports undocumented immigrant offenders from the United States with the support of local police agencies. The program is rife with controversy, as there have been many reports that immigrants have been deported due to minimal offenses. On the other hand, Napolitano has come out in support of the federal DREAM Act and has said she is in support of varied paths to citizenship. As head of a university with a fair number of Latino and minority students and an even larger Latino population statewide, Napolitano needs to be open to educating all types of students and recognize that some of them might be undocumented.

There is also apprehension about Napolitano’s handling of budget cuts to her department during the sequester and her role in overseeing more vigorous airport search practices. In light of the events of Occupy Cal and the pepper-spray incident at UC Davis, Napolitano needs to ensure UC police are not militarized.

Napolitano’s apparent lack of significant educational experience is also concerning, though as the former governor of Arizona, she has proven herself a proponent of that state’s higher education system. In that role, she expanded the state’s higher education budget in order to raise the capacity of students accepted to the state’s universities, bolster financial aid and provide raises to university faculty. Ideas she has presented as governor could make her an appealing choice — among those ideas are a four year fixed tuition rate and doubling the number of bachelor’s degrees earned by the end of the next decade. This type of innovative leadership is what the UC desperately needs right now.

Still, Napolitano is presented with the difficult task of learning the ins and outs of academia and how much of a role research plays in maintaining the university’s level of prestige. She should utilize the number of promising advisers at her disposal to help her along, including Aimee Dorr, the UC provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, who has committed herself to retaining the university’s academic excellence.

We believe choosing Napolitano is indicative of the UC Board of Regents preparing for a more privatized future with decreased reliance on the state. With her high profile political status, Napolitano brings connections that might prove useful when it comes to financial and political support on the federal level. Napolitano has also already recognized the priority of forming and maintaining university connections by immediately calling the president of the University of California Student Association after her selection was announced to discuss UC issues.

The selection of Napolitano has forever changed the trajectory of what types of candidates can be picked to run the UC system. Ultimately, Napolitano has to work to keep the priorities of UC students, faculty and staff, as well as those of the state of California, at the forefront of her agenda. We hope that her choice to resign as the leader of a powerful federal department and come to the UC system demonstrates her commitment to do that.

The post Napolitano’s test 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.

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.

In this case, former ASUC president Connor Landgraf made an executive order to put the health and wellness referendum, which aimed to fund the establishment of new gyms and mental health services around campus by raising student fees, on the ballot. Landgraf’s March 24 executive order missed the constitutionally mandated deadline for using that method to submit a referendum by one week, putting the legislation on the ballot just 18 days before the election began. A petition was then filed against Landgraf’s order after the referendum had been voted on and the election had ended.

The deadlines restricting when legislation can be placed on the ballot exist so students are given enough time to review what they are voting on prior to the election. It is with this in mind that we support the ASUC Judicial Council’s decision to nullify the referendum.
We agree with Judicial Council’s reasoning that the use of an executive order needs to be the only way to solve a problem facing the student government. According to the council’s findings, Landgraf had a week to pass his language through the senate after receiving approval for it from UCOP but failed to complete this process in a timely manner.

No student on campus should be allowed to bypass the general procedure in order to place a referendum on the ballot simply because he or she missed a deadline.  In this case, Landgraf’s use of the order was an overreach of authority.

According to ASUC bylaws, the president is only allowed to use the executive order if the action is “urgent and necessary to maintain the functioning of the A.S.U.C. until the Senate can again meet.”  When Landgraf first issued this executive order, we were not convinced of its urgent necessity. We are still not convinced that the referendum’s goal — to reduce overcrowding of the RSF and increase health facilities — is vital to the immediate functioning of the student government.

Additionally, by missing the deadline, Landgraf gave students just two weeks before the election to review what the referendum entailed. If passed, the measure would have broad implications, increasing student fees by regular intervals until almost 2046, affecting generations of students for years to come.
If Landgraf had submitted the paperwork on time, more students might have had the chance to read the referendum’s language before voting on it.

The health and wellness referendum is a worthwhile cause  and its future impact should not be discounted. The referendum should be reviewed again by the student body, and we appreciate that it has already been placed on the 2014 ballot to allow for that consideration ahead of time.
If Landgraf had followed the rules to get the referendum placed on the ballot on time and students still voted to support it, there would be no question about the legitimacy of that vote. The Judicial Council made the right choice.

The post Executive overreach, part two 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.

AB 609, which was introduced to the state assembly in February, aims to make results of government-funded research freely available to the public online. The bill follows a February mandate by the Obama administration requiring similar accessibility for federally funded research papers.

Open access to research is an important part of making education increasingly democratized and ensuring equal access to knowledge — regardless of socioeconomic status.

This cause is particularly relevant to the university. The university is renowned for its scientific and humanities research worldwide and, as a public institution, making this knowledge as widely available as possible is integral to fulfilling its mission. Considering that UC Berkeley will spend an estimated $30 million on access to 7,500 academic journals this year alone, open access could make knowledge sharing between institutions far more affordable.

Though supporting AB 609 is a step in the right direction, the bill also has its flaws.
For one thing, though the bill has not yet passed, its current language seems to indicate that the university is not considered a state agency held to the same standards of open sharing.

The university should not be exempt from making its research public if it intends to benefit from other state institutions’ public research.

AB 609 was recently amended to allow for a 12-month embargo period, during which research will be published in a peer-review journal before it is shared, but this is too long to be kept behind paywalls.

Support of the bill is also not all the university can and should do to make itself a strong advocate for open access.

The university should also support programs like the Open Access Initiative, which was co-founded by two campus undergraduates and suggests awarding less profit to publishers, who have less of a role in the research process.

Critics worry that open access to research could come at the cost of quality. That must not be the case for open access to be meaningful. There is a reason research must be peer-reviewed and vetted thoroughly before it is published, a process that must continue regardless of whether research papers are available for free.

As the open access movement gains momentum, it raises a few questions regarding different types of academic research. For instance, how should we provide the same type of access to humanities research, which is often published in a different format than science journals?

We need to be certain that this difference in format does not result in hard science becoming more available while humanities research remains under wraps, which could in turn lead to a greater divide between the disciplines.

The movement for open access to research parallels the one we are currently seeing in online education. Universities like MIT, Harvard and even UC Berkeley are joining programs that allow for affordable ways to access lectures and classes online — why shouldn’t research journals be made available in the same way?

The post Education democratization appeared first on The Daily Californian.