The crisis was followed immediately by an outpouring of humanitarian aid from across the globe, leading to the dispatch of medical teams to the nation as well as vast sums of monetary donations. The United Nations initiated an emergency phase of relief that ended on January 22nd, along with an extensive search for survivors. Such dilemmas are not new to Haiti, which experienced 3 hurricanes in the summer of 2008 alone.

Though aid was provided from around the world, these efforts faced many obstacles. As Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, emergency services were proven to be unable to handle a disaster of this magnitude. Very few hospitals were left standing following the quake, causing the Argentine military field hospital to be the only one available the day the earthquake occurred. Doctors Without Borders, which has played a key role in relief efforts, reported that medical facilities were so flooded with the injured that many swift amputations were forced to take place. Furthermore, the limited amount of medical supplies led to crude reinforcements including cardboard splints and frequently reused latex gloves. The amount of injured citizens was such that nearly 20,000 Haitians died each day who would have been saved by surgery, had sufficient medical facilities been in place.

An unfortunate complication of relief efforts was that most of Haiti’s communication and transportation systems were destroyed by the quake, making such efforts significantly less effective. Air traffic became thoroughly congested, as were the capital’s morgues that had no choice but to bury tens of thousands of bodies in mass graves. US traffic controllers handled this by assuming control at the Toussaint L’Ouverture International Airport, making sure that planes equipped with emergency medical supplies could not leave the country. These complications were met with confusion over who was in charge, followed by violence from injured survivors who felt that aid was not properly distributed. Aid workers from the region took issue with US dispatched workers, who were accused of letting a number of relief trucks remain unused at the airport. In response to these and other disagreements, US officials as well as Haitian president Preval acknowledged that diplomatic cooperation is central to guide the nation toward recovery.

While there were many complications along the way, Haiti received a remarkable amount of international assistance. In the two days following the quake, over 20 countries dispatched military personnel to the nation to provide medical care and search for survivors. After arriving at maximum possible speed on January 15th, the USS Carl Vinson super carrier delivered 600,000 emergency food rations, 1 million liters of water, and 19 helicopters for victim recovery. These helicopters became essential in the distribution of these rations, as the damage from the quake made many areas inaccessible by land. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Haiti on January 16th to survey the damage, and announced that the U.S. had raised $48 million in relief aid. Two days before, President Obama pledged $100 million to the nation, stating that the victims of the disaster “will not be forgotten”. The European Union was another key contributor, promising $474 million in long-term aid. Recognizing that crowding was a source of much hindrance of relief efforts,

President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal allowed Haitians access to free Senegalese land. The positive response to this may lead to an entire region being allocated for this purpose. In addition to immediate fiscal contributions, corporations including Coca Cola and AT&T instated donation strategies that allowed consumers to donate digitally from around the world at the click of a button.

Though the emergency phase of relief efforts has concluded, Haiti is nowhere near the end of its ordeal. The damage of the quake was such that the economy will take years to fully recover. Trade and Industry Minister Josseline Colimon Fethiere predicted that 1 in 5 jobs would be lost, while many citizens will need continued medical care for serious injuries. As Vice President Joe Biden explained, President Obama “does not view this as a humanitarian mission with a life cycle of a month. This will still be on our radar screen long after it’s off the crawler at CNN. This is going to be a long slog.”

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.

A previous college student in Britain and the son of a top Nigerian banker, Abdulmutallab claims to be tied to al Qaeda and to have received training and instructions from al Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Abdulmutallab had sewn a part of the explosive device to his underwear, where airport security would surely not check. As the flight began to descend toward Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Abdulmutallab set off the device, which initiated a spark instead of an explosion. Abdulmutallab was treated for burns at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

President Obama was on his Christmas holiday in Hawaii when he was briefed about the attack. In his first public comment after the incident, he said that he directed his national security team to “keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country.” Three days after the terror attempt, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility, saying the assault was in retaliation for alleged US attacks on Yemeni soil. In a message written in Arabic, which was published on radical Islamist Web sites three days after the scare, the group claimed that it tested a “new kind of explosives” and hailed the fact that the explosives “passed through security.” Still yet to be determined valid, the message additionally clarified that the bomb failed to explode due to a technical problem.

An analysis of the bombing device showed that it contained PETN, a high explosive also known as pentaerythritol. PETN is frequently used in military explosives and is popular among terrorists because it is small and powerful. The analysis found that the amount of explosive was sufficient to blow a hole in the aircraft.

