Donald Douglas has the story concerning the peace-loving students at the University of California at Berkeley — BurninBush’s alma mater, as it happens — and how several dozen of them attacked the residence of the school’s chencellor, smashing windows and possibly attempting arson:
Torch-carrying protesters storm UC Berkeley chancellor’s home; 8 arrested
By Kelly Rayburn, Oakland Tribune
Posted: 12/12/2009 11:41:43 AM PST
Updated: 12/12/2009 09:41:36 PM PSTBERKELEY — As many as 70 protesters, many carrying torches and smashing windows, attempted to storm UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s on-campus residence late Friday in a violent act condemned by university officials and student activists alike.
Eight people, including two UC Berkeley students, were arrested on suspicion of rioting, threatening an educational official, attempted burglary, attempted arson, felony vandalism and assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, the university said.
Some protesters threw incendiary objects at the house in an attack that left the chancellor and his wife fearing for their lives.
The group was apparently protesting student fee hikes and budget cuts. The demonstrators chanted “No justice, no peace,” as the chancellor slept. His wife woke him up about 11 p.m.
“These are criminals, not activists,” Birgeneau said in a statement Saturday. “The attack at our home was extraordinarily frightening and violent. My wife and I genuinely feared for our lives. The people involved in this action will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I want to emphasize that they represent an extreme minority of our students.”
UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said it was a “matter of luck” the protesters were unable to break into the home before police scattered most of the crowd. Protesters smashed lights, shattered windows, scattered trash and flipped over planters, Mogulof said.
Dr Douglas has a lot more on his site. But one thing that particularly caught my attention was near the end of his story, a complaint by a Berleley student identified only as “Allie:”
A Student’s Account of Yesterday Morning’s Wheeler Hall Arrests
December 12, 2009 in StudentsAn audio recording from last night’s pre-concert rally has been released, and it’s well worth listening to. It’s a female student who was arrested yesterday morning at Wheeler Hall talking about the arrests, the occupation, and the larger movement. She’s incredibly angry — you should know there’s a lot of cursing, if that bothers you — but she has every right to be.
The university should be held accountable for the decision to shut down the Wheeler Hall open university early, without warning, and in violation of previous understandings. They should be held accountable for the decision to arrest the students at Wheeler. They should be held accountable for the decision to give no dispersal order. They should be held accountable for the decision not to cite and release them locally. They should be held accountable for the decision to cart them to a jail thirty miles away, in another county, where they were held for more than eight hours.
Audio is here, and a full transcript, edited very lightly for clarity, is below.
Hi, my name is Allie. I just spent the entire fucking day in jail. I got fucking woken up at about five in the morning by UCPD. I came in at night, there were open doors. It was cops walking around, in this place, no problem, with open doors. Woken up, no dispersal order, nothing. Just said “you’re under arrest for trespassing.”
So we went downstairs and into the basement. We were held there. We were told we would be cited and released on the spot. When I was gathering my shit I had an opportunity to put on my pants and my coat and stuff, but I couldn’t take my bags. People had no shoes. They were in their underwear, some people, because they said they were going to leave us here and release on site. Not the fucking case.
We had San Francisco County Police, all of them here, we had Alameda County buses that took us out of here. What fucking jurisdiction is that? Then we went to Alameda County and we were processed there with UCPD helping with the process. I don’t know how this stuff works, but what the fuck was going on? Why were we not fucking cited and released here, why were we not fucking cited and released at the Berkeley jail? Why did we go to Santa Rita?
Eight fucking hours in jail. Fucking felt up by the female cops as the male officers stood by and watched as they touched our asses, as we lifted our underwires and shook our stuff. They fucking watched. They fucking continued this process of separating us, moving us into different jail cells, taking things away, lying to us, intimidating, threatening violence to us. Fucking bullshit.
Jonathan Poullard, Dean of Students, was here in the building when we were being arrested. What did he do for us, what did this university do for us, what does this university do for our community?
Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. Fuck the UCPD, fuck all of the police here.
We came in and we provided an alternative model for how to run a university. We provided an alternative model. We weren’t locking the doors. It was open. It was open for access to students to study in. Because they make unilateral decisions to do furloughs, to cut our library spaces, to cut our faculty salaries, to cut union workers, to do union-busting. How many classes were canceled this semester? Cutting libraries? So we open it up ourselves. And what do they do? They fuck us. They take us to jail.
