1. Supreme Court Hears Case against Campaign Finance Laws

The Supreme Court recently heard Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, a case that might potentially overturn many government restrictions on politically-oriented speech, and Justice Sotomayor’s first case. Chief Justice Roberts expressed hostility to the government’s argument, declaring “we don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats”. Sotomayor, meanwhile, expressed her opinion that corporations have rights under the First Amendment. She also affirmed her strong commitment to stare decisis, upholding precedent on the grounds that past judgments should be followed even when constitutional decisions might be wrong. At the same time, she expressed approval toward deferring to the “democratic process”,
suggesting that she will not be friendly toward liberty in the face of government “reforms”.

2. Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Obama won instant fame – and infamy, even among Democrats – after the announcement that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. The fourth president to win the Prize, he is the first to do so in his first year in office, and also the first to do so without having accomplished anything of importance. Obama himself affirmed that the award was not “a recognition of [his] own accomplishments”. While the Nobel Committee praised Obama for his vision of a nuclear-free world and his speeches on peace, unity, and internationalism, they conveniently ignored his real actions, including – among other things – tariffs on Chinese tires, which indicate his opposition to free trade, and demonstrate that he and the Nobel Committee believe that international goodwill is somehow served by restrictions on voluntary interactions between citizens of different nations. Ironically, immediately after accepting the Peace Prize, he met with military advisers to discuss the deployment of an additional 60,000 troops in Afghanistan.

3. FOX News Host Braves Berkeley

Greg Gutfeld, host of FOX News Channel’s Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, returned to Cal Saturday, October 17, after graduating in 1987. The former editor in chief of Stuff, Men’s Health, and Maxim’s UK edition, Gutfeld encouraged students to get jobs after they graduate and to think of every job as a learning experience that will pay off in the end.

After landing a respectable internship at a leading conservative news magazine upon graduation, Gutfeld claims he was really just the guy running his boss’s errands. But having “never quit a job” in his life, and rather by getting fired each time, Gutfeld now hosts the leading cable news show in the 3AM time slot. Go Bears!

4. Conservative Comedian Targets UC Berkeley

Rising conservative comedian Steven Crowder visited UC Berkeley last month to gauge the political bias (and ignorance) on campus. His results were unsurprising. While students overwhelmingly selected Abraham Lincoln as their favorite president, very few were able to identify the first Republican president’s party affiliation. None of the interviewed students were able to identify the Federal Reserve as the cause of the Great Depression, nor the wartime inflation as its ultimate end, nor even the name of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Students were also filmed asking why rigorous proof was necessary in argument (“It’s like, why prove it? I believe you.”), promoting revisionist history regarding African slave-trading, and politicizing the death of Ted Kennedy. It’s a shame Crowder was unable to find any conservatives to show that we do exist, even in the heart of the Left Coast.

5. Daily Cal Hires Conservative Columnist

Senior Roman Zhuk, 19, currently writes as The Daily Californian’s Wednesday columnist, bringing a much needed and admirably articulate conservative point of view to the campus daily. Although the newspaper has had its share of politically charged liberal columnists, the last and perhaps most laughable being the columnist of Thursday’s print edition this summer, Zhuk’s online column is a refreshing start to a more current, diverse, and interesting Daily Californian. Check out his weekly column featured every Wednesday on the Daily Cal Web site.

In the first weeks of summer, Chancellor Birgeneau sent a mass e-mail to the student body regarding the university’s dire financial straits and his “leadership strategy”. Specifically mentioning the regents’ 9.3% increase in student fees and “other revenue enhancement”, and some unspecified “cost-saving measures”, he went on to say that “units with higher capacity will be asked to take larger cuts than those with lower capacity”, for the sake of “breadth”, with no judgment on the effectiveness or value of either set. And yet he described the policy as “the only rational approach”. The chancellor went on to “be clear as to what we will not entertain”, including “[sacrificing] our commitment to social access: low-income students who have earned a place at Berkeley must be capable of affording a UC Berkeley education” and “[abandoning] our efforts to train and promote a highly skilled and diverse workforce”. In short, Berkeley will be making an open-ended commitment to fully-subsidizing lower-income students, while forcing others to pay at least 10% more to cover that expense, and to “diversity”, at an institution that prides itself on the fact that the majority of its present student population is already some minority.

