Tent University arrests at UCSC

[usernamenumber]

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.

Comments

[rhosyn-du.livejournal.com]

This event pretty much typefies the stuff that annoyed the hell out of my while I was at UCSC. There were always too many fighting for fighting's sake and too few willing to put in the effort to actually change anything. There are few things that can invoke my bitter cynicism for efficiently than santacruzian politics.

[choose-again.livejournal.com]

wow. i guess i know what you've been up to today. i'm glad i encouraged you to write more lj posts. it's really interesting to see what you choose to write about. needless to say, i am not even going to try and watch those videos, as just your 'article' scared the crap out of me. tho i do agree with you and becky- i'm sort of over the whole UCSC change-for-change's-sake attitude. i hope that the siblings read this.

[rhosyn-du.livejournal.com]

It's not the change I object to. Change is good and necessary for growth. What gets me are the grand, melodramatic gestures made in the name of change that actually accomplish nothing. It's like you've got all these people who will martyr themselves and all these people spouting rhetoric and not one damn person willing to go through the tedious work of actually making changes happen. No one's actually willing to risk anything or give anything up or inconvenience themselves in any way. It's all bravado and posturing, and it makes me sick.

[choose-again.livejournal.com]

yeah. that's what i meant. ;)

[jeliaser.livejournal.com]

"but in doing so demonstrated how small a reason they need to call in riot police on their own students."

I donoo. I'll tell you what, if I'm a cop, and I hear that I'm going to be called out to break up a protest, I get my sheild and my helmet and as much backup as I can. Because protestors get violent. They see that "the establishment" is here to "oppress" them, and they "respond." Usually just with rocks and general unruleyness, but still.

But then again, if I was a cop, I'd want the riot gear all the time.

"Do you know how fast you were going?"
"I'm sorry I was speeding, Mister Officer, but could you maybe get that sheild out of my face?"
"What did you say, punk?" [Lobs tear gas into vehicle.]

And that's why I won't be picking up the family trade.