Happy finals.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have, but I left a comment on the site:
Oh, Allie certainly should be protesting, because it’s obvious that you haven’t been getting much for your educational dollars, regardless of the tuition rate. In seven paragraphs, she felt compelled to use the f word or one of its derivatives sixteen times, and the s word thrice more.
Tom Wolfe once described Gus Grissom’s speech as using ten nouns, five verbs and one adjective; it appears that such a description would fit Allie reasonably well, though she has demonstrated that she knows two, and not just one adjective.
I would think that the taxpayers of California, who subsidize the greater portion of Allie’s education, would like to see Berkeley students as actually being educated. At least from these seven paragraphs of her comments, there’s rather little evidence of that.
For some odd reason, I suspect that my comment won’t be well-received.
Patterico once said that the f word has become a regular part of speech, and there are times when only the f word will suffice. I agree, but those times are few and far between; when it is used as apparently the only adjective available, it loses its impact in describing a situation, and simply becomes evidence of a poorly spoken person.
I understand that Allie and her cohorts are upset: tuition and fees in the University of California system are going to rise, a lot, because the state of California simply doesn’t have as much money available to put into the UC system. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and the state legislature tried to get more money, with the Propositions 1A-F proposals on the special election ballot last May; the Governator and state officials lobbied hard to get voters in the Pyrite State to approve what were supposedly temporary tax increases to deal with a very large budget deficit; by roughly two-to-one margins, the voters turned down the increases. I have to wonder: how did Allie’s parents vote in that special election, how did the parents of the UC system students protesting the tuition and fee increases vote in the special election?
Indeed, how did Allie herself vote? I wrote about this topic previously, and when I asked one UC-Davis student protesting the tuition increases how he voted in the special election, he said that he “did not vote for¹” the tax increases.
There are a lot of poor people in California, a lot of people who won’t get the chance to go to Berkeley or Davis or UCLA. But they are still being taxed to subsidize the education of students like Allie, students like the other UC system protesters, students who are still being given an education which costs far more than the share of it for which they are being asked to pay. The word ingratitude comes to my mind at a time like this; it’s too bad that Allie and her friends are going to have to pay more for their own education, but they ought to be grateful to the people of California that they are not required to pay the whole bill.
_________________________
¹ – I do not know if this means he voted against Proposition 1A, or if he did not vote at all.
Heh, I left a comment there as well.
Government education worked out well. The mantra of “Where’s mine???” has worked out well. Sooner not later we’re going to run out taxpayers and just have tax consumers.
I went to the “Student Activist” blog and was unimpressed. Somehow students have become viewed as important. At least they think they are. They are young, inexperienced, over hormoned narcissists. They have no life experience, their education is at best in its early development and they are basically big children. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what any student or activist thinks because I frankly don’t believe they think at all. They react with emotion and “feelings” not from life experience or real knowledge. They have accomplished nothing in their lives (yet) and yet seem to think their opinions are important and we all should bow to their every need. They are the quintessential liberal and prove it each time they run around cursing and breaking other peoples property in a child like hissy fit because something doesn’t go their way.
Yes, because students only advocate for change that directly affects them and no one else. Current students are highly unlikely to see any benefit in a change in higher education funding patterns- it helps those who come after. Of course, it’s not like students organize against human rights abuses as well, or handled hundreds of thousands of dollars (or in the case of UC I believe its millions of dollars) in student fees to try and better the University, whether through programming, scholarships, or any other such programs. Of course there are no students who work full time jobs while in school, still manage to do well and juggle rent, bills, and tuition right along with it, or that the average age of a college student has continually increased.
Students are, and always have been, important to the U.S. and U.S. policy. They have declined in power as they juggle busier and busier schedules, making activism much harder to organize, but they are not going away, and will not go away any time soon.
Oh, and investment in higher education is a net revenue generator, for the record.
Try telling that to the students who are protesting. They’ll shout you down.
John-
No, they won’t. The vast majority do recognize this won’t help them if the funding trend is reversed, because it takes years to build up what once was, just like it takes years to cut it down to what it’s become.
