Stop the War Makers. Hands Around the Lab. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Never Again!
Aug 10, 1:30pm - 3pm, Robert Payne Park, 5800 Patterson Pass Road (at Vasco), Livermore

March for Immigrant Rights
Sep 20, 11am Assemble at Yerba Buena Gardens (Mission St. between 3rd & 4th), San Francisco; 12pm - March up Market St.; 1:30pm - Program & Festival at Civic Center.

Rally and March to Defeat Proposition 54
Sep 25, 12:00noon - Sproul Plaza, UC Berkeley

Reportback from Palestine
Sep 27, 6:30pm - Redwood Gardens Community Room, 2951 Derby Street, Berkeley

End the Occupation! Bring the Troops Home Now!
Sep 28, Noon - Dolores Park, San Francisco - 12pm. Gather at Dolores Park, march to: 2pm - Rally at Civic Center

Forum: Defend Environmntal Justice, Defeat Prop. 54!
Sep 30, 7:00 PM - Ecology Center, 2530 San Pablo Ave., near Dwight Way, Berkeley.

In Celebration of the Free Speech Movement: The Berkeley ACLU Presents Larry Fly
Oct 6, 7:00 PM - Pauley Ballroom West, Berkeley campus

Stop the FTAA and School of the Americas
November 19-23, Miami and Colombus, GA.

Buy Nothing Day
November 28, Everywhere.

Why Chancellor Berdahl Wishes We Had Lost the Big Game

By Christopher Cantor and Michael Froehlich

On October 1, the Berkeley Daily Planet quoted UC Berkeley Director of Student Judicial Affairs Neil Rajmaira proudly insisting that his office conducts its business in a fair and impartial manner. He claimed that his case against 32 students arrested at a demonstration for divestment from Israel "would have been conducted in the same manner if [they] were part of the Cal Rugby team." As it turns out, recent events have conspired to call his bluff.

On the Saturday before Thanksgiving, the Cal Football team finally beat Stanford in the annual Big Game. The following Monday, per tradition, the UC-Berkeley Rally Committee (Rally Com) celebrated the win by holding a large "Axe Rally" on Sproul Plaza. Afterwards, participants triumphantly marched through campus with the captured Axe, a totem of victory. They burst into classrooms and lecture halls unannounced -- all over campus, singing the Cal fight song in celebration and "showing" students the Axe. Both the rally and the procession through classroom buildings were marked by virtually no police presence. No arrests or administrative reprimands were made.

So what did the divestment protesters do? On April 9th of 2002, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) held a large protest against the University's silence as its sister school, Bethlehem University, was shuttered by Israeli Occupation Forces. Protesters called on the University to divest its investment portfolio from corporations that profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestine. After a short march through campus, about 150 people entered and occupied the lobby of Wheeler Hall, where they chanted and held an impromptu teach-in. A large police presence was on hand, and moved quickly to break up the sit-in, applying pain-compliance techniques and arresting 79, half of whom were students.

A month later, as the school year drew to a close, all 79 protesters found themselves in a courtroom. After reviewing the case against the protesters, the Alameda County Superior Court entered a factual finding of innocence for everyone. This did not deter the UC Administration, which filed its own charges against all of the students who were arrested, threatening a severity of punishment (1 year suspension) that was totally unprecedented. To the chagrin of the Administration, neither students nor professors came forward publicly with any significant complaints about disruption of their classes or midterms. Instead, many came forward in defense of the protesters, including a number of professors who were teaching in rooms adjacent to the occupied lobby of Wheeler.

Four months later, the University was well into a new semester and school year, and closure was nowhere in sight. On September 30th the first hearing began for protester Roberto Hernandez, and the University flat-out refused to abide by its own Code of Conduct. First, it insisted that trials could proceed with only three members of the conduct committee. Then, the professor chairing the hearing closed it to the public and moved it half a mile, away from campus. Then, the University insisted that it could use the students' sealed judicial records, a blatant violation of state law. This was met with vociferous protest and a motion in state court, so the University rounded up its best lawyers to convince the judge not to intervene. Then, it pressed forward with the hearings based on illegal evidence.

The outrageous behavior continued inside the hearing itself. Karen Kenney, the Dean of Undergraduate Affairs, admitted that Neil Rajmaira lied to students in official correspondence and pre-hearing meetings when he told them that he was an attorney. The District Attorney who dismissed the criminal charges was called by the University to apologize for agreeing to seal the records. And the UC police department was forced to demonstrate the pain compliance techniques it used on protestors' necks and wrists. Colin Sueyres, the one student who sat on the panel, later wrote that sitting on the conduct committee "terrified me in a way I haven't really felt before... like, a feeling of hopelessness and a faceless fear."

By early November, the first of 32 hearings had still not concluded. Then, SJP lawyers received a surprise phone call from the University's Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs, Michael Smith. He finally admitted that, in fact, the hearings were being held unlawfully. However, rather than drop the charges, the University was going to reconstitute a new conduct committee and start the hearings all over again, next year.

