(no subject)

Awwwuh!



*simper*

I mean, it's just... awwuh!

Taken from the journal of fantasygoat, an unending supply of funny, strange and occasionally just disturbing images. You should at least check out "Mathematically Delicious" while you're there. =:)

Tent University arrests at UCSC

There were some significant events at UCSC earlier this week. Since this is the first I'd heard of them I thought I would share, given the number of alums and former SC residents here. From what I can gather, the situation was this:

It began with student plans to protest a number of UCSC policies. One of the main complaints I've heard against the protesters is that they weren't very well organized and that their agenda wasn't very well-defined. Their rather vague mission statement seems to bear this out. But from what I've gathered elsewhere, the main issues (those specified by proponents in the ensuing online discussions) include:

• Increasing tuition costs
  
• Lack of living wages for campus service workers
  
• Self-imposed pay raises for the Regents (again??)
  
• A $192k/yr position for the Chancelor's partner when she signed on. Some say the position was created just for that purpose, others say it already existed and is traditionally filled by the Chancelor's spouse when applicable.

The idea was to hold a "Tent University", something that has apparently been done on several other campuses by students who felt disenfranchised by their schools. Tents would be set up at the base of campus and alternative classes held there. Apparently some of the professors even moved their regular classes down to tent U.

The main snag was UCSC's anti-camping regulation. From what I've gathered, the regents allowed (or couldnt prevent) Tent-U during the day, but insisted that it disband every night at 8pm and then re-form in the morning. The regents cited noise concerns for the neighbors (Tent-U implimented a "quiet hours" policy to address this) and problems with safety and sanitation (I've read at least one person accuse the regents of actively preventing sanitation companies from doing business with the protesters, but the poster didn't provide any evidence).

You can probably see where this is going. At 8pm the Tent-U people were asked to disband for the night, which they refused to do. At 10pm, University Police (mostly from UCSC, though some were brought in from Berkeley) in riot gear were called in to disband them forcibly. The students sat huddled together on the ground, completely limp so as to make it as difficult as possible for the police to take them away. The police employed techniques and holds that used pain to coerce the students into moving, but otherwise left them undamaged. 18 people were arrested in all and word is that the university intends to press charges against them.

I've been thinking about these events, researching and writing this up all morning and I find my feelings to be very mixed. First and foremost I think that the university was out of line (which is distict from "within their legal rights") to send the police in and forcibly disband Tent-U. Surely they knew the students wouldn't just leave. And if Tent-U was not loudly disturbing the neighborhood (and I've seen video suggesting it wasn't) then I have to wonder what could possibly have made preventing them from camping worth the public relations nightmare that this, with many of the arrests caught on video, seems sure to cause. I will also be extremely annoyed if the allegations that UCSC has been filtering campus net access to prevent students from seeing the videos are true.

On the other hand, in other respects I agree completely with Tent-U's detractors. Just as I wonder what the Regents felt was at stake over this, I would ask the same of the Tent-U organizers. It seems that they gained nothing by not disbanding and re-assembling in the morning except perhaps the feeling that, by refusing even a reasonable concession to their opponents, they were struggling more valiantly against opression. That seems like the attitude of someone who is more interested in protesting than in accomplishing an agenda.

So the saddest part of all is that both sides got what they wanted and in doing so both sides lost. The Regents prevented Tent-U from going overnight, but in doing so demonstrated how small a reason they need to call in riot police on their own students. The Tent-U arrestees got to become martyrs to their revolution (They've already been referred to as "The Santa Cruz 18" in at least one place), but in doing so demonstrated how little they were willing to trade the integrity of their movement for. Negotiating what you want is about chosing your battles. Refusing to do so makes you look like someone who is agitating for the sake of it and has lost (or never had) a clear sense of purpose.

Needless to say, there's been a lot of discussion:

• This thread on ucsc has, I think, some well thought-out positions on both sides.
  
• Santa Cruz Indymedia has videos of the arrests (which are not fun to watch, though I agree that those who call it "brutality" could use some perspective). The ensuing discussion tends to be, unsurprisingly, biased toward the students, but also has some good points on both sides.
  
• The UCSC Tent-U site, linked to above
  
• Someone has been putting up these fliers critical of the Tent-U organizers. It's nice to see, contrary to UCSC's reputation, that activists are representing both sides on this issue.

Anyway, there it is. Just in case anybody hadn't heard about it. Somehow this felt close-to-home for me even though I haven't attended UCSC or lived in Santa Cruz in years.