I am a student activist. I am a part of groups that have teach ins, offers solutions, and join in protests when the state cuts appropriations or financial aid, along with protesting fee increases. We know we are unlikely to be the ones who directly benefit, and we outright say so. That doesn’t drive people away. 4 years is a short time. We’ve all been through high school and recognize that fact. We may directly benefit from some of the smaller victories, like a small increase to financial aid one year, but that doesn’t stop students from realizing they are unlikely to be affected by the end goal.
Dan, first things first. Locate the library, show up for your classes on time, ask topical questions, take notes, do the reading, write your term papers early, visit your instructors during office hours, quit hanging around with campus loudmouths, find a nice chick, lay off the sauce, and don’t follow leaders. It’s educational, and you’ve still got time to get your head right.
Dan, when you enter the real world and start working and the company says it’s a bad year and we are cutting pay across the board 5%, will you hold teach-ins then? Storm the CEO’s office? I’m reading you expect entitlements from the state by using their University. It’s not the real world there.
“I am a student activist. I am a part of groups that have teach ins, offers solutions, and join in protests when the state cuts appropriations or financial aid, along with protesting fee increases.”
And I’m sure the waitress who is a single mother, the house painter trying to raise a family or the guy with the hotdog cart who is behind in his rent are honored to pay part of their taxes to educate you. Then you can earn ten times more then they have ever dreamed of and flip them the bird in the rear view mirror of life. Cause after all, it’s all about your needs. Keep the faith, baby! I’m sure as that waitress feeds her child dinner she will take solice in knowing the difference between dirty beans & rice and a well rounded meal went to reduce your college fees.
By the way, if you’ve time for protests and teach-ins, you’ve time to work to pay your own way without taking the food out of the mouths of others.
I went to college in the 60s–I mean we’re talking about protests here. I remember so many issues over which students demonstrated and rioted. When Nixon invaded Cambodia–when Kent State happened–I simply could not see how trashing private property would accomplish anything constructive. He promised to be out in 30 days, I said let’s see what happens, and he was out in 28 days as I recall. Peaceful demonstrations, by all means, but storming the administration with torches? Why? The school will have to raise tuition to pay for the damages.
John-
I earned a merit scholarship, that’s the only reason I’m really able to attend school at all. Second of all, those are the people I go to school with. The average age on my campus fluctuates between 24 and 28. I attend a nontraditional, commuter 4 year institution. Our mission is to help those in the surrounding community get a 4 year college degree they otherwise would be unable to afford or attain. These are the same people who come to those teach ins and complain that there is no child care on campus, or that that they will have to decide between rent or tuition, or between taking a class or picking up another shift for work. These are the people who yell the loudest about these increases- because it is in direct violation of the school’s mission.
Ropelight-
I go to my classes, have a 3.6 gpa, am on student government, and in the Honors Program. If I continue on this course, I will hopefully be able to find a way to go to law or grad school and then get a career from there.
Yorkshire-
When I go to a public school, I expect it to be publicly funded, not privately funded. Most public schools already are privatizing, with private funds typically funding more than public funds. It’s hardly subsidizing when in states like Oregon the state only provides about 7% of the budget, and is thinking of going completely private. Public universities are a necessity.
There is a vast difference between what you propose and what is actually happening in funding trends for higher education. Cuts in a bad tax year are understandable and unavoidable, we accept that. What we will no longer accept is the excuse that students are an “alternative revenue source,” that higher education isn’t worth the investment, and that higher education should be the first on the chopping block by default in the bad years. Bad tax years happen, cuts need to be made, but considering funding for higher education has been getting slashed since the 80s, with little or no restoration, getting ticked off now is the natural course of action.
If your a CEO in bad years, you don’t continually cut into one department deeper than all the others, and then don’t restore funding in good years. In bad years you cut where you can, and in good years you reinvest those funds to try and once again increase the bottom line. The government isn’t doing that, and students are getting sick of it.
Dan:
If your a CEO in bad years, you don’t continually cut into one department deeper than all the others, and then don’t restore funding in good years. In bad years you cut where you can, and in good years you reinvest those funds to try and once again increase the bottom line. The government isn’t doing that, and students are getting sick of it.
I was waiting and hoping the Feds would have done what Reagan had the balls to do in ’82 or ’83, and that was to freeze the salary of the Feds and NO RAISE. I was fully expecting a no raise for 2010 like the SS folks have to live with. And the little thing is, I work for the Feds and thought 0% was going to be a reality, BO doesn’t have the balls to confront the Unions that represent Fed workers. (I’m not in the union, and would never join.)
