First, it is important to recognize exactly what is being proposed. First of all, the online UC will essentially function as a separate, virtual campus. Any degrees earned will not be from a specific campus. For example, I could not move back to Sacramento and earn my UC Berkeley political science degree from my couch. Furthermore, contrary to what some seem to think, the classes will still be taught by full rank professors and supplemented with GSI contact, exactly as they are now.

So let’s look of the claim by the faculty and graduate student unions, that the quality of a UC degree will be cheapened by the online campus. Upon examination, this argument is ludicrous and those who are promoting it probably shouldn’t be teaching at any UC, online or otherwise, if they actually believe it. The University of California currently has ten campuses and each issues its own degrees. A degree from UC Berkeley is different from a degree from UC Riverside and any employer or graduate school knows it. The online campus presumably would also have its own degrees. The quality of a UC Berkeley or UCLA degree won’t be hampered by the opening of an online university any more than it was diminished by the opening of UC Merced.

The real reason that faculty and graduate students oppose the online university is that they fear it would make them less needed. This may be true – it would seem likely that an online university would need less instructors since a lecture could be viewed by an infinite number of students (though Edley disagrees with this, nothing that instructors would still be needed for grading and answering student questions). While instructors losing jobs certainly is not a good thing, it is important to note that the argument is based on self interest, not concern for students or the institution as a whole.

The other group that has been screaming and howling about the “cyber UC” has been the left wing activist contingent. They claim that it is a furthering of the “privatization” of the UC, the label attached to just about anything they disagree with. The logic behind this claim is a mystery. I suppose the argument might be that they believe the university should demand more money from the legislature instead of looking for other creative sources of revenue. This of course is absurd – even if the legislature was prepared to give more money to the UC system (earth to protesters, they aren’t – that’s supposedly why you are in the streets, remember?) that would be no excuse for the university to not look at other sources of revenue and for ways to cut back.

I am guessing the real motivation behind the activist wing is that they are concerned about the jobs that might be lostand are sticking up for their union buddies. Ultimately however, the university is not a jobs program. Like any other institution, it cannot give people jobs just for the sake of them having jobs. That’s the quickest path to bankruptcy (or actual instead of imagined privatization).

While there are still a lot of details left to be revealed, plans for an online UC should not be derailed by the concerns brought forward so far. Almost exclusively, they seem to show more of a concern for union jobs then the overall health of the institution.

It’s a Cal football tradition. After the band concludes playing its traditional pump up pregame show, it leads the stadium, Cal and visiting fans alike, in a rendition of the national anthem: “And the rockets’ BLUE glare, …, For the land of the freeeeee, and the home of the BEARS!!!” Okay, not quite what Francis Scott Key intended. But it is what many Cal fans, the student section in particular, recite when the Golden Bears prepare to take the field. It is also a feature at basketball games, volleyball, rugby, and any other event where a critical mass of Cal fans are on hand for a rendition of the national anthem.

As an avid Cal fan, this is one tradition that has troubled me ever since I arrived on campus two years ago. It just doesn’t seem right to change the words to the national anthem. My sentiments are not shared by most of my fellow rabid Cal fans, however. They inform me that the alterations are in good taste, and indeed quite patriotic. The fact that we care enough to change the words means that we still care enough about the song to pay attention to it, one said. Another said that it is better to sing an altered version than none at all. Yet another, a pyrotechnic fanatic, informed me that it is likely the rockets Francis Scott Key saw on that fateful September 1814 night in Baltimore were actually blue, not red. Apparently he was colorblind.

I agree that there is no intent to disrespect the nation, the flag, or those who serve it. It’s simply Cal students’ way to have a little fun. However, intending to cause no disrespect doesn’t mean that others may not perceive it as such. I have heard from numerous opposing fans, casual Cal fans, and even some Old Blues who are shocked and offended upon hearing the Cal anthem for the first time. Consider this comment posted on a UCLA message board after last year’s Cal-UCLA game at the Rose Bowl: “I used to actually respect that university [Cal] but after seeing their fans chanting or whatever they were doing that was not singing the national anthem while the rest of the stadium was I have lost most if not all the respect I had for them,” wrote Bruin fan “Ed.”

