UC Berkeley students take over Wheeler Hall(sfgate.com)
sfgate.com
UC Berkeley students take over Wheeler Hall
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/20/BA611ANSAB.DTL
48 comments
Hi. To try to calmly explain a bit, "End Budget Cuts, Don't Raise Our Fees!" is not the self-contradictory statement you make it out to be. On the one hand, although state revenues are down, state spending priorities are all messed up (e.g., we spend way too much jailing people for non-violent drug offenses for stuff like pot, constantly increasing state spending on the prison system - while cutting support for education). On the other hand, the UC system's spending priorities are also screwed up with may more than is rationale going to capital investment. It is true that the Regents lack authority to correct these problems and, to the extent the protest moves only the Regents, it is indeed a waste of time. However, if the protests are regarded more as simply putting a foot down against the log-jam of a larger political situation - it's quite sane.
Also, "presenting solutions" is really not the protesters' obligation in a situation like this. Forcing a crisis that elevates as far as possible and draws attention are reasonable ends in and of themselves. These kinds of action are how, historically, political debates shift focus. Solutions are not hard to come by. There is no shortage of them. The state needs escape from prop 13, from ballot initiative spending mandates, from its high incarceration rate, and so forth. Implementing those solutions requires action by voters, the legislature, the regents, and so forth.
You have to start somewhere and that's what your peers did today.
Incidentally, the violence score appears to be roughly: Protesters - shoving some crowd control barriers; Cops - clubbing with batons, indiscriminate use of pepper spray, and allegedly at least one rubber bullet fired.
Also, "presenting solutions" is really not the protesters' obligation in a situation like this. Forcing a crisis that elevates as far as possible and draws attention are reasonable ends in and of themselves. These kinds of action are how, historically, political debates shift focus. Solutions are not hard to come by. There is no shortage of them. The state needs escape from prop 13, from ballot initiative spending mandates, from its high incarceration rate, and so forth. Implementing those solutions requires action by voters, the legislature, the regents, and so forth.
You have to start somewhere and that's what your peers did today.
Incidentally, the violence score appears to be roughly: Protesters - shoving some crowd control barriers; Cops - clubbing with batons, indiscriminate use of pepper spray, and allegedly at least one rubber bullet fired.
Look, I understand that any good movement needs eyes, but it's infuriating when you hear people state "nobody knows what we're doing, we're just running around and chanting." It's just plain irresponsible when people who have nothing to do with this protest, and moreover people who condemn the protest, are forced to suffer from the opinions of a very vocal group. The situation is akin to that Mitch Hedberg joke "I'm against picketing but I don't know how to show it." A large portion of students really do not believe in this cause. And an even larger portion, myself included, is willing to sympathize only a valid argument is given; an argument that has yet to surface.
Does California need reform? A resounding YES! But nobody here at Berkeley seemed to care until their tuitions were raised. Prop 13 is 31 years old (no palindrome intended) but it's only now that people think it was a bad idea. Hell, 6 years ago Arnold almost had his campaign derailed because Warren Buffet dared to question California's sacred initiative. Of course prop 13 is awful, the prison system is crowded, and California's finances are a mess, yet none of my peers deemed it prudent to protest in Sacramento.
Does California need reform? A resounding YES! But nobody here at Berkeley seemed to care until their tuitions were raised. Prop 13 is 31 years old (no palindrome intended) but it's only now that people think it was a bad idea. Hell, 6 years ago Arnold almost had his campaign derailed because Warren Buffet dared to question California's sacred initiative. Of course prop 13 is awful, the prison system is crowded, and California's finances are a mess, yet none of my peers deemed it prudent to protest in Sacramento.
You left out that not only are the prisons crowded but, more importantly, the incarceration rate (as a percentage of population) is absurdly high by global standards.
Clearly the solution is to get a time machine and do things your way. But we don't have those yet, so this is the result.
This was a ridiculous protest.