Dan, and another thing that some of us faced here. I was out of HS in ’67. There was this little thing called the Draft was on. (Arlo Guthrie in Alice’s Restaurant has it perfect) We had three things facing us: a) have just enough wrong with you to get 4F, but few and far between; b) go to school and get that 2S, but in ’67 they changed the rules of stay in your grade, or; c) face the dreaded 1A and an almost sure trip to SE Asia. I got lucky to have had a backer for school, but a 2 year course. Going to finish that course of education meant out of state. There was extremely little financial help like today. So I knew in ’69, my 1A was assured. The only sane thing I figured out was the reserves when the military was looked at by my peers as the enemy. Try having little aid, school out of reach, and the military breathing down your back. Your group today have no idea of the pressures that existed in the late 60′s to the early 70′s.
Dan wrote:
I attended a public university — the University of Kentucky — and much of my education was publicly funded, but certainly not all of it was. I had to pay tuition, I had to buy my books, I had to provide all of the necessities of life for myself. That meant working throughout school, a reduced course load, and the six-year plan to earn my BA. Heck, even public primary and secondary schools aren’t wholly publicly funded: students still have to pay for lunches, sometimes for mandated uniforms, for supplies, all sorts of little things.
In California, the elected state leadership saw a huge revenue shortfall coming, and asked the public if they would approve a (supposedly) temporary tax increase to deal with it, telling the people that if the tax increase was not passed, all sorts of draconian cuts would have to be made. For whatever reasons they had the public voted, by about a two-to-one margin, to disapprove the tax increases. That left the state government as a whole, and the university system, with the reality of having to deal with reduced taxpayer revenues. If students were not to be an “alternative revenue source” in paying for a larger share of their education, then something else would have to be cut. Perhaps they should lay off half of the janitors; will the students mobilize to clean the buildings?
York, when I was graduated from high school, 1971, President Nixon had ended student deferments, so I was 1A. The draft lottery system had been put in place, and my birthdate number was 264. By the time my age year was being drafted, 1972, American involvement in Vietnam was being wound down, and conscription calls were being seriously limited. Then, at the time I wanted to join — OCS after graduation — my eyesight had deteriorated too much, and I couldn’t pass the eye exam.
You forgot, Yorkshire, that the draft was done by lottery in the time frame you are speaking of, if memory serves. And then there were those like GWB who avoided the draft altogether by joining the Air Force Reserves, and even then, he was AWOL re many of the training sessions. And Cheney managed how many, 5 deferments at least? If we had a draft, our leaders would not be able to go to war so easily, on a whim sometimes. Sorry, but that is what occurs to me when I think about those days.
And on college education, it is too bad how expensive it has become to get a college education. In my view, it should be free!
In the early ’60′s, I finished up spending 2.5 years at Penn, graduating not owing one cent. Before that, I was a coop student at Drexel, and earned all my education expenses from the coop jobs. Those days are long gone, unfortunately! I feel very fortunate!
Regarding education advice, ropelight is right on. Seems like Dan already knows and applies himself.
Perry, you really don’t listen do you? Nothing is free. But if you persist in believing it should be free, pick a student at random and pay for his tuition. Otherwise, please stop saying that my earnigs should be stolen to give someone else something “free”. I am becoming more and more offended by your insistance that what I earn is by virtue someone elses. It’s really starting to piss me off.
Who’s going to pay for that “free” education, Perry? The rest of us working stiffs who worked our way through college?
I went to a public school, Dan. I started out at junior college for 2 years, then transferred to the local branch of the University of Texas. Neither of those things were my first choice but when you are paying for your education, you suck it up and recognize that you have to pay for things. So, I lived at home (while my friends lived it up in the dorms or apartments) and I went to a junior college (instead of flunking out of UT like so many people I knew) and then went to a commuter school. I didn’t complain about paying my way or being considered “a revenue source.” I was thankful that I could pay for college with my almost full-time job (37.5 hrs per week). And I graduated without student loans, but it took 5 years to do it.
During that time, the state ramped up the cost per semester hour from $4 to over $150, which probably doesn’t sound like much to you, but in 1986 it was quite a bit. But none of us attacked the administration or broke into buildings. And we didn’t complain that we had a “right” to somebody else’s money to pay for our educations.