Abdulmutallab’s father’s warning to US officials about his concerns of his son’s religious beliefs provided no grounds to place Abdulmutallab on the “no-fly list” or to revoke his visa to visit the US. Abdulmutallab was placed on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment database, which includes people with known or suspected ties to a terrorist organization. This list, however, does not prohibit a person from boarding a US-bound airplane.

The last time someone tried to blow up an airplane at Christmas time, the bomb was planted in the suspect’s sneakers. From that day on, all passengers have been required to remove their shoes every time they fly. This solution, however, did not work in the case of Abdulmutallab, as he managed to pass through security with the bomb in his underwear. Airport security focuses very little on people individually, as most of their attention is directed towards what they carry. Focusing attention on individuals, however, leads to a question of racial profiling.

A tense debate about racial profiling, which terrorism experts claim will stop terrorist attacks, developed shortly after the Christmas Day debacle. Many people were left wondering if profiling would have stopped Abdulmutallab from boarding the Northwest flight. Executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and former journalist, Steven Emerson, supports using racial or religious profiling as an aspect of the screening process, calling it “smart screening.” On the other hand, former FBI agent and American Civil Liberties adviser Michael German calls this kind of screening “ineffective and unconstitutional.” Saying that “terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, all nationalities,” German claims that racial profiling could in fact encourage terrorism, as racism is one of the aspects that trigger terrorists. Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, supports German’s take on the issue and states racial and religious profiling to be counterproductive and to “lead to a climate of insecurity and fear.”

We have yet to see what kinds of measures airport security is willing to take to work towards a competent method of safety. Until then, we can only hope that our current approach and improved knowledge of terror mechanisms will prevent such an occurrence from happening again.

Just days after Californians cast their votes, opponents of Proposition 8 filed several lawsuits against the state’s marriage registrar, arguing that the content of Proposition 8 represents a revision rather than an amendment to the Constitution. Under California law, a revision to the Constitution requires a vote in both legislative assemblies and a 2/3 majority in a statewide election, whereas an amendment can be passed by a simple majority vote on a ballot initiative. In May of 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment in a 6-1 vote. The majority opinion found no grounds to overturn the will of the voters, who are granted the almost unfettered right to alter the state’s Constitution.

Since May 2009, Proposition 8 opponents have taken their case to federal courts. Three separate lawsuits filed by gay couples seeking to marry in California have been merged into one case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The trial phase, which began on January 11, 2010, took place in the US District Court located in San Francisco. The case is currently under review by Judge Vaughn Walker, who is expected to deliberate after several weeks of reviewing the case.

Proposition 8’s opponents are now challenging the amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to equal protection under the law. Under current California law, gay couples can enter into a domestic partnership, which grants them most, but not all of the benefits afforded to married couples. For example, domestic partnerships do not entitle a partner of a state worker to the same long-term insurance benefits given to spouses of state workers. Additionally, at least one party must be over the age of 62.

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the unlikely duo of Ted Olson and David Boies, the two lawyers who opposed each other in the famous Bush v. Gore case of late 2000. Olson, a prominent conservative, offered to represent a gay couple shortly after the election. He believes that his background as Solicitor General to President George W. Bush lends bipartisan credibility to the legal team.

Olson and Boies face a two-fold task. First, they must reaffirm that marriage is a fundamental right, applying equally to all citizens. In the past, the court has held marriage to be a fundamental right. In Loving v. Virginia, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional, calling marriage a “basic civil right”. However, the ruling has not traditionally extended to the right to marry anyone, that is, members of one’s family, multiple partners, or members of the same sex.

The second task facing the Olson-Boies team is persuading the court that gays belong to a “protected class.” Protected classes include members of an ethnic or racial minority, religion, gender and other historically sensitive characteristics. To date, no federal court has established a precedent of recognizing gays as a protected class. If Olson and Boies can convince Judge Walker that gays are, in fact, a protected class, then the court would have to apply “strict scrutiny” to the issue of discrimination in the country. Under that standard, the law must be closely tailored to addressing a compelling governmental interest. If no suspect class is involved, then a state requires only a rational basis for passing a law.

To make their case, Olson and Boies called witnesses to testify on the underlying sentiments behind voter support of Proposition 8. If they can convince the court that support was heavily grounded in anti-gay prejudice, then gays could potentially be considered a protected class, and Proposition 8 will be subject to strict scrutiny. Additionally, several experts on the history of marriage, and on the potential economic and psychological consequences of the amendment all testified on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The defense seemed confident that their side had persuasively argued the State’s interest in recognizing only opposite-sex marriage. “We say that the central and the defining purpose of marriage is to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions for the sake of begetting, nurturing, and raising the next generation,” said Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the defense, “Plaintiffs say that the central and constitutionally mandated purpose of marriage is simply to provide formal government recognition to loving, committed relationships.” The defense called only two witnesses to testify, choosing not to address many of the issues raised by the plaintiff.