I disagree. I wouldn't have heard about it if the students hadn't acted ridiculously. Since they did, their message has been spread far and wide and has gained national media attention.
That's effective advertising.
The real problem is how society reacts to things like this, not that the students hacked that hard-coded reaction for their own movement's gain.
I disagree. I wouldn't have heard about it if the students hadn't acted ridiculously. Since they did, their message has been spread far and wide and has gained national media attention.
That's effective advertising.
The real problem is how society reacts to things like this, not that the students hacked that hard-coded reaction for their own movement's gain.
I wonder: where were these student protests over the past several years while California was pissing away so much money they went broke and had to raise undergraduate fees? Are they willing to barricade themselves into a lecture hall for the cause of fiscal responsibility, or will they just clamor for more and more benefits that the state treasury can't afford?
Most of them were in high school or junior high, and too busy being teenagers and worrying about the things teenagers normally worry about. All they are asking for is the same opportunity their parents had. You know, those people who actually were old to behave like responsible adults, old enough to vote, and actually did vote through all those costly initiatives and tax cuts that led this state to it's current dismal condition.
Compared to their parents, UC students today have to pay more, have to go deeper into debt, and to expect fewer services, and that's not their fault. Just be glad the UC system hasn't instituted the mandatory furloughs that the CSU system has, effectively shortening each semester by more than a week. College level education in this state is an utter mess. They have every right to be upset IMO, even if they are doing the silly protest and all that that college students always do.
Compared to their parents, UC students today have to pay more, have to go deeper into debt, and to expect fewer services, and that's not their fault. Just be glad the UC system hasn't instituted the mandatory furloughs that the CSU system has, effectively shortening each semester by more than a week. College level education in this state is an utter mess. They have every right to be upset IMO, even if they are doing the silly protest and all that that college students always do.
What really got me going were the protesters with signs saying education should be offered for no cost. And I'd say the majority of them just jumped onto the fastest moving bandwagon and protested because it was the cool progressive thing to do. They make me glad to hear the prices have jumped. And yes, I do feel it. My sibling and cousins attend UC campuses.
Well, you could argue that there will be greater economic productivity from subsidizing education and allocating college places solely on merit than there is under the existing system, which causes students to graduate with significant debts. This model seems to work quite well for a number of other countries. Ireland does this, and the proportion of young adults (25-34) with degree is ~30 higher than the EU average, at 41%, plus Irish universities are highly rated. There are discussions about reintroducing fees, but I think they need to be seen in the light of Ireland recently getting hit with an economic triple whammy after a period of unrestrained fiscal growth.
Alternatively, one might increase the available tax deduction for interest on student loans, which is capped at $2,500 per annum. I fail to see what economic purpose is served by having students graduate with $40,000 or more of debt when their earning potential is lowest.
Alternatively, one might increase the available tax deduction for interest on student loans, which is capped at $2,500 per annum. I fail to see what economic purpose is served by having students graduate with $40,000 or more of debt when their earning potential is lowest.
Free education is a legitimate, and IMO highly noble goal.
While I agree, the middle of a fiscal crisis is not the right time to barricade yourself in a lecture hall for that cause.
Is it the right time to give banks trillions of dollars that they are just going to gamble away again?
Is that why the California state government has to raise university tuition, or are you just practicing what-aboutery? (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-har...)
That's fine. But I doubt the majority of students out there yelling their hearts out for free education know what's involved in working towards that goal.