2. Letterman’s “Creepy Old Man” Look

Perhaps one of the reasons that Sarah Palin needs to protect her family from the spotlight and thus chose to resign is to avoid crude jokes made by late night television host David Letterman. In the Late Show host’s monologue, Governor Palin was referred to as having the style of a “slutty flight attendant.” Letterman then joked, “One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” It was 14-year-old Willow, not Bristol Palin, however, who was at that game. Sarah Barracuda and her husband, Todd, shot back in a statement claiming that Letterman’s comments were “disgusting” and “inappropriate”, and only portray the type of sexual exploitation that society sees towards young women everyday.

3. Tax on Cigarettes a “Common Sense Revenue”

In an op-ed published in the Daily Californian, ASUC Senator Ariel Boone, Cal Berkeley Dems Policy Director Nik Dixit, and Cal Berkeley Dems Magazine Editor Mia Pskowski opine that the state’s recently-passed budget allows for too many “cuts, cuts, cuts” across the board. They claim that legislators “ignored new, common sense revenues which could have offset cuts and improved our outlook”. However, one of only two such “common sense revenues” Ms. Boone, Mr. Dixit, and Ms. Pskowski refer to happen to be additional taxes on cigarettes that would effectively a) raise money and b) reduce smoking. But isn’t such a tax, by design, meant to be a temporary, shrinking revenue source, and thus cannot reasonably serve to balance the costs of ongoing programs? One hopes it is still common sense that taxing something out of existence would make taxing it less profitable in the future.

4. Obama’s Ratings Down after Five Months

With each successive slip up, including the president’s “stupidly” remark, more and more seem to disagree with everything Obama does, but remain transfixed with Obama the man. On June 18, nearly five months after Obama’s inauguration, the Wall Street Journal released an article discussing Obama’s approval numbers – because they’re slipping. Moving past the president’s charisma and charm, two qualities that strongly boosted his number of votes in the presidential elections, Americans are beginning to take notice of how well (or how poorly) Obama can handle the important issues facing the country. Disapproval is already rearing its head on several of Obama’s key decisions – including the stimulus plan, the bailouts of banks and auto companies, and the decision to close Gitmo within the year. A majority of the survey respondents in the article claimed that their primary concern is to keep the budget deficit low, even if that means it takes longer for the economy to recover. In regards to Obama’s healthcare plan, more apparently favored it than opposed it at the time the survey was taken, as they still had yet to see what his plan would bring. Since then, ObamaCare’s met opposition on both sides of the aisle. As for Obama’s nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, overall support for her confirmation is strong, as critics quickly learned it is best not to bring up a Latina’s past, even if she is to be a justice of the Supreme Court.

5. “Truth” Commissions for Berkeley High Students

Responding to “racist incidents on campus” protesters at a Berkeley Board of Education meeting in June demanded more diversity education in Berkeley High’s curriculum, such as mandatory courses in African-American studies and ethnic studies, more black teachers and more diversity training for teachers, according to a Berkeley Daily Planet article. The demands followed on the heels of what some alleged to be incidents of racism committed “by a few white students” either on campus or off. At least one of the alleged incidents happened on Facebook. In language that would make George Orwell cringe, the protesters also called for “truth and reconcilation forums”, or “restorative justice healing circles”, where those accused would be made to face their accusers and the rest of the student body.

6. A New Revolution: Vegetarianism

Lydia Guevara, the granddaughter of Argentine Marxist revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, is following in her grandfather’s footsteps as the icon of another revolution – vegetarianism. The 24-year-old vegetarian poses semi-nude in a PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) ad promoting vegetarianism. In October, Guevara’s ad is expected to debut in magazines and posters first in Argentina, where Che was born, and then
debut internationally. In the ad, Lydia Guevara wears camouflage pants, a red beret, and bandoliers of baby carrots. Guevara’s ad is PETA’s first campaign promoting vegetarianism in South America. PETA spokesman Michael McGraw claims, “We say the best way to save animals is not to eat them.”

Will Smelko, the new president of the Associated Students of the University of California, Berkeley, spoke with Editor-in-Chief Ann Marie Jelacich about his goals for the upcoming year.

California Patriot: What have you been doing this summer in preparing for the upcoming year as ASUC president?