Keep in mind that this was following a game in which the Bears spanked UCLA 45-26, which included an epic 93 yard touchdown run by Javid Best. It was no surprise that Bruin fans were annoyed. Yet instead of simply being peeved at the Bears for being so much better than his beloved team, Cal fans gave this fan a legitimate reason to attack our university.

But more than that, the alterations ignore the true purpose of the national anthem. It is sung or played at sporting events to remind players, coaches, and spectators of the reason they can play the game in a safe andfree country – our brave men and women in uniform. It is a time for unity, a time for both sides to come together and celebrate our nation and our freedom. It’s a subtle reminder that sporting events are merely entertaining distractions – the truly meaningful competition takes place on battlefields around the world, with much more than a trophy (or an Axe) at stake.

The Star Spangled Banner should never be a Cal spirit song. While seemingly creative and harmless, doing so undermines the one moment of unity among the crowd (unless it is the annual rugby game against the University of British Columbia, in which case all bets are off). The rest of the game will pit the teams and fans against one another – surely the competition can pause for just a minute to honor our country.

On September 11, the ninth anniversary of that terrible day, the Cal Bears will take the field against the Colorado Buffalos. How special would it be if 70,000 Cal and Colorado fans alike could join in a stirring rendition of our nation’s greatest song on that tragic day.

Proposition 13

Another initiative on the ballot, Proposition 13, faces little major opposition and changes the California constitution to ensure that seismic improvements to properties do not trigger a reassessment of the property value for tax purposes.

Proposition 14

Proposition 14 fundamentally changes the way California voters select their representatives in the state legislature and congress. Instead of the present method, where voters from each party select their party nominee to compete in the November general election, the open primary gives every voter the opportunity to vote for any candidate. The top two vote candidates, regardless of party, would then compete in the general election. It was placed on the ballot in February 2009 by the legislature during budget negotiations.

Supporters claim it will lead to more moderate candidates in the general election. “An open primary will help reduce partisanship by letting voters decide the best candidates no matter which party they prefer,” proponents say on their campaign website. Opponents, which include both the Democratic and Republican parties, disagree. “Louisiana has it, and nobody would argue that their politics are more moderate,” UC Berkeley professor Bruce Cain told the San Diego Union Tribune, “Washington has had various versions of it, and nobody would argue that they’re less partisan. I think the whole thing is oversold.” Because it aims to encourage political “moderation”, Prop 14 risks instating unprincipled politicians, who will compromise on core voter issues (such as the 2/3 rule for tax increases). It also means that regions dominated by one party will run the risk of offering voters only two of the same political flavor. Furthermore, in cases where voters overwhelmingly prefer one ideology but policy nuances are important, the open primary will favor whichever party has fewer candidates. For example, a region with 70% of voters, and 6 candidates, from Party A and 30% of voters and 2 candidates from Party B might actually see only Party B’s candidates on the final ballot. This is hardly representative democracy; both Republicans and Democrats have planned to reschedule their primaries to before the open primary would occur, so as to ensure that only the favored candidate receives any support.

Proposition 15

Proposition 15 creates a trial program for public funding in the 2014 and 2018 secretary of state elections. A new tax on lobbyists would fund a program whereby candidates who can show a sufficient level of support through collection of a certain number of small contributions would be entitled to a grant from the state program. They would be prohibited from raising money through other, private sources. “My experience in the Legislature convinced me that we must change the way we finance election campaigns so that elected officials are able to focus ONLY on the needs of the people who elected them, rather than on fundraising from special interests,” wrote State Senator Loni Hancock, a proponent of the measure. However, opponents claim that it is just another scheme to bring taxpayer dollars into elections and won’t really solve special interest problems. “Prop 15 specifically authorizes politicians to continue to ask for money from special interests for things like legal fees, inaugural parties and “officeholder expenses,” Claims the official opposition web page.