Regardless of Judge Walker’s ruling, the case will almost certainly be appealed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. Some gay marriage supporters fear that it is not a good time for this case to be tried in the highest court in the country. “A loss now may make it harder to go to court later,” said one anti-Proposition 8 activist. “It will take us a lot longer to get a good Supreme Court decision if the Court has to overrule itself.” The Supreme Court has tended to not overturn laws which have strong public support. Voters have rejected same-sex marriage ballot proposals in 31 states, including California.

The UC system is one of many social organizations that have taken a hit due to the state’s $26.3 billion budget deficit, leading directly to a $813 million budget cut to take place over two years. State employees are suffering income reductions, while over $470 million worth of IOU’s are clogging government ledgers. In addition to the 30% fee hikes that are slated to occur for the spring semester, many UC students narrowly avoided having their Cal Grant awards withdrawn. Many California residents have protested that students should have high priority despite the state’s budget issues, arguing that thousands of students would be unable to continue attending their school should their tuition be raised. This was cited as a key dilemma by the Commission, who recognized that limiting the amount of college graduates is a detriment to the long-term goals of the state and would have ominous implications for the economy in upcoming years.

Yudof reflected upon the state’s funding limits, saying, “The candid truth is that the state of California has become an unreliable partner and has been an unreliable partner for years. The commission is designed to take an integrated, holistic look at all of UC’s priorities, knowing that we do not have the financial resources to maximize all of those values.”

The Commission is comprised of five working groups, each with different focuses on how to better the situation for UC students and faculty. The first is Size and Shape of UC, chaired by UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal and UC Santa Cruz commission member Cynthia Brown. This group’s goal is to effectively maintain ideal enrollment levels and high quality of academic programs. UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Christopher Edley and UC Davis professor Keith Williams oversee Education and Curriculum, a group that focuses on creating cost efficient alternatives for delivery models that can maintain high program quality. A third group, Access and Affordability, is chaired by UC Student Regent Jesse Bernal and UC Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake and aims to make a UC education attainable to students of all backgounds. The Funding Strategies group is chaired by UC Santa Barbara Executive Vice Chancellor Gene Lucas and UCLA Vice Chancellor Steven Olsen, and focuses on how to effectively generate revenue for the UC system. Academic Senate Immediate Past Chair Mary Croughan and UC Santa Barbara Chancellor Henry Yang chair the final group, Research Strategies, the goal of which is to examine how UC schools can recreate research practices and collaboration.

The first stop for the Commission was at UC Santa Barbara on October 22nd, where students gathered to give input on how the crisis was limiting their ability to attend their university. This meeting was followed with visits to UC Merced and UC Irvine, and by mid-December the Commission plans to have visited all 10 UC campuses.

These meetings served as an outlet for students and stakeholders to voice their frustrations. Many students who attended these meetings reflected that fee hikes will cause minorities to be even more underrepresented in the student population of UC’s, while others lamented that their tuition is planned to increase at the same time that their parents’ income is set to be reduced. A number of students also shared frustration at the lack of an effective outlet for their ideas. UC Irvine senior Sarah Thompson acknowledged her school’s lack of concern for student input during the Commission’s visit to her campus, sharing an encounter she had when she asked a financial aid counselor for advice. “I asked, ‘Where do I protest this? How do I get involved?’ And she laughed at me.”

The UC system has a long and difficult road ahead of them toward the goal of maximizing student interests while staying within financial constraints. Despite many students’ view that their voices are not being heard, Yudof has vowed to take every student into consideration. “Being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery: There are many people under you, but no one is listening. I listen to them.”

Initially, there was a dispute regarding the set up of the display on Sproul Plaza. Amanda Carleton, the Director of Student Involvement at the Center for Student Leadership had said the reason BSL’s Genocide Awareness Project was unable to set up their display at Mario Savio steps was due to a previously-reserved time that was placed in the middle of BSL’s requested time slots. Also, CBR had reported that the set-up and take-down of the giant cage was too labor intensive to accommodate on the steps for the other group to be able to host their event in the middle of the day.