Will Smelko: One of the most important lessons I have learned since taking office is that the downfall of student government usually is caused by getting started too late. Often times, officials do not actually figure out what their major goals are until December or January, and by then it is too late to implement them. I am spending this summer getting a head start on all the work that we will be facing throughout the course of next year. This includes meeting with any and all relevant administrators to get a map of who does what and who we should contact when we need to accomplish things during the year, as well as planning out all our projects and events that we will be putting on. We are also recruiting staff members and doing interviews to build a very large and successful office.

Patriot: How have your views of the office changed (if at all), since obtaining the position?

Smelko: My views of the office have substantially changed since obtaining the position. I used to think it was the role of government to focus mainly on campus wide projects or events. However, I have come to understand the magnitude of my role as being the representational voice of the student body to the campus and outside communities. Berkeley is such an immense and fragmented institution with exciting things going on every day, and it is my duty to try and not miss a beat so that I can be at those meetings and voice the concerns and ideas of the student body.

Patriot: Have you come across any unexpected difficulties with achieving the goals you had while running for office?

Smelko: The first problem is that while we have a lot of great ideas for what we would love to see implemented, like everyone else we are short on the cash to do all the things we want. This problem, however, is pale in comparison to understanding the complexities of structure in the Berkeley universe. Our campus is so decentralized with things occurring on so many different fronts, that it often times becomes difficult to distinguish who deals with what, and where to go to get things done. This is why summer has become so valuable in helping get this knowledge under my belt, so that we can jump right in come fall.

Patriot: What do you realistically think you can accomplish this year as ASUC president?

Smelko: The beauty of the ASUC has also been its major downfall. There are so many opportunities just sitting on our doorstep, and we are in a prime position to have a significant impact on campus policy and student life. However, students have justly witnessed past ASUC administration’s inability to multitask and leaving a lot of these opportunities to waste. Next year we will be organizing programs that foster community and learning outside the classroom, taking up policy initiatives that will improve student life, and enhancing the commercial operations of the ASUC. Our goal is to put students in a position to use innovation to bring new ideas and changes to our student union, projects, and even the way we approach dealing with campus policy.

Patriot: How does your board plan to unify the senate and make effective changes to benefit the student body?

Smelko: The perfect person to help bring unity and efficiency to our student government is Tu Tran, our executive vice president. Tu’s focus has always been on tangible action items we can deliver for students and it is my belief that when we focus on the actual work at hand we tend to ditch all the unnecessary bickering that accompanies senseless political battles. Tu has a lot of great ideas for improving the meetings themselves, but the most important aspect to bringing unity is the tone we set about why we are here. When we truly understand that the ASUC’s job is to serve the student body instead of ourselves or our own political affiliations, we tend to get a lot more done and everyone (including the student body) is happier in the process.

Patriot: Do you have anything that you would like to say to the Cal students going into the year?

Smelko: I would just ask that students do their part to remain committed and informed. The ASUC is an association of the entire student body, and as such we are only as strong as the students we are comprised of. This doesn’t mean everyone has to take up work in an office, but even if you just take the due diligence to find out more about how buying books at our student store benefits the students financially, or about how encouraging faculty to list their textbooks for the upcoming semester early could save you millions of dollars in textbook costs, you are doing your part to benefit not just the ASUC, but your university, yourself, and your fellow students. Thank you and I look forward to a very exciting year!

In June, the Honduran military took arms against its sitting president, Manuel Zelaya. The move has been decried by most countries, the UN, the Organization of American States (OAS), and international media as a “right-wing coup”, a direct assault on Honduran political freedom and a destabilizing influence in Latin America. Meanwhile, military leaders, the Honduran supreme court, the Honduran legislature, and even many in the Honduran public, have been vocal in their support of the president’s exile. Where does the US stand in all this, how does it, or should it, pass judgment, and what role does the US have?