Proposition 16

Proposition 16, which would place restrictions on local governments that wish to establish municipal utilities, is heavily funded by the Pacific Gas and Electric company (PG&E). Under the initiative, establishing such a public electrical system would require a two thirds vote of the citizens of the area affected by the proposed switch. Currently, only a simple majority is needed if a vote is even required at all. Since utilities typically have local monopolies, it is largely the threat of competitive pressure that holds rates down; Prop 16 would weaken this pressure. A major source of controversy with this measure has been the extensive funding by PG&E. Thus far, the utility has contributed approximately $30 million to the campaign, according to state records. The company has fought battles with many local governments that wished to separate from the company and form their own electrical grid.

Opponents have thus accused the utility of using the initiative process to secure their private business. “Of all the corporate attempts to hijack the initiative process to serve their bottom-line, nothing is more egregious than Proposition 16,” writes the Manteca Bulletin. Supporters note that because tax increases require a two thirds vote it is only fair that major changes to public utilities that might use taxpayer dollars should have the same requirement. They further note that it is not impossible to receive a two thirds vote. “California voters have consistently supported sound proposals brought before them,” writes former Sacramento County sheriff Lou Blanas in the Modesto Bee. “In fact, between 2002-2008, 286 local special tax and bond measures that required a two-thirds vote were approved.”

Proposition 17

Proposition 17, the final initiative on the ballot, would allow auto insurers to offer customers a discount if they have held continuous coverage with any carrier, not just one. It is being financed primarily by Mercury Insurance. Proponents claim the measure will close loopholes that prevent drivers from keeping a good driver discount if they change carriers. Opponents allege that it will allow rates to increase for those who do not have this continuous coverage.

The affair began in mid-February when members of a fraternity created a Facebook event for a “Compton Cookout” party in honor of Black History Month. Girls were encouraged to dress like “Ghetto Chicks.” “Ghetto chicks usually have gold teeth, start fights and drama, and wear cheap clothes – they consider Baby Phat to be high class and expensive couture,” the invite said, “They also have short, nappy hair, and usually wear cheap weave, usually in bad colors, such as purple or bright red.”

Positive coverage of the event by a student television station led to a strong response from student leaders. Utsav Gupta, president of the UCSD student association, temporarily suspended funding for all student media outlets saying, “We will only open it [the student run station] again when we can be sure that such hateful content can never be aired again on our student funded TV station.”

First Amendment advocates expressed alarm at the funding suspension. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) wrote, “In acting arbitrarily and on the basis of content concerns, Mr. Gupta has demonstrated an alarming misunderstanding of the university’s obligation to uphold the First Amendment when distributing funds to student organizations.” The American Civil Liberties Union also wrote a letter of concern.

The tension was elevated on February 25 when a noose was discovered in the campus library. In response, the Black Student Union (BSU) at UCSD held demonstrations to draw attention to what they see as a pattern of racial intolerance on the campus. On February 26, members of the group held a sit in at the campus administration building for several hours in order to draw attention to a list of demands. The group’s demands were intended to increase minority student representation at the campus. Among them were “We demand [UCSD] Chancellor Fox and the University have mutual respect of the ‘Principles of Community’ and create a precedent of prioritizing students of color and leading by example. We demand that there be repercussions when the “Principles of Community” are blatantly being violated,” and, “We demand the University provide free tutors for the African-American students who seek academic support.”

The protests spread to Berkeley on March 1. Dozens of students dressed in all black – including black cloth over their mouths – blocked Sather Gate for approximately three hours, allowing access only through the sides of the gate where members of the group were distributing leaflets detailing the group’s frustration. “The campus is not a safe space for all students,” senior Lajuanda Asemota told The Daily Californian, “People are often marginalized. People are often silenced throughout the day.”