Alberto Gonzalez, President of Berkeley Students for Life, had a different interpretation of events. Initially, the campus was accommodating to their display set up, but the space they wanted to reserve was denied by CBR due to the intricate design of the set up, but the northern part of the plaza was deemed acceptable on a “first come, first served” basis. However, there was a conflict about what area that was and due to potential safety  oncerns, it was much more difficult to get that space for the display. CBR was preparing to file an injunction on First Amendment rights, while Gonzalez for BSL was encouraging members to take action by sending e-mails and making phone calls to Ms. Carleton’s office and follow the e-mail sent from BSL alumnus Morgan Figures to her office requesting follow-up information on the issue and why there were excess complications for their GAP. Upon having the dispute turned over to a higher authority, the event was processed through the university, and BSL was granted access to use the plaza for GAP, despite administration later telling BSL they would have preferred CBR had not been involved to begin with. CBR was the forerunner of this display, as they had hosted this on over 100 different campuses across the nation and Canada.

According to Gonzalez, “GAP is intended to raise awareness about the bloody truth of abortion. Photographic evidence of what an aborted fetus looks like is compelling, and opens many eyes to this awful reality for the first time. The display is also intended to show how abortion, like universally recognized forms of genocide, is justified by its proponents by inferring that the victim is somehow subhuman. [BSL and CBR] hoped that GAP would serve as a stimulus for calm and logical conversation on the matter of abortion.” Berkeley’s display was unique from others due to photographs and quotations of Obama interspersed in the display, and Gonzalez says that they “sought to highlight Obama’s astonishingly duplicitous rhetoric, as well as to make his unbridled support of abortion known to those who may not have been aware of it.” People approached the hosts of the events throughout the day and engaged in healthy discussion about the two sides of the abortion issue.

This display did indeed spark conversation around the university and even a sizable counter-demonstration at that. The National Organization of Women (NOW) spearheaded a campaign that included members of a women’s studies class offered at Cal and lined up in front of the display linking arms, chanting, “my body, my choice,” or ‘their body, their choice” in the case of the males participating in the protest. Gonzalez appreciated the active demonstration by NOW, as he stated “bad publicity is no publicity,” and they captured media attention as a result. For the rest of the week, they had a table out and approached people on Sproul to write a letter against the university for allowing for the display to occur and declaring their outrage at the demonstration put on by BSL. Unfortunately, a representative from NOW was unavailable for further comment.

Gonzalez says that “BSL makes it a point to host several on-campus events that raise awareness about abortion and other right to life issues, such as embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia” and that “we [the members of BSL and CBR] were very pleased with the success of this historic event.” This was one of the largest events put on this semester at the university, and it will be interesting to see if there will be more provocative demonstrations conducted during the rest of the year.

Berkeley College Republicans

Spencer Doyle: How has BCR membership fared this semester?
Chris Odneal, Internal Vice President, Berkeley College Republicans: BCR membership is doing well this semester. Our events have been well-attended and our members are excited about what the club is doing on campus such as the memorial for 9/11 and our speaker event with Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld.

SD: What is your main concern going into the spring semester?
CO: As the gubernatorial primaries get closer during the spring semester, the goal is to get members excited about the Republican candidates. We have the most experienced and knowledgeable candidates in our field and with the current budget crisis in California, this is one of the most important gubernatorial races in years.

SD: What keeps you going? What are your main motivations as Internal Vice President?
CO: At its core, I still think the Republican Party is conservative and has the best solutions to offer our country. In California, we are fighting an uphill battle as we try to convince voters that our party’s policies are best for our state’s future, but it is still important that we are ready and willing to provide the answers when called. On campus, conservatives are definitely in the minority and I believe the club offers an outlet for students who don’t feel like they necessarily belong in the “radical” Berkeley atmosphere. As internal vice president, I am motivated by the passion I hear from every one of our members for the conservative cause. They are excited and vocal about the issues they see as crucial for our future as a nation and they motivate me to keep promoting the Republican Party on campus.

SD: How do you see BCR making an impact on campus in the future?
CO: In the immediate future, I think the greatest impact our club can make is educating Cal students about the upcoming gubernatorial election. California is in desperate need of leadership in Sacramento that offers real solutions to the problems facing our state. As the Democrats only have one candidate, I think our club and our party have a great opportunity to bring new students into the Republican fold with the wide range of candidates our party is offering California next year. With the ongoing disputes surrounding funding for public higher education in California, the stakes have never been higher in the upcoming election and student interest will probably be at one of its highest levels next year for a statewide race. The best way to attract these students is to convince them we have the best solutions for funding the public university systems.

SD: What do you believe is BCR’s role as a club?
CO: I think BCR’s main role on campus is to be a conservative voice among the noise that is Berkeley. I’ve found since coming to Cal that although students may lean to the left on a lot of issues, much of the student body is apathetic on political issues. I think we have the responsibility to answer students’ questions and also to question the reasons students hold the beliefs they do. We can do this through debating clubs on campus, bringing conservative speakers to campus, and also through engaging in discussion amongst ourselves and with students we meet on campus.