First, some questions. What preceded the military’s actions? Was it a coup? Is it a threat to rule of law or stability in the area? Dropping any of this context invalidates any answer to these vital questions.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya had been continuously attempting a referendum that would allow for his re-election, which violates the Honduran constitution and had been declared illegal by the Honduran congress, supreme court, attorney general, and electoral tribunal. Zelaya did not even have the backing of his own party, nevermind the public at large, so he unilaterally proceeded with his plans, and had the ballots delivered from Venezuela. The Honduran military, ordered by Zelaya to distribute the election materials, refused to comply and sided instead with the supreme court. Its army chief, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, was subsequently fired, prompting the resignation of all leading army officers and the defense minister. The supreme court ordered Velasquez’s reinstatement; Zelaya refused and led a mob in a raid on a military base that had election materials. The military simply enforced the court’s orders that Velasquez be reinstated and that the referendum attempt cease. This was necessary because the Honduran constitution does not allow for a civilian process such as impeachment.

The “coup” was thus merely the enforcement of a supreme court decision, based strictly on the Honduran constitution, and affirmed by the congress, attorney general, and the Honduran public. And to its credit, it immediately restored authority to the president of the congress, as specified by the constitution. It did, however, violate the Honduran constitution in a somewhat smaller matter, which prohibits expatriation of any Honduran citizen. The military has acknowledged this fact, but defended its actions by asserting that they were trying to avoid bloodshed. Regardless, a coup “is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment”, and this was fully sanctioned by the Honduran legal system.

The fact that this “coup” was legally valid clearly demonstrates that the military’s actions, as such, do not threaten rule of law, but in fact support it. The OAS, which is composed primarily of states that rely heavily on Venezuela’s oil, are pliable when it comes to Hugo Chavez’s political pressures. The OAS has repeatedly dismissed its members’ violations of its democratic charter, and combined with the fact that Zelaya is a close ally of Chavez, the OAS’s condemnation of the military’s intervention is unsurprising, if not predictable. As if this weren’t enough, confiscated computers had certifications of the election results – for an election that never happened. It’s somewhat difficult to portray the exposure of fraud in an unconstitutional referendum as a threat to rule of law.

The UN, meanwhile, has condemned the Honduran military’s actions, its criticism stemming primarily from the fact that the military was necessary to execute the court’s decision. It is just that criticism that does pose a real threat to rule of law, for both Honduras and other countries. The events have put some pressure on political leaders across the world, particularly the current administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered a mild condemnation of the Honduran military, which was escalated by President Obama, who demanded that Zelaya be reinstated, contrary to the Honduran legal system and the popular opinion of its citizens. It has put the administration in a bit of a bind, offering public support for a dictator, Hugo Chavez, who has stifled political and economic freedom in his own country and supported the same around the world. The Obama administration has also condemned a legitimate legal procedure, and has thus come out against rule of law. Republicans, meanwhile, have been confronted with a harsh choice: stand with Obama and negate their declared political principles posturing illegitimately as defenders of liberty, or affirm their commitment to “free minds, free markets, and free people” while supporting what appears on the surface to be an unjustifiable coup against a legitimate political figure. In either case, they will have a lot of explaining to do in the coming months – as will the Democrats.

WHERE TO EAT

General guidelines: Berkeley is a unique place. It has many unique places to eat. Generally speaking, some will make you sick. But be assured, just as humanity has overcome the challenge of discovering which mushrooms are edible and which will turn your insides to jelly, you’re intestines will ultimately guide you.

If you’re used to popular American restaurant brands, you’re out of luck. Berkeley values ethnic or regional cuisine so the closest you’ll get to McDonald’s on Southside is Chipotle. Even the burger joint, Bongo Burger, is a Persian restaurant. But don’t let that stop you from trying their lamb Persian burger. Southside’s Durant Food Court, affectionately referred to as the “Asian Ghetto” by students, includes a variety of options like Mandarin House, Thai Basil, and the Korean BBQ known as Steve’s.

On Northside you’ll probably enjoy quieter surroundings but you will still have a quieter version of Southside’s “Asian Ghetto”. To the west of Cal is downtown Berkeley where McDonald’s fends off an onslaught of food snobbery with the support of the city’s high school students and homeless who know cheap and efficient food when they see it.
For your benefit, we have compiled a list of acceptable – though not guaranteed – places to eat.

For studying, we suggest Strada on the corner of College and Bancroft. Offering free Internet access and a pleasant ambience, it has managed to stay in business all these years selling overpriced lattes and hot apple ciders to college students.

