It’s really easy to defend the rights of those who you agree with, or who are making reasonable complaints about problems they see. It’s more difficult to stand up for the right to do things you think are wrong.

The stories have been popping up around here. The San Francisco Chronicle, The Berkeley Daily Planet, and The Daily Californian have all covered the story. The account being told by police is:

Some member of the crew team said a racial slur while drunk at a party, and a member of the women’s basketball team heard and told two football players (one who was still on the team, and one who had been dismissed), who then decided to get even by robbing two members of the crew team (who were different from the one who said the slur).

The alleged robbers were charged, of course, and are facing student conduct charges, while the one who was still on the football team was booted. More interestingly is the footnote in all of these stories mentioning that the crew member who said the racial slur was suspended from the crew team and is also facing student conduct charges.

Now, athletic teams have a lot of leeway in disciplinary action and suspending the student, who has not been identified, isn’t particularly surprising. On the other hand, bringing him up on student conduct charges ought to be raising eyebrows all over campus. So far, the only action we know he’s being accused of is saying a racial slur at an off-campus party. So ask yourself:

1) To what extent does the university claim to be able to bring punishments against students for activities that are unrelated to the university?

2) Does saying a racial slur at a drunken party constitute free speech?

Of course, university codes of conduct are typically broad and give the university the authority to do whatever it wants to do, and it does so based on its PR whims. For instance, the answer to question 1) above is:

Student conduct that occurs off University property but within the geographic area immediately adjacent to the campus is subject to the Code. This includes all property bounded by Virginia Street on the north, Shattuck Avenue on the west, and Derby Street on the south. The eastern boundary, as it runs from north to south, is comprised of La Loma Avenue, Gayley Road, Prospect Street (between Orchard Steps and Dwight Way) and Warring Street, and includes property situated along both the east and west sides of said streets.

…

Student conduct that occurs off University property and not within the area described in Geographic Box and Conduct on Other UC Campuses is subject to the Code where it a) adversely affects the health, safety, or security of any member of the University community, or the mission of the University…

The violation in question is most likely claimed to be harassment:

Harassment by a student of any person. For the purposes of these policies, ‘harassment’: (a) is the use, display, or other demonstration of words, gestures, imagery, or physical materials, or the engagement in any form of bodily conduct, on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, alienage, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability, that has the effect of creating a hostile and intimidating environment sufficiently severe or pervasive to substantially impair a reasonable person’s participation in University programs or activities, or use of University facilities; (b) must target a specific person or persons; and (c) must be addressed directly to that person or persons.

Not knowing the circumstances of the party, we don’t know if b) or c) are satisfied, but claiming a drunken crew member at an off-campus party saying a slur “creat[es] a hostile and intimidating environment sufficiently severe or pervasive to substantially impair a reasonable person’s participation in University programs or activities” seems fairly tenuous.

The university’s attempts to claim absolute authority over student lives on- and off-campus, at all times, should be met with a fair amount of pushback on the part of students, but we rarely, if ever, see this. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong in the next few days, but I doubt it. Who wants to defend the guy who says racial slurs?

The courts are no protection, either. Even though universities almost always lose when their codes of conduct are brought to the courts, the costs in time and money of doing so makes it impossible for most students, who are thus forced to live under an illegal set of rules. Administrators openly defy the law because the PR benefits of having students under their thumb vastly outweigh the consequences of eventually having their code of conduct thrown out. Why should they worry about that? The taxpayers will pick up the tab, and they are far more likely to be praised by their peers rather than fired for incompetence.

…keep coming.

You know your four years at Cal aren’t complete until you’ve made Bay Area liberals foam at the mouth. Join the Berkeley College Republicans and Students for McCain as they rally during rush hour on Friday.

If you feel truly alive when enraged liberals curse America, the Republican Party, and John McCain, all while showing you the finger, then, trust me, this event is for you!

…bans conservative ideas.