That's why they need educating :)
Seriously though, something is very wrong with the UC system. I was discussing this over lunch with Mrs Browl, who graduated UCLA in 2003. At that time annual tuition was $3,429. with these newest increases it's now just over $10,000. It kept shooting up about 15% or more each year even as the bull market was in full swing (and money was pouring into state coffers). Now the state is in a fiscal bind and somehow the UC system has managed to rack up $13 billion in future healthcare liabilities as well as massive pension obligations: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/21908
Edit: here's some #s on tuition fees to illustrate the point:
Seriously though, something is very wrong with the UC system. I was discussing this over lunch with Mrs Browl, who graduated UCLA in 2003. At that time annual tuition was $3,429. with these newest increases it's now just over $10,000. It kept shooting up about 15% or more each year even as the bull market was in full swing (and money was pouring into state coffers). Now the state is in a fiscal bind and somehow the UC system has managed to rack up $13 billion in future healthcare liabilities as well as massive pension obligations: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/21908
Edit: here's some #s on tuition fees to illustrate the point:
1999-2000 $3,429
2000-2001 $3,429
2001-2002 $3,429
2002-2003 $3,384
2003-2004 $4,984
2004-2005 $5,684
2005-2006 $6,141
2006-2007 $6,636
2007-2008 $7,126
2008-2009 $7,788
2009-2010 $8,958
2010-2011 $10,302
The following pertains to the U.S.:
I can't help thinking about risk with regard to the financing of education. My mind takes an immediate short cut (as in, my point may not be well reasoned) to commentary I've read that describes how e.g. the move from "traditional" pensions to 401K plans and similar personal investment vehicles has shifted risk from companies to individuals.
In education, it seems (at least, on the surface, in financial figures quoted in the news) that students and their families are being asked to take on more and more risk with regard to students' education. Try viewing the system as having two parties: The student (and their social circle), who benefits from gaining a more competitive (and, depending upon your perspective, personally enriching) skillset; and society, which ostensibly gains a member capable of greater contributions.
With employees and employers, it might seem that the employer/company is better able to take on and to manage risk. Greater financial resources, and greater ability to contract or employ professional advice and to do so in an efficient manner, sharing the benefit of that advice across multiple employees. Instead, financial management has been pushed to the employees; employers' liability has been minimized.
(That's the argument that's been made. In light of developments in the last several years, I'm not sure it's a valid one.)
In education, it seems that society might better be able to carry the risk of initial career choices. But that risk has been pushed increasingly to students.
The idea of society taking on greater risk in managing tertiary education may fall down in that (U.S.) society does not directly tell students what careers to pursue. Thank goodness; I doubt that's what we want. Although it can influence by determining funding differentials including scholarships, government funding of research, etc.
But I'm not arguing for going such a route whole hog (entirely). I'm not really making much of an effective argument at all. Rather, I'm asking, what is the allocation of risk in the U.S. tertiary education system/market. Has it been changing (it seems so, to me), and if so, what are the mechanisms and reasoning behind this?
Lest this question seem merely "academic" (sorry), there is also plenty of public discussion about the effects of these high levels of personal debt resulting from education expenses. New doctors who don't go into primary care not just because specialization pays better but because, even if they are called to primary care and are willing to forgo specialization's larger pay, the need to pay off enormous loans prevents them from making that choice. New lawyers who feel compelled to go the corporate route for similar reasons.
There's also what's been happening to the job market for educators: Instructors spread across three part time jobs at different institutions. Benefits declining or not offered. Traditional, "tenured" positions (whether you like them or not) increasingly rare.
I don't have the answers, and I'm not involved with this enough to have much first hand experience. My perceptions, that form the basis of my question, may be wrong. I hope my question was worth raising, and that I didn't totally munge it in posing it here.
I can't help thinking about risk with regard to the financing of education. My mind takes an immediate short cut (as in, my point may not be well reasoned) to commentary I've read that describes how e.g. the move from "traditional" pensions to 401K plans and similar personal investment vehicles has shifted risk from companies to individuals.
In education, it seems (at least, on the surface, in financial figures quoted in the news) that students and their families are being asked to take on more and more risk with regard to students' education. Try viewing the system as having two parties: The student (and their social circle), who benefits from gaining a more competitive (and, depending upon your perspective, personally enriching) skillset; and society, which ostensibly gains a member capable of greater contributions.
With employees and employers, it might seem that the employer/company is better able to take on and to manage risk. Greater financial resources, and greater ability to contract or employ professional advice and to do so in an efficient manner, sharing the benefit of that advice across multiple employees. Instead, financial management has been pushed to the employees; employers' liability has been minimized.