JohnC:“Otherwise, please stop saying that my earnigs should be stolen to give someone else something “free”. “
John, you have absolutely no sense of community!
After I read the transcript of what Allie said I thought, great, another Amanduh Marcotte.
Sharon:“And we didn’t complain that we had a “right” to somebody else’s money to pay for our educations.”
I’m pretty sure, Sharon, that you complained about paying $160 per credit hour, raised from $4. And by the way, in the 1986 time frame, $4 per credit hour was essentially free, so you were fortunate too. Instead of having to work 37.5 hours per week, Sharon, just think of how much better an education you could have had during those years. You probably didn’t do your health much good either. No student should have to go through what you did to get your education, in my view.
It seems to me that the attitude here is that since I had it rough, then you should have it rough too. It’s like an initiation. And then you very same people complain about the inheritance tax, which doesn’t kick in until $3.5 million. Consistency is not a strong point with you people.
A meaningful college education is a challenge in itself, without having to work a full time job which dilutes the education effort, as admirable it was for you to do what you had to do, for which I compliment you Sharon!
Come on, Perry. I pay almost twelve grand a year in school taxes. Over the last thirty years I’ve paid roughly two hundred grand in school taxes. I have no children so that money put other people’s kids through K-12. But your sense of community states I should now pay for their college.
I’ll tell you what I have done. I’ve paid for part or most of several employees’ college. I also paid to put a few through culinary school. They were not my kids but I helped them because I saw value in them. How many non-relatives have you put through school?
You lefties can’t think of one thing in life that shouldn’t be paid for with other people’s money, can you?
Perry wrote:
But that’s just it: free for whom? We could pass laws which fully funded every college education, meaning that the students would have no tuition to pay — or books, supplies, dorms, etc? — but the costs of college education would still exist; it’s just a question of whom has to pay.
In such a world, it’s clear: the taxpayers would wind up paying, through increased taxes. It seems pretty clear to me that the taxpayers don’t want to pay that.
And what does inheritance tax have to do with free college?
BTW Dana Pico, I have found in life when something is Free, it diminishes its value.
Gotta go, have a crown roast coming out at 6PM. Later.
JohnC-
I don’t pay a dime for my actual education. I’m lucky. I went to a suburban high school did well, and got a scholarship. Not everyone has that same opportunity.
As for school taxes- you pay those taxes, those kids earn more money and thus also pay higher taxes. The more schooling they go through, the more they benefit. For example, in my state 1 dollar in investment in higher education is 8 dollars of direct economic activity. Every 100 jobs created at our public university creates 90 private sector jobs. And that’s only one state out of 50. Making it free might not be the best course, especially if the person needs to feel invested in order to make themselves do the work, but not investing is costing us jobs and a faster growing economy.
Dana-
There is a difference between publicly funded and free. When I think publicly funded, I think 51%+ is funded by public dollars, and that clearly is no longer happening in various states, especially with this farce of a “high fee/high aid” model that Vermont started.
California is in a screwed up place because of Regan’s school of thought and its effects there. Taxpayers vote to mandate funding for things like UC and social programs, then they go and vote to turn down the funds necessary to fund those programs. It’s the “Oh that’s a great program, but not on my dollar!” mentality so many people share. They think these things exist, but then don’t want to pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch, but that’s exactly what the people of California have wanted, so they can’t raise taxes and can’t pay for the Constitutionally mandated programs that voters institute when they go to the polls.
Students are continually paying more for a lower quality education, and it is unacceptable. If it were a company people would stop buying their product and they’d go bankrupt, but because it’s the only affordable option for so many, especially now, state legislatures get the impression that these cuts are acceptable and continue to make them. It’s absurd.
Dan wrote:
It seems to me that the term “publicky funded” is a poor one; publicly subsidized would be a better choice, and subsidized is the word I chose in my original. The notion of 51% also seems strained to me: such might convert many public colleges into private ones.
We have a fairly simple definition of state and private colleges: which ones are owned and controlled by the state, and which ones are private entities. Given the prevalence of student financial aid, most students, regardless of what college they attend, are partially subsidized by the government; those at public colleges tend to have a much larger portion of their education subsidized by the state.
