An interesting debate took place over the last few weeks in the ASUC Senate regarding the end of the tree sitters. It began at the September 10th meeting when Senator Kifah Shah made these remarks:

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe refers to the uprooting of the indigenous Palestinian population’s olive trees as “memoricide.” As the Israeli government displaces Palestinian people, destroys their homes and villages, and uproots their olive tree groves, it expects us to forget. But we will never forget Palestine.

Similarly, we are currently living on stolen Ohlone land, and this past weekend, the oak grove was uprooted. What the oak grove represented was not only an environmental issue, but also a political one. The United States government has yet to apologize for the genocide of 96 million indigenous peoples of the Americas who died from starvation, disease, forced removal, false treaties, reservation systems, and murder.

I am here to ask that we as leaders of this campus acknowledge that the oak grove’s destruction means that we are allowing the University and our student government to participate in memoricide. We are all guilty of turning our backs on the Ohlone people, as well as the other indigenous communities of this land, when we allow the university to bulldoze the oak grove and in its place build a sports facility.

The next week, BCR (Berkeley College Republicans) Senator Tommy Owens offered a response:

So I’m glad that a Senator last week raised the issue of the tree-sitters/lawsuits, because it’s an issue I feel very strongly about. In the interest of time, I will try to keep my announcement brief.

The total cost of this protest, as estimated by the Daily Cal, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $21.5 million — $20 million in construction delays, $1.5 million in security costs. To the pro-tree-sitter Sena­tors and audience members, because you so ardently supported this protest and the financial implications thereof, I’ll be passing around a hat for donations after we adjourn.

The fact is that the tree-sitters made no attempt to include the student body in their quixotic demonstra­tion. Perhaps it’s due to the fact that they were not Cal students themselves. Perhaps it’s due to the heavy influence of recreational substances. Or maybe, just maybe, they didn’t have anybody’s interests at heart but their own.

If we as a Senate value dialogue, we should have a voice in protests occurring on our campus. If we value underprivileged high school students coming to Cal on scholarship, $1.5 million bucks to guard four knuckleheads in a tree is a shameful crime. And if we value the financial health of the University, given the State budget and the national economy, there are 20 million reasons to not support this monstrosity of a publicity stunt.

I yield none of my remaining time

A very interesting point. How can a person who values higher education and believes it to be underfunded also support allowing a protest to continue that eats up vital and limited dollars?