(That's the argument that's been made. In light of developments in the last several years, I'm not sure it's a valid one.)
In education, it seems that society might better be able to carry the risk of initial career choices. But that risk has been pushed increasingly to students.
The idea of society taking on greater risk in managing tertiary education may fall down in that (U.S.) society does not directly tell students what careers to pursue. Thank goodness; I doubt that's what we want. Although it can influence by determining funding differentials including scholarships, government funding of research, etc.
But I'm not arguing for going such a route whole hog (entirely). I'm not really making much of an effective argument at all. Rather, I'm asking, what is the allocation of risk in the U.S. tertiary education system/market. Has it been changing (it seems so, to me), and if so, what are the mechanisms and reasoning behind this?
Lest this question seem merely "academic" (sorry), there is also plenty of public discussion about the effects of these high levels of personal debt resulting from education expenses. New doctors who don't go into primary care not just because specialization pays better but because, even if they are called to primary care and are willing to forgo specialization's larger pay, the need to pay off enormous loans prevents them from making that choice. New lawyers who feel compelled to go the corporate route for similar reasons.
There's also what's been happening to the job market for educators: Instructors spread across three part time jobs at different institutions. Benefits declining or not offered. Traditional, "tenured" positions (whether you like them or not) increasingly rare.
I don't have the answers, and I'm not involved with this enough to have much first hand experience. My perceptions, that form the basis of my question, may be wrong. I hope my question was worth raising, and that I didn't totally munge it in posing it here.
[deleted]
Yeah, it sure would be terrible if poor people could get education...
You and the responders to your comment have a notable point about the students' crying over spilled milk, but a 32% increase in fees is quite drastic and shocking! The average cost increase for a public 4-year college is 6.2%[1]
[1]http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/208962.html
[1]http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/208962.html
Where were these students in years past? With their head in the same place as Americans that didn't feel the cost of paying for war: because it was all paid with debt, not current revenue. These students are behaving exactly the way most of America is behavior right now. We would like to think that people that are educated enough to be at Berkeley would have preempted the problem, but time and time again, the most base human behavior prevails.
> Where were these students in years past?
Busy with their high school and without the right to vote? This is the first time those people can say anything officially and be taken seriously. If they don't like what's happening, then I think they're doing pretty well - started to get involved as early as they could.
Busy with their high school and without the right to vote? This is the first time those people can say anything officially and be taken seriously. If they don't like what's happening, then I think they're doing pretty well - started to get involved as early as they could.
For a bunch of kids fresh out of high school making their first serious political statement, "the state should give me more free government services" is a rather short-sighted, self-serving expression to make.
I'm quite OKw ith paying some taxes to subsidize their education as long as the colleges are run with sufficient fiscal discipline. The more well-educated people we have the more California's economy is likely to grow. This is why education was so heavily subsidized in California to begin with, and part of the reason (in addition to our copious natural resources) for the state's long-time leadership in science and technology.
to turn you statement around, for a bunch of kids fresh out of high school getting their first dose of political reality, "you are going to be about $50k in debt when you graduate because your elders and betters have screwed up the economy so badly" is a pretty poor payoff for the last several years of academic effort.
to turn you statement around, for a bunch of kids fresh out of high school getting their first dose of political reality, "you are going to be about $50k in debt when you graduate because your elders and betters have screwed up the economy so badly" is a pretty poor payoff for the last several years of academic effort.
You might be quite OK with that, but what about someone who is barely scraping by and wouldn't be OK with it?
If you want something fund it with your own effort, not by pointing a gun at someone and telling them it's good for them.
If you want something fund it with your own effort, not by pointing a gun at someone and telling them it's good for them.
Someone who is barely scraping by is a) the least likely to get hit with more tax, b)most likely to derive benefit over the long term from an economy wide rising tide, and c) most in need to subsidized education that could improve their earning power.