Once every four years, give Adagia, Henry’s, or Venezia a try. They’re expensive, but perhaps the only places in Berkeley you’re parents will enjoy. For dating, plan to go someplace in San Francisco, Emeryville, Albany, Oakland, Piedmont…

ON THE STREETS

Unlike Oakland street people, Berkeley’s street people are crazy, not dangerous. So when a man is screaming and seems like he’s about to stab someone, there’s a decent chance that’s not the case. They’re probably the best of friends.

Berkeley keeps the homeless around kind of like pets. Residents seem to want them around, but never really want to deal with them or treat them like normal people. In fact, they compete with each other for attention as they beg for change.

Keeping safety in mind, it is important to wander when on the streets of Berkeley. You’ll probably never meet most of the people you see, or even say Hi, but if you’re hot enough, you’ll probably get creepy looks and compliments like, “You’d look great in a dress,” from random hobos.
Ladies, on the other hand, may have to get used to buying their own drinks.

MANAGING YOUR MONEY

For many students, college is the first time they have independent control over their finances. But don’t worry; we can help you handle this new responsibility with some techniques we’ve learned over the years. One trick, so secret that not even the state’s most powerful officials are familiar with it, is to spend less money than you make. This simple first step will help ensure that you aren’t paying your bills with IOUs in the near future.

If you’re from out of state, get a CA driver’s license and express your deep, heartfelt desire to remain a contributing member of the California community in order to establish residency for tuition purposes. At the same time, be sure to make plans to flee the state before you start earning a taxable income.

Also, don’t feel bad that your rent is three times as high as it might be in a comparable city. You can take comfort in the knowledge that rent control ensures that your high rent helps subsidize the cheap housing of the old man down the hall who’s been living there since before you were born. Instead, learn to cut back in other places. For instance, buying books is for people without pushover friends who they can just borrow from whenever they feel like it, and modern technology has allowed us to put all necessary nutrients in inexpensive and convenient ramen noodle form.

GETTING BY ON CAMPUS

You’ll quickly learn “Republican” and “conservative” are four letter words around here. As such, it is sometimes useful to know when and where to mention that you are one – and when not to. For example, when your professor puts up a graph depicting the national surplus during Clinton’s term in office and the national deficit from Bush’s years as president, and barely manages to control himself as the rest of the lecture hall erupts with laughter, it’s probably not a great time to bring up the fact that the deficit has been quadrupled under Obama. Alternatively, when the university fails to fly the American flag at half-staff on September 11, it’ll be up to you to remind the administration to fix it.

Just remember there are strict rules of etiquette enforced
entirely through passive-aggressive behavior by fellow students. When you need to study, the libraries can be a great place for getting work done, as long as you don’t mind the occasional nude run.

And there you have it! All you need to know about surviving Berkeley. Go Bears!

1.    UC Fees to Rise 10%

UC students will likely face fee increase of almost 10% and employees may be laid off; however, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has said that he’s unwilling to take a pay cut himself. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the chancellor

currently makes $436,800 a year, plus “a generous package of benefits.” The chancellor told the Chronicle, “Obviously [salary reductions for top administrators] is one of the things that we have considered. Further reductions of senior administrators’ salaries would make us less able to compete with other universities … seriously damaging our ability to attract outstanding people.” Not all administrators are so selfish. Frank Yeary, a vice chancellor, has opted to forgo his $200,000-a-year salary. The fee increase has been designed with the Communist slogan “from each according to his abilities” in mind. Families earning more than $100,000 would see fees rise by 9.3%. Families earning from $60,000 to $100,000 would face an increase of 4.65 percent, while those earning less than $60,000 would not be subject to any increase. The UC regents have approved the increased fees for the summer secession, and are expected to vote in May to extend the increase to the 2009-2010 academic year.

2.    UC Officials: What Recession?

Chancellor Birgeneau isn’t the only UC official making big bucks during the recession. Despite the economic crisis, in March the UC regents added more senior administrators to the university’s already bloated bureaucracy, hiring two executives with salaries greater than $350,000 a year. At the same time the regents authorized two former chancellors to take paid administrative leaves; according to the San Francisco Chronicle, one will receive $315,000 a year while the other makes off with a whopping $402,200 annually! Over the past several months, the regents have given pay raises of up to 22.3 percent to a half dozen senior administrators, the Chronicle reported. Paul Schwartz, a spokesman for the UC Office of the President, said the sky rocketing salaries should be viewed in the context of “a pay freeze for existing senior staff, restrictions on travel, and a host of other cost-cutting measures here and on every UC campus.” Anyone who’s been in a crumbling, overcrowded campus building knows there certainly are cost-cutting measures in place. The university’s statement is loud and clear: students should pay up while UC fat cats make off like Somali pirates.