By the way, the state legislature here in Pennsylvania still has not finished work on our FY2010 budget — the one due last July! — and it looks like students at Pennsylvania’s public colleges, including Penn State, where my older daughter is a student — will see mid-year tuition hikes. Fortunately, the United States Army will pay her share, one way or another.
Mr C wrote:
Great, I’m starving!
You are bringing it up here, right?
Perry:
You forgot, Yorkshire, that the draft was done by lottery in the time frame you are speaking of, if memory serves.
Your memory needs an update. The first lottery was held in Dec. 1969/Jan. 1970 while I was in Basic Training at Fort Knox. My number was on the bubble, but it didn’t matter then.
I’m pretty sure, Sharon, that you complained about paying $160 per credit hour, raised from $4.
I didn’t say students liked having their tuition raised exponentially over the course of about 2 years, but we didn’t break into buildings and trash them because we had a right to somebody else paying for our educations.
And by the way, in the 1986 time frame, $4 per credit hour was essentially free, so you were fortunate too.
No, Perry, even a cheap education isn’t free. Was I fortunate? In the sense that I realized it was better to (a) go to a state school and (b) live at home rather than pay for a dorm or apartment, then I was “fortunate” that I wasn’t stupid.
Instead of having to work 37.5 hours per week, Sharon, just think of how much better an education you could have had during those years.
I had a very nice education while I worked, Perry. It is among the fondest memories I have because I learned far more from work than I did in the classrooms–not because the education was inferior, but that working at a newspaper when you wanted to be a newspaper person was better experience.
You probably didn’t do your health much good either.
If my health suffered (*scoff*) it wasn’t because I worked and went to college. It was probably the late nights after work drinking with my buddies.
No student should have to go through what you did to get your education, in my view.
Why? I got a good education, worked at a job I loved, and made friends that have lasted a lifetime. Moreover, I came out of the experience without a student loan and with a sense of accomplishment because I didn’t complain that my education was someone else’s responsibility.
I’m a coal miner’s daughter, Perry. I didn’t expect anyone to pay for my education because that was my responsibility.
It seems to me that the attitude here is that since I had it rough, then you should have it rough too. It’s like an initiation. And then you very same people complain about the inheritance tax, which doesn’t kick in until $3.5 million. Consistency is not a strong point with you people.
My attitude, Perry, is that working for something you want makes it more important to you than something you are given. I know this for a fact, given personal experience. I was the youngest child and fairly spoiled by my parents. I can’t say I appreciated many of the things they gave me, but once I had to work for what I wanted, my attitude changed quite a bit.
Not everyone has that same opportunity.
That’s where you’re wrong, Dan. Everyone had exactly the same opportunity. Not everyone does as well.
Every 100 jobs created at our public university creates 90 private sector jobs.
That’s a terrible outcome, given that public university jobs are paid for by the private sector employees. Maybe that’s what’s wrong with your system.
Dana, of course your comment won’t be received, because it was downright sophomoric. Why does it matter what language she used? Does it somehow change the point she’s making if she sprinkles a few choice words into her speech? You don’t like swearing, other people do. Leave it at that and actually answer the young lady’s point. Why was she arrested? Was she somehow involved with the attack on the chancellor? Was she engaged in serious illegal activity? What do you have to say to her actual arguments?
Sharon-
Tell that to the inner city kid who has to deal with gang violence, or has to work more hours than I did to help his family get by while attending high school, or doesn’t own a computer and so can’t easily complete the internet based assignments, or whose school has outdated books and can’t afford to buy newer ones because of the flawed funding structure.
Equality of opportunity is fundamental to the American system, and is what causes Americans to get up in arms about almost everything else, and yet education is left behind.
Dan,
Why don’t you talk to Walter Williams, who grew up in the projects and is now quite successful? It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other people who grew up in adverse circumstances, yet they still succeeded, not because they played the victim, but because they worked hard and didn’t take “no” for an answer.
There will always be those with better supplies but that doesn’t mean you can’t succeed because your daddy doesn’t give you a new computer every year.
Jeff wrote:
I freely admit: when I hear someone whose only known adjective is the f word, I quickly develop the prejudice that such a person is a dolt.