I have extensive first-hand experience of barely scraping by, and reject your analogy of 'pointing a gun at someone'. For things like education and healthcare (which liberals like myself believe to be worth public funding), some compare it to sticking up the weakest and poorest and taxing them farther into poverty, whereas the reality is that those services, which are almost essential for economic security and advancement, are stuck behind a big paywall and those who object to the existence of this wall have guns pointed at them. Yesterday, literally so, in the form of riot guns.
High school graduates have the lowest earning power and the highest rate of unemployment. I don't see the social good in saddling them with tens of thousand in debt so that when they graduate they are forced towards the most lucrative offer. That's how we ended up with a shortage of scientists and engineers and a surplus of quantitative analysts on Wall Street.
I have extensive first-hand experience of barely scraping by, and reject your analogy of 'pointing a gun at someone'. For things like education and healthcare (which liberals like myself believe to be worth public funding), some compare it to sticking up the weakest and poorest and taxing them farther into poverty, whereas the reality is that those services, which are almost essential for economic security and advancement, are stuck behind a big paywall and those who object to the existence of this wall have guns pointed at them. Yesterday, literally so, in the form of riot guns.
High school graduates have the lowest earning power and the highest rate of unemployment. I don't see the social good in saddling them with tens of thousand in debt so that when they graduate they are forced towards the most lucrative offer. That's how we ended up with a shortage of scientists and engineers and a surplus of quantitative analysts on Wall Street.
I am not fresh out of high school, but I still think the state should give them more free government services. I have a lot more use for educated fellow citizens than I have for, say, roads. (It's not socialism when the government builds roads that are free for everyone to use, but it is when we talk about educating people or helping them not die from some disease. I think that is pretty funny...)
I honestly don't know what to think about all of this. I am a new graduate student at Berkeley, and my perspective is undoubtedly a little apathetic because of this: my department pays my tuition, I haven't been here long enough to experience any substantial cuts in services I use, and the (private) institution I attended as an undergraduate had tuition rates that were around $15k per semester by the time I left. Things look pretty darn good to me at Berkeley right now, and frankly I was a bit annoyed when, upon arriving at campus yesterday, I realized that someone had intentionally pulled a bunch of fire alarms, forcing me and my colleagues to wait outside in the pouring rain.
I can certainly sympathize with the feeling that the university broke a promise to students and staff, and that this is worthy of anger. I think providing a free, or nearly free, top notch public education is a worthy goal. It does seem stupid that basic services and staff are being cut but new construction projects are going forward. But I am not yet convinced that these protests were the right way to bring attention to these issues, and I feel that the harm, inconvenience, and cost that they visited on others was somewhat self-defeating.
I wish I had a better solution to offer, but at the moment all I can think of is a meta-solution: there are a lot of smart people at Berkeley -- why not pose the problem to them, in great detail, and invite them to come up with creative ways to raise money or reduce spending? A lot of what the protesters object to, I think, is the feeling that decisions are being imposed on them. Why not instead let us (every individual department, say) make the decisions about what to cut ourselves, with the stipulation that if we don't reduce costs enough, fees will go up accordingly?
I can certainly sympathize with the feeling that the university broke a promise to students and staff, and that this is worthy of anger. I think providing a free, or nearly free, top notch public education is a worthy goal. It does seem stupid that basic services and staff are being cut but new construction projects are going forward. But I am not yet convinced that these protests were the right way to bring attention to these issues, and I feel that the harm, inconvenience, and cost that they visited on others was somewhat self-defeating.
I wish I had a better solution to offer, but at the moment all I can think of is a meta-solution: there are a lot of smart people at Berkeley -- why not pose the problem to them, in great detail, and invite them to come up with creative ways to raise money or reduce spending? A lot of what the protesters object to, I think, is the feeling that decisions are being imposed on them. Why not instead let us (every individual department, say) make the decisions about what to cut ourselves, with the stipulation that if we don't reduce costs enough, fees will go up accordingly?