3.    State Sales Tax Spikes

Many Californians felt like fools on April 1st, when they learned that state sales tax had increased by one percent; however, the higher tax rate is no joke. California state sales tax is now six cents on the dollar, although local sales taxes mean that the average Californian pays 8.95 percent on most purchases. In the Bay Area, sales tax rates are even higher and, if Oakland officials have their way, the regional will continue to be the tax leader in the state. In what we can only assume is an attempt to make Oakland the worst place to live in California, Oakland City Councilwoman Jean Quan proposed asking voters to raise the sales tax to 10.25 percent. Currently, sales tax in Oakland is a whopping 9.75 percent; Berkeley residents pay the same sky-high rate. If the proposed sales tax increase is approved, Oakland would tie for the highest sales tax rates in the state. If rampant violence wasn’t enough of a reason for shoppers to avoid Oakland, a higher tax should do the trick and kill of any businesses left in the city.

4.    Terrorists Strike Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center

On the eve of the six-year anniversary of the Iraq war, the windows of the Marine Recruiting Center in Berkeley were broken and splattered with red paint (or pink, depending on the lighting). Although the perpetrators have yet to be brought to justice, the Iraq war anniversary was celebrated the next day by antiwar activists Code Pink and World Can’t Wait. We can’t help but wonder why the anti-military forces aren’t targeting the one man who has authority to stop the war—Commander in Chief Barack Obama. In the past Code Pink never hesitated to call out President Bush, even as they misdirected their anger at the Marine Recruiting Center which has no power to shape defense policy. If these vandals and criminals care about ending the war, they should direct their protest at the president using slightly more legal avenues to express their opinions. If instead they choose to intimidate the Marines with acts of violence, they should be treated as the terrorists that they are.

5.    Barbara Lee Chills with Castro

Oakland is in crisis. Recently four police officers and a UC student were slain on its violence-plagued streets (see the news section for our coverage of these horrific events). In the midst of these tragedies, one might ask what are Oakland’s elected officials doing to bring an end to the bloodshed. Oakland’s Democratic Representative Barbara Lee was soaking up the sun on an exclusive Caribbean island—Cuba. That’s right, Rep. Lee violated the embargo to travel to Communist Cuba and was hosted by none other than Fidel Castro himself. The Oakland liberal came away impressed with the Communist country: “There were no barricades, but beautiful plants and trees,” Lee told the San Francisco Chronicle. We’re glad Rep. Lee enjoyed her trip—we only wish she could have stayed longer. Since this Commie-loving liberal isn’t doing anything to end the violence in her own city, she might as well retire to the worker’s paradise that is Cuba. Of course, maybe we’re just mad that she didn’t bring us back any Cuban cigars.

6.    ASUC on the Brink of Bankruptcy

The ASUC recently rejected a proposal that would have allowed fast-food chain Panda Express to open a restaurant on campus in a move that may do more than just deprive Cal students of cheap, tasty food. According to ASUC Auxiliary Director Nadesan Permaul the deal with Panda Express is necessary to keep the auxiliary fiscally afloat. The auxiliary is currently facing a $200,000 deficit, according The Daily Californian. According to Jan Crowder, director of student affairs, the ASUC is itself on the brink of insolvency and the deal with Panda Express would have been a way for the organization to regain financial stability. “I am extremely concerned about the possibility of falling prey again to the circumstances that led the ASUC to a $6 million deficit and near bankruptcy in 1998,” Crowder told The Daily Cal. “If ASUC does not enter into a contract with Panda Express, it will not have other options available to stay afloat.” This is just the latest example of the ASUC taking an ideological stance instead of deciding in the best interests of the students. On second thought, maybe this item doesn’t belong on this list—would it really be so bad for the ASUC to go bankrupt?