So after 9 months of a clumsy and desperate campaign to punish student protesters, the Administration had accomplished remarkably little. It found itself struggling to maintain some shred of credibility, having been exposed for unbelievably adversarial behavior towards students and having made a mockery of the campus code of conduct. It had also put itself in the position of having broken state and possibly federal law and having opened the University up to civil lawsuits. Now, with public scrutiny increasing, the last thing it needed was a long overdue win in the Big Game and the boisterous and disruptive celebrations that followed.

What was this beleaguered Administration's response to the Rally Com incident? First, it immediately issued a triumphant press release entitled "The Axe is back, and it's cruising campus". Then, after both students and faculty made public comparisons to the treatment SJP was getting, another announcement was hurriedly prepared -- to let the community know that it was launching an investigation into the Axe Rally disruptions.

But was this really a change of heart? The protocol at the Office of Student Judicial Affairs requires sending the accused a "notice of possible violation" before an investigation begins. As of press time, no one on Rally Com has received any such notification. This means that either Student Judicial Affairs is not really involved, or the Administration is breaking normal disciplinary protocol to make a timely announcement of an "investigation" and deflect criticism of its biases. And there is a strong possibility that at this point the "investigation" is being conducted only for the benefit of appearing consistent. After all, imagine the letters that would pour in from angry and important alumni if anyone in Rally Com actually received something so ominous as a "notice of possible violation".

Of course, even if Student Judicial Affairs does decide to get seriously involved, it is doubtful that this Administration can fit a battle against alumni and football boosters into its busy schedule of railroading SJP members. Moreover, the differing messages it sent before both the Axe Rally and the SJP demonstration already make it utterly impossible for any claim of equal treatment to be taken seriously. For example, before April 9th the Administration contacted SJP to warn that any disruptions would be treated more severely than they ever had before. Chancellor Berdahl put this new policy in place by fiat, behind the scenes, with absolutely no consultation of the campus community. He went so far as to promise suspensions to students convicted of disruptions, even though he is supposed to play no role in decisions on the punishment of violations. Then the Administration called out all of its Office of Student Life "observers" and brought out dozens of police officers - in anticipation of arrests and student conduct charges against the protesters. Contrast this with the Axe Rally, where there was plenty of positive communication between Rally Com and the Administration beforehand, and almost no police presence during its activities.

Why the lack of police presence? The Administration knew full well what was going to happen at the Axe Rally, what its purpose was, and that there was a good chance it would violate the new zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption announced before the SJP protest. For starters, the Axe Rally and procession are a 104-year old tradition. On every Monday following a win over Stanford, an Axe Rally is held on Sproul, after which the Axe trophy is paraded around campus and into classrooms to be shown to students. In fact, the late-Chancellor Tien actually marched in the last Axe Rally procession, accompanying the Axe into classrooms around campus.

So by most standards, the Administration's treatment of SJP and Rally Com has already been totally unbalanced. One group receives threats from the University, the other group receives cooperation in publicizing their rally. One group faces a massive police and OSL presence at their event, called out in a bid to crack down on the smallest possible violation of the code of conduct, the other group marches through lecture halls and classroom buildings unobstructed, with two bicycle cops in tow. One group faces an array of Administrators bent on making an example of them, the other is "investigated" so that the Administration's façade of fairness remains intact.

In the coming months, the Administration will spin and repackage these events for public consumption, it will insist that it treats all students fairly and equally, and one very important thing will be lost in the mix: the University shouldn't be hounding Rally Com or SJP. Activists and football boosters are part of long-standing and proud traditions of the University, and both communities are an important part of the University's appeal in attracting talented and passionate students. And where the Rally Com and SJP "disruptions" were minor, and enhanced the Cal experience for most students, the Administration has already gone overboard, to the detriment of all.

For More Information or to Get Involved:
Help fight the UC's crackdown on political protest - www.ucdivest.org/wheelersolidarity
UC Divestment Campaign - www.ucdivest.org
Students For Justice in Palestine - www.justiceinpalestine.org

Retiring UC president criticizes dropping affirmative action

Newest regent calls for diversity

UC Regent Huerta

Davis appoints Dolores Huerta, co-founder of farmworkers union, to Regents

Claremont labor dispute festering after two years

Huge drop in foreign students on campus - Post-9/11 security discourages many from coming to U.S.

University of California investment records aren't secret anymore

Colleges dubious of tracking system

UC professors get more liberty in what to teach - Supporters say new rules add to academic freedoms

UC regents approve 25% fee increase

Regents vote down Connerly's proposal to stop funding ethnic-themed events

Why we should return to affirmative action

UC race-oriented events under fire

Connerly takes affirmative action fight to Michigan

Panel: Government knew of attacks

Thousands of UC-eligible students could be denied

When it comes to environmentalism: No region left behind