Student leaders and administrators also voiced their support. “We have zero tolerance for deliberate acts that discriminate or demean others based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other personal characteristic, and know that all UC campuses share that view,” UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau wrote in an e-mail distributed to all students. The ASUC Senate unanimously approved a resolution authored by Senator Huda Adem “to stand in solidarity” with the San Diego Black Student Union’s demands.

At the San Diego campus, tensions continued to increase as a KKK style hood was found on a campus statue of the late children’s book author Dr. Seuss March 1. As of press time, officials are still investigating the incident. The next day, campus police asked the San Diego city attorney to consider whether the previous noose incident constituted a hate crime, according to The San Diego Union Tribune.

The student who left the noose in the library, who described herself as a minority, apologized anonymously in a letter to the student newspaper, The UCSD Guardian. “As a minority student who sympathizes with the students that have been affected by the recent issues on campus, I am distraught to know that I have unintentionally added to their pain.” she wrote. The student claimed the noose was left after friends were playing with some rope and admiring each other’s knotting abilities. She claimed no racist intent but remained suspended from the university.

Campus officials and BSU leaders reached an agreement on March 4 that will require the university to fund efforts to increase the minority population at UCSD, find places to display art representing minority communities, and consider new diversity course requirements for undergraduates. The settlement has sparked a new round of concerns from those who worry that the agreement violates California’s ban on affirmative action in public school admissions. Ward Connerly, a former UC regent who authored the initiative that banned the practice, told The La Jolla Light that he is reviewing the settlement to see if it is within the law.

The governor made the plea in his annual budget proposal, released in January. The state will ask Washington for $6.9 billion in funds it claims are owed from the federal government. “Federal funds must be part of our budget solution because the federal government is part of our budget problem… right now there are discriminatory formulas that force California to subsidize other states. We are asking the federal government to pay us what they owe us,” Schwarzenegger said in a speech.

Members of the state’s congressional delegation were not initially receptive to the request. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who faces a tough re-election campaign this year, disputed the assertion that California has been shortchanged. According to The Sacramento Bee, she released a report that concluded that California actually received more than it sent to the federal government in 2008 and 2009, a result of increased federal stimulus money. “I just wanted to make the case that California is struggling, and we’re helping,” she told the paper.

California’s other senator, Diane Fienstein (D) argued that the problem is not in the nation’s capitol. “It sounds like the governor is looking for someone else to blame for California’s budget. California’s budget crisis was created in Sacramento, not Washington,” she said, “These problems are not going away until there is wholesale reform of the state’s budget process.”

The criticism led to a strong rebuke from the governor. He noted that during the Bush administration many leaders, including Senator Feinstein, had no problem complaining about the underfunding of California. “Members of our delegation rightly castigated the federal government when President Bush was in office because those promises have not been kept,” he wrote in a January 13 letter. “You were right to fight for California then, and we need you to continue fighting for California now.”

However, many analysts predicted that the governor would likely end up with little or none of what he asked for. The nonpartisan legislative analyst reported the chances of the full amount of federal funds arriving as very small. “The Legislature should assume that federal relief will be billions of dollars less than the Governor wants,” the office wrote. The opinion is echoed by most experts, including academics and bond analysts.

Some suggested that the state could expect a higher likelihood of success if it combined forces with other states, making it a request from states in general, not just California. “To win the support of Congress, our governor should be going to Washington arm in arm with the 45 other governors who are also facing shortfalls this year,” said Jean Ross, director of the California Budget Project in the Christian Science Monitor.

Should the state be unsuccessful in attaining federal dollars, Schwarzenegger would likely propose more cuts to state services. Higher education funding could be impacted, which Schwarzenegger declared in his State of the State speech he would prefer not to cut further. HD Palmer, the governor’s finance director, told The Daily Californian that the state may look at decoupling Cal grant awards from UC and CSU tuition increases. Other cuts would likely come from social services and local governments, among other areas. Schwarzenegger has vowed not to increase taxes after doing so in February of 2009. A revised budget will be released by the governor in May, with the legislature required to pass a spending plan by June 15, although the constitutional deadline is routinely missed. The new fiscal year begins July 1.