The 21-month-long Oak Grove tree sit that began in December 2006 finally came to an end on September 9, 2008. In opposition to the development of the Student-Athlete High Performance Center, whose construction requires the removal of 42 Oak Grove trees, hundreds of protesters occupied the oak trees while court battles regarding the construction proceeded in the community. Despite Alameda County’s permission for the university to take any necessary action to forbid the tree sit, several tree sitters still remained, eventually occupying only one tree by Summer 2008. In early Fall 2008, after further rulings by Alameda County and the California Court of Appeals in favor of the University, a tree service began cutting down all of the trees, except the one that was still occupied. After much negotiation, the police were eventually able to persuade the tree sitters to voluntarily come down from the tree, and the last tree was cut down later that day. The last four protesters were charged with contempt of court for violating Judge Keller of the Alameda County Superior Court’s order forbidding the tree sit. Two of these protesters were sentenced to 5 days in jail, another was able to serve his time in jail while waiting for a hearing on an unrelated misdemeanor charge, and the last protester was given credit for time served while awaiting trial. The remaining protesters were given 50 hours of community service.

Code Pink Quits, Protests Continue

There is no doubt that Code Pink made its mark in Berkeley by infamously protesting the opening of the Berkeley Marine Recruiting Center for an entire year. In an effort to close down the Recruiting Center, the members of Code Pink spent every Wednesday standing outside the building, holding their anti-war signs and repeating their peace-reflecting chants. Various groups, including the Berkeley College Republicans and local veteran organizations, often stood across the street from Code Pink and counter protested the group’s cause.  In February 2008, the Berkeley City Council granted Code Pink six months of sound permits and a parking spot directly in front of the Marine Recruiting Center to continue their weekly protests, which began in September 2007. Putting the Berkeley City Council in the spotlight, these permits were later said to be a “mistake” by Berkeley City Mayor Tom Bates. By October 2008, the attention, along with the members and funding of Code Pink, died down, and the protests came to an end. With the Recruiting Center’s victory, everyone thought Code Pink had reached a stopping point. On March 18, however, a number of unidentified people vandalized the building by smashing windows and spraying red paint across the front of the center. Even though the vandalism occurred on the eve of the Iraq War’s 6th anniversary, it is unknown whether the incident is related to the past protests. Code Pink claims that the group has nothing to do with the vandalism that occurred, as they do not condone violence, but understands the frustration that people may have with the Recruiting Center. There have recently been several protests outside the center regarding the U.S. military policy in the Middle East. With the seemingly endless anger that people have towards the our troops, it is unknown when the protests will stop.

Anti-Israel Students Recall Senator

The Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC, pronounced “A suck”) put its reputation as student government into question when it decided to hold recall elections for former ASUC Senator John Moghtader. Several months ago, when Moghtader and two others asked the Students for Justice in Palestine group to take down their flag at a concert on Lower Sproul, a physical fight ensued, of which Moghtader was not a part. Even though there is video evidence that Moghtader was completely removed from the fight, the recall supporters wanted to use the claim that he was involved as a reason for his recall. Another important reason behind the recall is Moghtader’s pro-Israel position: his effectiveness and legitimacy as an ASUC Senator began to be questioned by the recall supporters who have opposing views regarding the issue of Israel and Palestine, even though Moghtader has never imposed his views on the Senate and supports all student groups equally. At the cost of $20,000, the recall was supported by 72% of the student voters (a fraction of the total student population, since most don’t care enough to vote) . As Moghtader’s removal of ASUC office was made official at the Senate meeting on Wednesday, April 15th, Moghtader was replaced by Marcus Caimi, a Student Action runner-up in last year’s general elections. The ASUC’s ability to jump to conclusions and not fully examine or investigate the issue has lead to an unnecessary recall that many would describe as injustice.

Students Swarm Sproul…to respectfully listen to their government

In yesteryear, angry students used to gather on Sproul and demand their government’s attention…on January 20, 2009, they gathered there to listen. UC Berkeley held a screening of the Inauguration of President Obama on the steps of Sproul Plaza, where more than 10,000 students, faculty, Berkeley residents, and local Berkeley elementary school students viewed the ceremony and welcoming of the nation’s 44th President. One of the biggest crowds on Sproul Plaza that the campus has ever seen, the viewers were very excited to witness Obama’s historic Oath of office and shared a strong sense of unification and patriotism in supporting the new President.