As for Allie’s specific complaints about the conditions of her arrest, well, sorry, but she broke the law. Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous treatise Civil Disobedience that it was perfectly acceptable to break the law to make some point in which you truly believed, but that in choosing to do so you had to be prepared to take the legal consequences of breaking the law. Allie broke the law — she was one of the student occupiers of Berkeley’s Wheeler Hall — and she was complaining that in being arrested she was, in effect, being treated like anyone else who gets arrested. The poor dear was searched, just like she was a Philadelphia street thug getting arrested. She was upset that they weren’t making special accommodations for the noble student occupiers being arrested.
Maybe, had she thought about the consequences, she might have decided that no, she wasn’t going to break the law; I really have no idea. But she did what she did, and the consequences are what they are.
Dan wrote:
Dan, I went to public high school in a 1937 WPA/CCC building, in a small town in the South, with no air conditioning, old books, and few electives. Somehow, some way, I was able to get a decent education.
We were very poor when I was growing up. From seventh through the eleventh grade, I had two newspaper routes, one in the morning — get up at 0400 — and one in the afternoon. If I could do it, so can others.
Old books? I’m not sure why a school needs new English Literature or history or math books all the time; it makes no difference if you are reading Julius Caesar from a brand new book or one that is ten years old; the play doesn’t change.
Actually, Allie proves my point. Young student, self centered, self absorbed, thinks she’s special, above the law, contempt for the police, no respect for other people’s property, plays the victim, terrorized the family without remorse. Then screams we should pay for her schooling. That my friends, is balls!
Sorry Dana, my Asian bride spirited the leftovers to her friend’s house. Seems none of these Koreans ever had a crown roast of pork. Even after all these years the old Irishman surprises the hell out of them. Perhaps it was the cornbread and plum stuffing and the Frenched bones?
I’m not saying no one can succeed in adverse conditions, look at Michael Patrick MacDonald. What I’m saying is the odds are stacked against them, unlike in the wealthier suburban schools where not succeeding is far more rare than the inner city schools. Arguing that no overhaul needs to happen is ignoring facts.
New books are plenty changing. New facts/information/etc are found all the time in fields, yes, even in middle and high school (perhaps excluding math). Secondly, it is far easier to focus if you don’t have to worry about the book falling apart every five seconds and the like. That isn’t to say new books need to be bought all the time, but updates are absolutely necessary, and quite simply, between holding buildings together that are crumbling around them, increasing class sizes, etc, books are not able to be updated by the school, and it is a problem (along with, you know, the school itself falling apart).
Dana-
Police were there all week. Why arrest at 5AM when the students are LEAST active, and doing nothing wrong? Why break the mold of dispersal orders, allowing those who are not willing (or who are unaware of it being considered trespassing) to be arrested leave? Many students thought this was administration sanctioned BECAUSE there was no negative response, and administration indicated they were’nt going to arrest anyone unless it was going to interfere with finals (a full 36+ hours after this event, and students had announced they were planning on leaving before the exams- its their grades too). Police were in and out all the time. I really don’t think people are going to buy the whole “well, they were trespassing!” argument a full 2-3 days after the technical infraction began, with police moving in and out freely along with students and administration.
Perry wrote:
Today’s Gospel reading at Mass was Luke 3:10-14:
Note that the Baptists did not say that if you have two cloaks, the government should come and seize one, to give to someone else, nor that if a man has more food than he needs, the Roman centurions should take it off of his table, to give to another who has less.
Voluntary charity stems from a sense of community, what you once called being your brother’s keeper. Taxed away wealth, to be given as the government sees fit, does not create a sense of community; in too many cases it creates only a sense of resentment from those whose money is taken, and a belief in entitlement for those who qualify for the aid. In this particular thread, the issue arose because students in the UC system were revolting — pun intended — because they were being given less charity, less of a subsidy, than they were before. It isn’t that I should give them my second cloak, but that they were entitled to take it from me.
Dan objected:
First, they were doing something wrong just by occupying the building. But second, by arresting at 0500, the police insured the least resistance, something perfectly rational from a crowd control perspective. You don’t wait until they are all awake and alert; that increases the chances for resistance, and possibly for someone getting hurt.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. *Special note to the Democratic Party*
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.
……..Abraham Lincoln
This famous quote was emailed to me in another mail from a friend. I thought it kind of fits in with what we are discussing. I realize it’s only Lincoln’s opinion (and Perry, Lincoln includes no citations), but it seems to me that if more of us adhered to these ideas we would all be better off.