BCR meets Thursdays at 7PM in 24 Wheeler. You can view the website at http://berkeleygop.com

Berkeley Students for Life

SD: How has BSL membership fared this semester? I’ve noticed a few new faces in addition to more activity from members who were here last year. What do you think has contributed to BSL’s growth and relevance as a club on campus this semester?
Alberto Gonzalez, President, Berkeley Students for Life: A great part of our present success has to do with the recruiting we did in spring ’09. At that time, we reached out to many groups which were likely to have members that would be interested in our own group. (BCR was one of these groups. We also tried to reach out to the Cal Dems, hoping to find some Bart Stupaks among them. Unfortunately, all of our requests to speak to the group were left unanswered.) This recruitment method provided us with a small, but committed group of individuals who were willing to take on a leadership role for our group and propel forward. According to my recollection, this is the first time that BSL has ever had enough commitment to form a full executive board. This has been a goal of mine for quite some time; the fruitfulness of a group’s efforts is infinitely greater when more people are involved. This has been instrumental in our success this semester. It’s also true that we have a good number of new recruits, most of whom signed up at the beginning of the year at Calapalooza. They are all new students – one transfer, the rest freshmen.

SD: The GAP demonstration was perhaps the most striking of all the various clubs on campus this fall. How did that come about? Was BSL asked or did it volunteer? There was quite a lot of emphasis on Obama in that demonstration. How do you see Obama’s role in regards to your club’s efforts?
AG: Last semester, BSL co-hosted the California Students for Life Conference here at UC Berkeley. Gregg Cunningham, who is the Director of the Center for Bioethical Reform (which organizes GAP) was one of the speakers. He approached me after the conference and expressed his desire to bring GAP to Berkeley; it had almost happened about five years ago, but then it fell through. At that time, I had assured him that GAP would come to Berkeley the following year. I contacted him early on in fall ‘09. The Berkeley GAP exhibit was in fact the debut venue for CBR’s new Obama signs. Many will misconstrue the Obama signs as being outlandishly partisan, but such comments are unsubstantiated. The signs consist of a picture of Obama that has appeared in any of a variety of respected magazines/media sources in the US, accompanied by an Obama record statement and a picture of an aborted fetus. The Obama quotes are general statements that most people would agree with in principle. Unfortunately, those who have been tracking Obama’s abortion record can ascertain that Obama is undeniably the most virulent supporter of abortion to have ever occupied the White House. Everything that he says about caring for the least fortunate or of protecting our liberties or of creating a better future for America’s children are blatantly hypocritical so long as he remains an ardent abortion advocate. Obama is a master of rhetoric, and far too many people have been effectively duped by his well-crafted speeches. In fact, we’ve encountered many people who actually believe that Obama is pro-life! We hope that these images, which put Obama’s words next to the gritty truth of abortion, will make people see Obama for the hypocrite that he is. He is two different men when it comes to comparing his words with his deeds.

SD: What are some of your club’s priorities going into the spring semester? What have been your accomplishments this semester?
AG: Our basic priorities are a constant work in progress: we want to continue to grow as a group, and we want to continue to serve and educate the campus and local community, particularly by networking with off-campus pro-life groups and on-campus groups of many varieties. We also want to be an active component of California Students for Life, a coalition of pro-life student groups from around the state. This semester, we continued some successful practices from the past, but we have also managed to include many new activities. GAP, of course, was the most notable of these. We have also begun volunteering at a local pregnancy resource center. The Diaper Drive is a BSL staple, but it has been expanded to become a week-long, on-campus event this year. We have brought two film screenings to campus this semester: Maafa21 (abortion & genocide) and Lines that Divide (stem cell research). Both events attracted students who are not members of BSL, as well as people from various parts of the Bay Area. These events are essential to our outreach/networking efforts.