Dear Readers,
Have a great summer. See you next year.
-the staff of the Patriot

In March, the university announced that the department would be reorganized as part of the Institute of International Studies, headed by a director instead of a dean. Curiously, that means that the current deanship, under which Professor Roy serves as associate dean of academic affairs, will be dissolved and effectively replaced by the directorship of the IIS.

When Executive Vice Chancellor George Breslauer announced to the student body that the university had decided to restructure and cut funding for the International and Area Studies Department, students and teachers alike organized in protest. Chief among them was Roy.

In an op-ed to The Daily Californian, Roy disagreed with the university’s claims that the changes were made with sufficient consultation with IAS administrators like her, and argued that the claims of cost-savings by the university were probably untrue. She also argued in favor of having a deanship rather than a directorship, citing the importance of having an administrative position devoted mostly to representing students and faculty when it comes to dealing with the demands of the more powerful university administrators at California Hall.

But by Roy’s own reasoning, isn’t that exactly where the current deanship failed? If Roy is right—that the dean protects the interests of the IAS Department—then it wouldn’t be necessary for professors like her to go public in opposing the administration’s decisions by writing to student newspapers and rallying students to their side.

In addition to Roy’s op-ed in The Daily Californian citing her reasons for opposing the restructuring, the newspaper’s editorial board was quick to come out in favor of “transparency.” Likewise, every student-written article since has hinged on that notion.
In the weeks that followed the ignition of the IAS restructuring controversy, more than 1,300 students and faculty signed a petition opposing the changes and calling for more transparency. A group called the IAS Coalition formed in response to the university’s decision and has since written several pieces calling for little more than “transparency” and complaining about the inefficient campus bureaucracy that has deterred them from making appointments with the chancellor himself.

Ironically, the IAS Coalition’s attempts to “Declare a moratorium on restructuring of the IASTP” and “Hold open meetings for public comment and discussion with stakeholders”, if they achieve anything, will significantly slow down that already frustratingly inefficient bureaucracy.

We’re all for transparency. But as Breslauer stated in his op-ed to The Daily Cal, “‘Consultation’ does not mean taking a binding vote among all stakeholders, and ‘transparency’ does not mean making all decisions in public. The role of senior administrators is to consult, to make the hard choices that are within their jurisdiction, and then to explain their rationale publicly.” Indeed, it is not the responsibility of students to ensure that they are receiving an adequate education; it is the responsibility of university administrators and instructors.

We at the Patriot are all in favor of students taking an active interest in the decision-making of university administrators, and even of protesting when protest is due. But in the case of the recent controversy over the reorganizing of the IAS Department, we do not yet see why students should care enough to see that the chancellor sits down with 40 different IAS Coalition protesters. Sure, it’s great for dramatic effect, but for what other purpose than that?

In one of the more recent op-eds on the subject, the situation seems to have boiled down to one where students simply don’t know exactly what’s going on or why exactly Professor Roy is so displeased. Transparency—or lack thereof—undoubtedly remains the main issue for students. But taking into consideration the overwhelming lack of specific grievances other than there being a perceived “lack of transparency,” the real reason for all the protesting, indignation, and opinion writing seems to have more to do with Ananya Roy leaving Berkeley, and less to do with the actual decisions made by the administration.

Roy has claimed to be most dismayed by the impact that the new changes will have on the IAS Teaching Program—the program that supposedly serves thousands of students both within the department and university-wide and that played a key role in establishing her Global Poverty and Practice minor. Yet little to no specific reasons have been pointed out as to how the Teaching Program would suffer as a result of the changes.

Those who are skeptical of the wide-spread opposition to the proposed changes say the move could be indicative of the university’s trend toward more financial independence. The administration has estimated the changes will result in at least $250,000 in savings to the university annually, in addition to making the division more accessible to researchers and alternative funding. Also, some believe much of the opposition to be based on a prevailing fear of academic diversity. Some would like to see alternative points of view regarding “global poverty,” “political economies of industrial societies,” and “peace and conflict” (all three currently being offered as academic concentrations by the department) while others would prefer to keep classes ideologically monochromatic.

Why all the flak then from Professor Roy and her students? Does anyone know? Perhaps it is time for Professor Roy to elaborate and for students to reserve their protests for issues they know more about and administrative missteps that are slightly more egregious than “the lack of transparency.” Transparency, after all, comes from the full disclosure of both sides.