(Another college campus blocks conservative from speaking.)

So, let’s imagine for a moment that you are a member of a city council that is faced with a serious budget problem. The problem is so serious, you claim, that it is necessary to put not one but two measures on the ballot that would raise taxes to pay for basic city services. So what’s a distressed council to do?

Pay to build a 30 foot sculpture of course! What could be better?

I have mixed feelings about Proposition 8, the measure that would ban gay marriage in California. That said, there is absolutely no excuse for this:

California’s largest teacher’s union has given another $1 million to defeat a Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.
The contribution recorded Tuesday makes the California Teachers Association the largest institutional donor to the No on 8 campaign. CTA also gave $250,000 in August to Equality for All, a coalition of gay advocacy and civil rights groups opposing Proposition 8.

Union spokeswoman Sandra Jackson says CTA’s 800-member policy body voted overwhelmingly to oppose the gay marriage ban. Jackson says the issue concerns educators because “teachers teach the importance of equal rights for all.”

So the fact that teachers talk about a certain subject is now cause for them to have their mandatory union dues used to promote that subject? Really?

If that is the case, then why doesn’t the CTA set up a Nobel prize sort of thing? Give away a few million dollars or so each year to a person who has excelled in a subject that a teacher might potentially talk about. It doesn’t matter if the person has done anything pertaining to education or improving the lives of children, just that they have done something that might be worthy of mention by a teacher.

Why not?

BTW, if I were the No on Prop 8 campaign I would be screaming at CTA right now. Did their spokeswoman not just imply that teachers will talk about gay marriage?

With the election coming up in less than three weeks, it is prudent to remember that not only will we be voting for President and vice president but also on state and local measures. In Berkeley, where practically everything that could possibly be put up to a public vote is, this means a slew of positions and measures will be decided by the voters. Here is a quick summary and analysis of some of the local positions on the ballot. Early next week I will review the local ballot measures.

Berkeley Mayor: In this race, current mayor Tom Bates is seeking a third term against Shirley Dean . From a conservative or even moderate standpoint, neither of these candidates is worth voting for. Both candidates supported the ridiculous tree sitter protest, and Dean even climbed into a tree for a while. That said, at least Dean realizes that Berkeley needs to make its businesses more accessible by improving parking downtown and opposing extended parking meter fees. On the other hand, however, she wants to charge the UC campus more than $12 million dollars more than it does now for use of city serves, an amount the San Francisco Chronicle claims would be much higher than any other public university in the state pays. So in short, Bates and Dean are both typical Berkeley politicians: take your pick.

Berkeley School Board: Two candidates will be elected from incumbent John Selawsky, Beatriz Leyva Cutler, Priscilla Myrick and Toya Groves. Myrick immediately catches the eye as an outsider looking for change and fiscal accountability within the school system. On her website, she decries a lack of oversight and results from Measure AA, a bond measure intended to ensure more classrooms at Berkeley High School. The other candidates do not have a great deal of information to either recommend or detract from them, although Selawsky does evoke some concern due to the high visibility he seems to give his activist related accomplishments, suggesting he would be focused more on world issues than the real issues concerning Berkeley schools.

East Bay Parks Board: Trial lawyer Norman LaForce faces off against Parks Advisory Committee member Whitney Dotson. Both stress expanding and improving access to East Bay Parks. Both also stress their environmentalist backgrounds. No real difference here, though Dotson does seem to have more specific proposals.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge: This race features a rare judicial battle between public interest attorney Dennis Hayashi against deputy district attorney Phil Daly. Both have had long legal careers, with Hayashi specializing in public interest and civil rights law and Daly as a prosecutor. As such, Hayashi is emphasizing equity and Daly public safety. Both have a long slew of endorsements from other local officials and community groups.