SD: Diaper drive, volunteering at pro-life clinics, praying outside abortion clinics, the GAP project, giving out free cupcakes on Sproul, these have been some of the more noticeable activities of your club and of any club I know of for that matter. How do you decide what to do and how to have the most impact for your causes? Who’s idea was it to have the free cupcakes? How effective do you believe these efforts have been?
AG: Our activities are planned in advance through the efforts of our executive board, which includes Jonathan Paul (Secretary), Andrew Lee (Treasurer), Katelyn Sills (Director of External Affairs) and me. We meet on a regular basis to brainstorm group activities, and how to best execute them. Of course, we’re always open to suggestions, and we have considered many ideas from some of our newest members. The free cupcakes, for instance, were suggested by Anne Morse, a freshman. The on-campus Diaper Drive is the brainchild of Katelyn and three new members: Anne (again), Lindsey Cook and Katherine Mullin. We have noticed that the buzz around our group has grown. We have gotten a great deal of on- and off-campus media coverage since last semester. I think that the campus has “rediscovered” BSL after a relatively quiet period. This process started last semester, but took off this semester. More people come by our table now; there is a genuine interest in what we do. One of the most rewarding experiences is meeting people who come up to us to express their support. Some people may feel timid when it comes to the matter of having to express their pro-life views in the midst of a largely indifferent campus environment, but our visible presence lets them know they’re not alone.

SD: What are some of your plans and goals for the next semester?
AG: We always start the spring semester with a bang: the Annual Walk for Life West Coast in San Francisco and our Annual Celebrate Life Week. These are held within the first two weeks of the new semester. We are currently planning the events for Celebrate Life Week, but they will include a noon rally on the Savio Steps, at least one speaker and a ribbon memorial on the Sproul Trees. In February, we will have a guest lecturer – Mary Meehan. We expect to be going to the Oakland abortion clinic for prayer vigils more often, as another 40 Days for Life campaign gets underway from February to March. Finally, in the spring, we will once again co-host the California Students for Life Conference. Currently, we’re hoping to have that event at UC Irvine. It would be the first time ever that the Conference is hosted in Southern California.

BSL meets Tuesdays at 7PM in 203 Wheeler. The Berkeley Students for Life has a website where you can find out more about their activities, who they are, and useful advice and resources should you ever find or know anyone who needs help at http://berkeley4life.org. All services and visits to the website are confidential.

Berkeley Students for Liberty

SD: How did Students for Liberty come about? I remember John Wyrwas held discussion groups last year. Did the club evolve from those?
Casey Given, President, Students for Liberty: Essentially, two specific things happened that stimulated the beginning of Students for Liberty. First, last semester, Ashok Krishna and I became friends. We discovered we were both libertarians and had  vague idea about starting a libertarian club at Cal. Second, John Wyrwas told us he wanted to start a Young Americans for Liberty chapter at Cal. Although Ashok and I had a general idea for starting a club, we were not really planning on doing so until John told us his idea. With a graduate student at our side, we figured this would be a great opportunity to actually make our idea come to life. So, at the end of last semester,  we officially became Students for Liberty.

SD: What are some of the motivations for having your club? Does it have anything to do with Obama being elected?
CG: The main motivation for starting our club was basically because there was no liberty oriented club on campus. When I first came to Cal, I was eager to find a club dedicated to promoting freedom. Instead, I found that all the political clubs on campus are lovers of government and want the state to manage their lives. The cofounders and I felt that Cal needed a voice that would promote the idea that the individual has the right to control his or her own life, not the government. Cal needed a voice to promote individualism, limited government, and freedom. So, we started the club.

SD: I’ve been told that writing a piece on conservative clubs on campus would be a mistake, since SFL wouldn’t consider itself one. Is this accurate? Specifically, I’ve been told that whereas Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, liberals, think of the ideological spectrum as a line from right to left, Students for Liberty see it in three-dimensions… Would you agree? How would you describe SFL’s ideological tendencies?
CG: I would agree that our club generally does not see itself on the two-dimensional line because that spectrum has a huge logical contradiction on it. Although conservatives claim to like “small government,” they promote large government on social issues. And vice versa with liberals. Although they claim to love “active government,” they essentially want complete freedom on social issues. This is a blatant contradiction. Our club tends to see itself on a three-dimensional spectrum that measures both economic and social issues. On that spectrum, we are on the top right. We consistently believe in freedom, both fiscally and socially. However, we do not have a collective position on issues. We have made it very clear from the beginning that Students for Liberty is a group of like-minded individuals, who think for themselves and can have dissenting opinions. So, there are quite a few different perspectives in our club, from constitutionalists to libertarians to anarchists. However, the basic tendency among club members is that we consistently believe in freedom, fiscally and socially.

SD: After attending the debate a few weeks ago between BCR and SFL, it seems to me SFL has become somewhat of a formidable rival to the College Republicans, if not just another politically-oriented club on campus with similar (or more) turnout. How many members does SFL have? How many more have joined since your first meeting? What do you think are the major factors contributing to the growth of your club?
CG: As far at the numbers in our club, we consistently have about twenty people show up to each meeting. Our speaker events can draw a few more. Our Facebook group has 62 members and our ListServe has over 100 emails. So, the club has been fairly successful for its first semester. I think the major factor that has caused people to join is apathy. Students are fed up with seeing politicians in Washington and Sacramento just make America’s situation worse. With endless war, continual bailouts, and government only growing and growing, students are beginning to see the failed policies of our government. Under these circumstances, our message of freedom for all sounds very appealing.