Recently, however, the professor has engaged in some word play of his own. In recent months, he has criticized the two-thirds vote threshold required in both houses of the legislature to pass a budget or raise taxes. “As I see it, democracy is the main issue in the governance of our state,” he writes in a September 2009 piece on the liberal Web site Truthout. “The two-thirds rules have an anti-democratic effect. Our legislature is currently under minority rule.” To that end, he has authored and is currently collecting signatures for a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to pass a budget and raise taxes by a simple majority vote.

The first problem with Lakoff’s statement is that he assumes the Republicans in the legislature are representing only a small minority of California voters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Proposition 1A, which would have extended temporary tax increases, was defeated at the ballot box in May 2009 by over 30 percentage points and in every single county in the state. More recently, a January Rasmussen poll found that only 28 percent of voters favor tax increases as the best solution to fix the state’s budget woes. Mr. Lakoff’s qualifications as a linguistics professor notwithstanding, 28 percent doesn’t quite fit the definition of majority. But let’s dispense that for a moment and assume that the majority party in the legislature really does represent the views of a majority of Californians. Does the two-thirds vote threshold constitute minority rule, as Lakoff claims? If so, then there are several other things that also must qualify as “minority rule:”

* The rules on cloture in the US Senate. Since Democrats took over the body in 2007 this has been used mostly by Republicans but just before then Democrats used the process to block several of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, as well as many laws, from ever reaching a floor vote.

* Rules on removing an official from office. Removing almost any elected official from an office requires at least a two-thirds vote. Had this been a majority vote, President Clinton could have been removed from office with just six more affirmative votes instead of 22 more.

* The process for amending the US Constitution. This may be the biggest triumph of “minority rule” of all. Not only does it take two-thirds of both houses of Congress, but three-fourths of the states as well.

* The US Constitution itself. The Constitution could not go into effect until it was approved by nine of the thirteen states.

So are these examples of obstructionist “minority will” where a minority can effectively run the state by refusing to provide the votes needed for progress unless their will is implemented (as Lakoff claims is currently the case in California)? Of course not. Each of these cases is a representation of one of the fundamental principles of the American republic: empowering the majority but placing limits on their power to protect minorities.

In order to make sure that important changes and policies are executed wisely and while addressing the concerns of those not in power, certain actions require more than a majority vote. This includes our budget process. Because the annual budget has such far reaching impacts, it is wise that it be held to a higher standard. This is by no means minority rule. If the California legislature were under minority rule, Republican legislators would be actively implementing their agenda. This has not happened and indeed is not possible. Both sides must negotiate to reach a deal that is acceptable to both parties (or at least enough members of both to secure a two-thirds vote).

One can also easily imagine a scenario in which the tables are switched, with Republicans in the majority and Democrats the minority. Just as Republicans in the present scenario have been fighting for their principles, Democrats in this case would likely oppose the majority Republicans to make sure their “progressive” ideas are addressed in the final product. Somehow I imagine that in this case Professor Lakoff’s “minority rule” would quickly turn into “a check on power.”

Californians should reject Professor Lakoff’s proposed amendment, and the professor should avoid baseless rhetoric.