In conclusion, not surprisingly, nearly every single one of these candidates is a liberal or worse, which makes it hard for a conservative or even moderate to try to select a candidate. That said, it is still important that everyone, including those of us without a candidate anywhere close to our own ideology, research the candidates and attempt to make a selection. As we have often seen in Berkeley politics, it is certainly true that some liberals are better than others. There are some that will make an honest attempt to govern and pay attention to the local concerns they were elected to address, and there are others who will try to use their position to save the world (see Marine recruiters scandal and anti-Afghanistan war resolution). As voters of any ideology, we ought to promote the former and reject the latter.

So get informed and go vote!

It’s amazing that it’s come to this:

“For a business to display a huge McCain-Palin sign in the middle of such a pro-Democratic and pro-Obama area is business suicide,” Franklin said.

Leave it to Obamaniacs to boycott over a McCain-Palin sign.

I would have kept the sign up.

Come See Wafa Sultan Speak Out!

In an effort to help bring about awareness of the issues surrounding Islamofascism, the Berkeley College Republicans will be hosting Wafa Sultan to speak about Women’s Rights in the Middle East.

Wafa Sultan is a Syrian-American psychiatrist and women’s rights activist who grew up in the Middle East in a devout Muslim family. After witnessing her world-renowned college professor being gunned down and killed by Islamic extremists before her very eyes while in class as a student at the University of Aleppo, Wafa began to question the society she had grown up in.She eventually became a skeptical critic of what she saw as the pervasive “barbarism” which permeated much of her native culture, and determined herself to speak out against the injustice caused by extremism.

In May of 2006, Dr. Sultan was named as one of Time Magazine’s “100 People Who Shape Our World.” Time Magazine states that “Sultan’s influence flows from her willingness to express openly critical views on Islamic extremism that are widely shared but rarely aired by other Muslims.”

To see the interview which brought Wafa Sultan to public attention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niC9WKDrJ-k

*No fliers, banners, posters, or signs will be permitted at the event, and bags may be searched.

In the much awaited vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin started out the evening in a manner that seemed to be heavily scripted, and not always relevant to the question.  Understandably so.  I’d stick to what I had memorized if the eyes of the nation were upon me, waiting for me to slip up.  However, Palin was able to regain her confidence and fire back at Biden during the second half, especially since Biden was not without his own vulnerabilities.  In an apparent attempt to join in the “folksy” identity of Governor Palin, Senator Biden stated that “All you got to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington and go to Katy’s (sp) Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me, where I spend a lot of time…”

Worse for Biden, though, was his declaration that

“…Our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge — the surge principles used in Iraq will not — let me say this again now. Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. Not Joe Biden; our commanding general in Afghanistan. He said we need more troops, we need government building, we need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.”

To which Palin responded:

“Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively that the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country — and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us, for one, and even the geographic differences are huge. But the counterinsurgency principles also could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn’t say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy, going into Afghanistan — clearing, holding, rebuilding the civil society and the infrastructure — can work in Afghanistan. And those leaders who are over there, who have also been advising George Bush on this, have not said anything different but that.”

Admittedly, Palin mistakenly called him General McClellan rather than McKiernan.  However, she was “darn right”.  The facts show that General McKiernan supports the principles of the surge in Iraq, although he doesn’t wish to use the word ‘surge.’  The Global Edition of the New York Times didn’t shy from using the word in the title of their article about McKiernan- “U.S. general urges troop surge in Afghanistan.”  Even NPR.org admits, “So while he doesn’t believe in using the word surge because it resonates of Iraq, he does believe in rushing more troops to Afghanistan — a surge by another name.”

Also interesting was the apparent agreement of Governor Palin and Senator Biden on their policies concerning gay marriage.  Both Palin and Biden stated that while they would certainly support things such as hospital visitation rights and joint ownership of property for gay couples, they are against gay marriage.  I was surprised to hear this. But then, again, I am accustomed to Berkeley.  Perhaps Biden is trying to reach the rest of America? Who knows.

The real question to be pondered, however, is what DOES Biden do in Home Depot when he’s spending so much time there?