SD: You’ve had several speakers throughout your inaugural semester, more than BCR had, I believe. What is your club’s selection process for speakers and how has the turnout been for these events? I’ve read in recent emails that you have even more planned for next semester. Who will be speaking next semester?
CG: We have had three speakers this semester. Ashok happens to be well-connected in the Bay Area’s libertarian circle, so he was able to network with these individuals. And next semester, we already have more speakers planned (many of them fairly big names). Patri Friedman, Milton Friedman’s grandson, has expressed interest in speaking. Kevin Takanaga, the chairman of California’s Libertarian Party, wants to speak. And, most interestingly, John Dennis, the Republican candidate running against Nacy Pelosi in San Francisco’s congressional district, has contacted us about speaking (for that one we will probably get a joint event going with BCR).

SD: What would you like to do better? How do you see SFL improving in the near future? How do you see SFL’s role at Cal?
CG: As for improving, I would like to see Students for Liberty be more active with the campus community. Although we have a strong internal circle, I feel we need to get our message out more. So, we plan to have more events like speakers, debates, and possibly even a rally on Sproul. We want to get our message out there so everyone can hear it.

Students for Liberty meets Wednesdays at 7PM in 263 Dwinelle. You may find their website at http://studentsforliberty.webs.com.

Students for Liberty traces its origins back to my first semester at Cal. In January 2009, I entered Cal as a bright-eyed spring-admit freshman. However, as I strolled around Sproul looking for a good club to join, I was disappointed at the lack of a libertarian group on campus. After making friends with Ashok Krishna, the current vice president of the club, we realized that it was our destiny to fill in the void. When a graduate student acquaintance of ours, John Wyrwas, told us he was also considering starting a freedom oriented club, we jumped on board. And thus, Students for Liberty came to life.

So what exactly is Students for Liberty? We are a non-partisan political group dedicated to promoting the ideas of limited government, free markets, sound money, non-intervention, and maximum individual liberty to campus and the surrounding community. We do not have any official affiliation with any political party, special interest group, or school of thought. We are rather a group of freethinking individuals who are dedicated to the cause of limited government. Although most members of the club identify themselves as libertarian, we welcome anyone who believes in restoring freedom to the people.

I am happy to say that our first semester has been a great success. We held regular meetings every Wednesday where we discussed current issues, usually ending in a social trip to Top Dog (Berkeley’s most politically sensible food joint). We tabled on Sproul at least two times every week, often engaging in political or philosophical debate, which sometimes even drew a crowd. We had three different speakers come to lecture during this semester. Professor Mark Brady of San Jose State University gave a talk entitled “Why Be a Libertarian?” in which he discussed why freedom is the most logical political philosophy. Dr. Michael Edelstein, clinical psychologist and author of the award-winning book Three Minute Therapy, gave a lecture entitled “How to Stay Happy in a Statist World” in which he discussed techniques to stay sane in an insane world. Lastly, Anthony Gregory, editor in-chief of Campaign for Liberty (Dr. Ron Paul’s official advocacy group), spoke to the club about business cycles and the Federal Reserve. We also had a debate with Berkeley College Republicans on drug and prostitution policy. The Daily Californian also asked for our club’s perspective on healthcare, which resulted in an op-ed being published. In short, we had a very busy and very exciting semester, and our plans for next spring are just as action-packed.

Next semester, we plan to target some bigger name speakers to come speak to the club. Patri Friedman, the grandson of respected economist Milton Friedman, has confirmed that he would like to speak to the club about the Seasteading Institute that he works for. Kevin Takanaga, Chairman of California’s Libertarian Party, has expressed interest in giving a talk to the club. Lastly, John Dennis, Republican candidate for San Francisco’s congressional district has also expressed interest in speaking to the club, possibly in a joint event with Berkeley College Republicans. Next semester, the club also plans to hold several debates against various political clubs on campus, maybe with Cal Berkeley Democrats or one of the many socialist organizations. We are also considering holding a legalize marijuana rally on Sproul Plaza. It is going to be a very exciting spring!