The Nobel Committee summarized Williamson’s work as follows, “According to Williamson’s theory, large private corporations exist primarily because they are efficient.  They are established because they make owners, workers, suppliers, and customers better off than they would be under alternative institutional arrangements. When corporations fail to deliver efficiency gains, their existence will be called in question,” they said, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, “Large corporations may of course abuse their power. They may for instance participate in undesirable political lobbying and exhibit anti-competitive behavior. However, according to Williamson’s analysis, it is advisable to regulate such behavior directly rather than through policies that limit the size of corporations.”
Williamson, 77, had been considered a likely recipient of the prize for several years. Richard Lyons, dean of the Haas School of Business, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the award was “long overdue.”
“[Williamson] had a profound effect on generations of scholars who came after him,” Lyons told the paper. The professor was awakened by a call from the Nobel Committee at 3:30 that morning. His son who was visiting initially answered the call and then passed the phone to his father, who was then told of the news, according to The New York Times. Later in the day, UC Berkeley and the Haas School of Business held a press conference in which Williamson talked to the press about his award, taking the stage to cheers of “Ollie, Ollie!” from his colleagues and students.

“I don’t recognize the fellow that Rich Lyons has been describing,” he said humbly. “Rich describes me as a good teacher. I would describe myself as a conscientious teacher who had a lot of good students that were tolerant.”

Others on campus, however, did recognize that ‘fellow’. “We congratulate Oliver on this well-deserved honor for his groundbreaking work in economics. He takes his place as the fifth Berkeley economics professor to win the Nobel Prize and further continues the remarkable contributions UC Berkeley has made to this field,” said chancellor Robert Birgeneau.

The campus has and continues to celebrate Williamson’s award in a variety of ways. On November 7, he was introduced at a Cal football game to a standing ovation. But perhaps the largest show of gratitude the campus can show Williamson is that legendary privilege which is awarded to all Nobel laureates on campus: their very own guaranteed parking place. “Oh, I plan to receive a copy of that parking permit and put it to good use,” he said.

California state law currently bans using scores to measure teacher’s performance, a position U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called “absurd” and “ridiculous”, according to a July 24, 2009 piece in the Los Angeles Times. “No one in California can tell you which teacher is in which category,” the paper quotes Duncan as saying. “Something is wrong with that picture.”

The administration’s position continues a trend for Obama in supporting merit pay for teachers. Obama supported it during his campaign for the presidency and reiterated his stance in a speech on March 10th of this year to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “From the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is not the color of their skin or the income of their parents, it’s the person standing at the front of the classroom,” he said. Explaining his education plan, Obama said, “New teachers will be mentored by experienced ones. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools.”

The president’s remarks have drawn the ire of teachers unions, however, most of whom supported Obama during the presidential race. “To be perfectly honest, it’s disappointing again,” California Teacher’s Association president David Sanchez told the Sacramento Bee. “Our perception is that it’s more of the same, and that’s not good, because we thought we were going to be able to change something.”

Opponents of evaluating teachers based on test scores claim that it is an incomplete record of the full quality of a teacher, or evidence of student learning. “It takes more than the ability to fill in bubbles to be an educated person,” said California Federation of Teachers president Marty Hittleman in a letter to the Obama administration. Those opposed to the plan also fear that it could lead to students being deprived of skills not needed to pass the test. “The overemphasis on testing does not \ enhance educational quality, but instead will promote schooling that leaves too many of our children underprepared for higher education, unskilled at critical thinking and less engaged in their communities. Parents and business leaders consistently say they want us to develop in students the types of skills least valued in a test-driven educational atmosphere,” write David Cohen and Alex Kajatani, two educators, in a Sacramento Bee editorial.

However, Obama and Governor Schwarzenegger, who also supports merit pay for teachers, have found allies within the state’s minority communities. The Sacramento Bee story featured Alice Huffman, president of the California chapter of the NAACP. “I have watched this for 20 years,” Huffman said. “And I have nieces and nephews that have come out of the public schools that can’t read, can’t write, will never be employable. This is happening right here. … Something profound has to happen. We can’t wait another decade and another decade while people tweak with it.”

The state legislature will meet in special session to decide whether to adopt Obama’s request to implement merit pay, as well as other educational reforms. Obama’s proposal is entitled “Race to the Top” and in addition to using test scores to evaluate teacher performance would also provide money for school reform ideas, such as charter schools and improving low performing schools.