An hour ago they reported on their Twitter account that the SWAT team was coming in: http://twitter.com/ucbprotest/status/5906053463
Looks just they just had another status update, so I'm not sure what happened with that.
Looks just they just had another status update, so I'm not sure what happened with that.
[deleted]
Looks like it ended: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/11/20_wheel...
Their primary demand is to rehire a bunch of custodians who got laid off? These kids need a couple of courses on "Look out for number one".
They could take a lesson from the UC regents. Mark Yudoff, who's the president of the UC system, takes home $600,000, although I have a hard time believing that he's busier than, say, the president of the USA who is only paid 2/3 of that amount.
The Cal State football coach gets an annual salary of $2.8 million, and the university is spending $430 million on improving their football stadium. I kind of sympathize with Berkeley students who wonder how there is so much money for this but janitors and security staff are losing their jobs. I suppose sports brings in the alumni $$$ or something, but frankly I fail to see why universities are involved with a sport famous for the number of players who suffer permanent brain damage.
The Cal State football coach gets an annual salary of $2.8 million, and the university is spending $430 million on improving their football stadium. I kind of sympathize with Berkeley students who wonder how there is so much money for this but janitors and security staff are losing their jobs. I suppose sports brings in the alumni $$$ or something, but frankly I fail to see why universities are involved with a sport famous for the number of players who suffer permanent brain damage.
Across the table from the protesters sits the UC Berkeley administration and the UC Berkeley campus police. Rehiring the custodians is the only immediate action for which the administration has authority - the administration lacks authority over the fee increase. Even the Regents (board of governers of the whole University of California system) have very little authority to do much about the fee increases. Yes, they had to act to impose them but it appears that too a large extent they had no other choice other than to become protesters themselves (and essentially have the UC system violate the law and/or various contracts).
The solidarity with the janitors arises because UC staff are suffering about as badly as the students. There is a recent history here of mutual solidarity.
Meanwhile, national news is now carrying the story about the 32% fee increase and its consequences.
The solidarity with the janitors arises because UC staff are suffering about as badly as the students. There is a recent history here of mutual solidarity.
Meanwhile, national news is now carrying the story about the 32% fee increase and its consequences.
I found it amusing that "lowering or renegotiating tuition" wasn't one of their demands... since that was the reason they gave for organizing the protest.
Also, totally amazed that Berkeley is only $10k/semester. For some reason I assumed it was like twice that. I often forget that it's a public school, since it so often gets lumped in with private schools like Harvard/Stanford/MIT.
Also, totally amazed that Berkeley is only $10k/semester. For some reason I assumed it was like twice that. I often forget that it's a public school, since it so often gets lumped in with private schools like Harvard/Stanford/MIT.
[deleted]
Their second demand was amnesty, so they kind of had the right idea. Sort of. Of course they all got arrested anyhow. What kind of revolutionary asks for amnesty? Not exactly History Will Absolve Me material
I'm actually applying to transfer to UC Berkeley now. $10,302/year is a freakin' steal compared to what I've been paying.
That price is for California residents. If you are from out of state, it's much higher.
Nice. The same hall/building where Startup School was.
If you walked through Barrows or Dwinelle (humanities buildings) they were empty. Conversely, if you took a stroll through Soda or Cory (CS and EE respectively) they were packed with students finishing final projects.
I once had a professor who stated that no matter what, Californians will always vote for less taxes and more services, which is exactly what is going on now. I don't understand how they can chant "End Budget Cuts, Don't Raise our Fees!" in the same sentence without the cognitive dissonance making itself blindingly obvious.
I took a stroll to see the actual protest today. It was a bunch of kids who wanted to feel like they were part of something; a large group of people who wanted to scream and cheer as if this was a football game. Students were trying to shout over each other to lead cheers to get their own little slice of revolution. In the end, they presented no solutions besides "Cut Executive Pay" and have contributed nothing to either cause they were fighting for.