Dan wrote:
If the deck is stacked against them, it is not because the schools don’t have enough money, but because there is a too-widespread inner-city culture which promotes violence and discourages learning. It’s often called “acting white,” to discourage minority students — usually black males — from studying hard and trying to succeed in school, although some studies have indicated that poor whites in some areas have the same cultural attitudes.
The schools don’t get students until they are five or six years old: by then they have already assimilated a significant part of their culture. If there has been no sense of discipline instilled, if there is nothing in their culture which inspires kids to try to do well, they are already behind, from the first day of school.
No one wants to hear this, but the problem isn’t the schools; the problem is the parents! If parents don’t rear the child properly, teachers get damaged material when the kids start school. We can’t expect teachers to take the responsibility for child rearing.
Dana-
Under your account I should have failed. I come from/was raised in a home rife with problems. My father and mother got divorced when my sister and I were young. Before that there was plenty of yelling, fighting, shouting, alcoolism, smoking, etc. Between that and being the victim of bullying at school, I should either be some hoodlum causing trouble, or a kid far too quiet to enter into any meaningful social interaction, let alone be involved in any sort of public activism.
I’m sorry, but the whole blame the parents line is wearing pretty thin for me, and is a cop out excuse in my eyes. Parents do not shape kids quite nearly as much as everyone seems to think.
Throw in these kids aren’t disciplined and you have a whole other problem. Like I said, they can hold down a job while still doing the work, albeit not as well. They have the discipline necessary to do well at school, but the schools don’t have the capability to ensure these students can succeed. Some of that is stuff at home, yes, but the state has the responsibility to make sure their are proper supplies, qualified teachers, and the like.
It isn’t the home or the parents. Sure, they play a role, as does the culture, but so does the state in a)providing funds to schools so there are support systems and b)ensuring all students receive the same education, aka the tools necessary to succeed after school. Clearly that is not happening.
Inner city violence/culture absolutely is a problem, but in part it is a problem because of a lack of education, and also because there is an issue with how the problem of poverty itself is approached.
As for the arrests-
And break standard protocol? Yes, that makes PLENTY of sense, because now the kids have a case that police made no attempts to stop the action until that point, i.e. entrapment. So, it is a complete waste of taxpayer funds and gives the University bad PR.
John-
That isn’t an actual Lincoln quote, just to let you know.
I’ve seen it before and then too, it was attributed to Lincoln. Do you know where it comes from? I hate to give either credit or blame where it is not warranted.
Thanks for the heads up Dan. I found it on Snopes.com. The quote was actually from a Rev. William John Henry Boetcker about 1916. Was put out in a pamphlet and in some mix up given to Lincoln. But as happens often once attributed to a famous guy Boetcker was tossed aside. I will alert my buddy.
Actually, that was Deke Slayton, not Gus Grissom.
Dana:
See, that’s the argument I feel like you should have made in your comment to her. She obviously wasn’t prepared for the consequences of civil disobedience and was surprised when she was treated like someone who broke the law. It belies a sense of entitlement that dovetails rather nicely with her attitude towards government services and tuition increases. Much stronger argument than being a linguistic scold, IMHO.
JohnC, the author of your quote was a Presbyterian preacher and motivational speaker named William J. H. Boetcker. The quote comes from a small pamphlet called The Ten Cannots that Boetcker published in 1916.
The misattribution to Lincoln comes from a printing error made by a conservative political committee in 1942, who published a pamphlet with some Lincoln quotes on one side and Boetcker’s Ten Cannots on the other – and attributed Boetcker’s quotes to Lincoln and vice versa.
Incidentally, your quote is missing three “cannots,” none of which undermine your greater point but all of which are interesting:
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
Boetcker’s Wikipedia page is <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetckerhere.
Lincoln, in fact, almost certainly would not have said those things. He was (relative to his time) an economic liberal, providing federal funding for such grandiose projects as the Transcontinental Railroad and the land-grant colleges and instituting higher taxes, including America’s first income tax. He also revived a central banking system that had been done away with by the Democrat Andrew Jackson, and created the USDA.
Grumble grumble, broken HTML – Boetcker’s Wiki page is really here.
When you have no real moral claim on their lives, just call them misanthropists.
Dan sounds like a real whiner/weiner …