On Saturday, March 28, one of our own fell victim to the rampant violence that plagues Oakland’s streets. UC Berkeley senior Vincent Choi was gunned down outside Dan Sung Sa, a Korean bar on the 2700 block of Telegraph Avenue in Oakland. His death is part of a recent wave of crime in the East Bay that has residents, students and officials concerned about safety.

A political science student, Choi was scheduled to graduate in May. According to Oakland Police and The Daily Californian, Choi and five friends were involved in an altercation with a group of eleven men and women outside the bar, when one member of that group pulled out a gun and opened fire. Choi was fatally shot and died on the scene, while two of his friends, one of whom is also a Cal student, were injured. A grad student instructor who taught Choi, told The Daily Californian that Choi wanted to be a police officer so that he could help people in need.

The murder of Choi came just days after the assassination of four Oakland police officers, and follows a stabbing outside of a fraternity house near the university and a series of sexual assaults on the south side of campus have caused concern among residents and officials. These crimes are part of an increase in the number of high profile crimes that have occurred in the Oakland/Berkeley area in the past several months.

On March 21, two Oakland police officers were killed in East Oakland as they conducted a traffic stop. Shortly thereafter, after receiving a tip from the public, police stormed an apartment building where the suspect, Lovelle Mixon, was hiding. Before he was killed, Mixon killed an additional two officers, including UC Berkeley alumnus Daniel Sakai.

Just two weeks earlier, a UC Berkeley fraternity member was stabbed at the corner of Piedmont Ave and Channing Way. According to bystanders quoted in The Daily Cal, the victim attempted to intervene in an altercation involving a woman and a man who was harassing her.  The stabbing came in the wake of a series of 20 sexual assaults mainly on the Southside of campus. In most cases, a man approached women from behind and attempted to sexually assault them before fleeing in the opposite direction.

Students and residents alike have expressed a heightened concern for safety in the wake of the recent events. UC Berkeley freshman Taylor White told The Daily Cal about the heightened anxiety. “I have friends whose parents are calling and asking them if they’re okay,” she told the paper. “It’s definitely had an impact on our image in a negative way.”

Officials have also expressed concern about the impact recent criminal activity will have on the perception of the region. “I am greatly concerned that there may be a perception that UCPD is not doing enough to protect the safety and well-being of our campus and its members,” Dean of Students Jonathan Pollard told The Daily Californian, adding that he is concerned about the effect it may have on the decisions of students admitted to Cal deciding whether or not to enroll.

Safety was also a key issue during the ASUC elections held on the Berkeley campus during the second week of April. Dani Haber, the Student Action party candidate for External Vice President, which deals with issues outside the direct purview of the campus administration such as safety, supported more emergency call boxes on campus and increasing the number of police officers on foot and bicycle. One of her opponents, Joan Jones of the CalSERVE party, also highlighted safety, though offered few specifics. “Because of recent assaults on and around campus, the ASUC must do everything it can to ensure a safe campus,” she wrote on the party’s website.

But the call for more police presence has not been uniform. Some local residents and activists have complained in the aftermath of the police slayings that police may be part of the problem, not the solution. On the local liberal website Indybay.org, various posters have complained about the activities of police. “Oakland has a very clear publicly supported policy of police containment, implementing an incessant martial law with ever-present SWAT teams and police helicopters circling over neighborhoods daily. California’s prison population is the fourth largest in the entire world and the OPD does everything possible to feed young African men and women from Oakland into that system for their entire lives,” one poster wrote.

Regardless of the reasons for the latest round of criminal activity around UC Berkeley and the East Bay, police urge the public to remain vigilant and for students to take advantage of safety services such as Bear Walk and the night shuttles.
“UCPD encourages everyone to utilize the free safety program and services, such as the BearWalk Night Safety Escort, Owl Service, and the Night Safety Shuttles, and to exercise safety precautions during your travels on and around the campus,” the department wrote in an official release.