One would not think that a libertarian club on an infamously liberal campus would be very successful. Well, I am proud to say that the movement for freedom is alive and well in Berkeley. From my experience of tabling on Sproul Plaza, I have seen in the faces of people who come up to our table their apathy with the current political system and their yearning for freedom. Indeed, the fight for greater liberty is alive in Berkeley, and our club plans to be on the front lines.

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.

On the afternoon of September 24th, UC Berkeley history professor Heath Pearson gave his routine lecture on the history of economic thought to an emptier than usual room. The LeConte auditorium contained roughly 80 students of the 135 enrolled in the course, indicating an absence rate usually seen only the day before the University breaks for Thanksgiving. So where were all the students?

It is estimated that 4,000 UC Berkeley workers, faculty, graduate students and community members gathered around midday on Sproul Plaza to protest a variety of recent administrative decisions made in the wake of state-wide budget cuts. The campus wide “walkout” was part of a broader walkout movement by all ten UC campuses with the purpose of sending a strong message to University administrators and state legislators. The movement began when the University Professional and Technical Employees (UTPE) urged faculty and students to stay away from campus on the 24th, except to attend the various picket lines and rallies held throughout the day. The walkout, which was scheduled to coincide with the first day of instruction at eight out of the 10 UC campuses, came several weeks into Cal’s fall semester.

Students attending the eight UC campuses with the late September start date stood only to miss the largely superfluous first day of instruction and their professors had time to plan accordingly. At Cal, on the other hand, classes were held on a case by case basis, with the decision to hold class left to the professor.

Some, including Pearson, were forced to rearrange midterm dates just days before the event. Pearson made the decision to postpone a midterm scheduled for the day of the event, but told students that they were still accountable for material covered on that day.

“I wouldn’t call it fair but I would call it acceptable,” Pearson said. “People who walked out of class today are going to pay a price because they missed out on what I consider to be important course material, but it’s not the kind of price that says ‘Guess what, you just got a zero for 25% of the course,’ which I think would be really punitive for people who are following their conscience.”

Jing Jing, an undergraduate business student enrolled in Pearson’s class had to weigh her options before making a decision. “I support the cause,” Jing said. “I considered not going to class, but we have a midterm on Tuesday.” Others, like third-year student Theresa Diederich, felt that the event was important enough to justify her absence. “The class I’m missing is economic history [not Pearson’s course] and I think that this is history dealing very clearly with economics. Here’s a chance to participate in something that I’m learning about.” She said that her participation mostly had to do with a lack of transparency in the University’s financial decision-making.

Pearson’s decision to hold class was not meant as a political statement in opposition to the walkout. Rather, he endorses civil disobedience as an effective method of human progress and acknowledges the need for real financial reform at a University and statewide level. Pearson is doubtful, though, of the walkout. That is, he is skeptical whether progress can be made by actively walking out on the resources of the University in order to make a statement about needing more resources. He sees a danger in how the walkout might be perceived by California voters. “I just don’t think this is the right way to pursue the political agenda that they have,” Pearson said.

Reasons for attendance at the protest on Sproul were as varied as the participants. Canvassers took advantage of the crowds by distributing literature on causes ranging from feminism to communism. There were, however, common threads among the hundreds in attendance. UC President Yudof was the target of chants calling for his firing and his salary ($828,000 per year) was frequently cited on handouts and signs. “I know there are news teams everywhere. I just want to show everyone that we care, to show the President that we’re really pissed off,” said Jaffer Kattan, another third year in attendance, referring to Yudof.

Widespread anger flared up among students, staff and faculty in July, following the UC Regents decision to slash $813 million from the $3 billion the University gets from the state each year. The Board of Regents, in conjunction with Yudof, voted to cut pay almost across the board and to require additional furlough days for workers and faculty, seeing that it would be preferable to massive lay-offs.

While Yudof was a primary target during the rallies, he claims that he is not the true culprit. “This is a long-term secular trend across the entire country. Higher education is being squeezed out. It’s systemic,” said Yudof in a New York Times interview that ran the day of the walkout.

State lawmakers, headed by the Democratic Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg and Democratic Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass, cut $9 billion from education, including $2 billion from higher education, in an attempt to make up for the $26 billion shortfall caused by increasing costs and declining state revenues.

Diederich was one in attendance who did not rush to blame Yudof, saying, “I’m not proposing at this point that we should just cut it from the top [University administrators] automatically or that there shouldn’t be some sort of fee increases. Obviously everyone needs to feel this budget crisis, but I don’t think that there has been enough open discussion at this point about where that money needs to come from and how much actually needs to be cut to make these broad-sweeping and long-lasting decisions.”

In spite of inconveniences to class schedules, Berkeley’s campus protest was the largest of all of the UC campuses, reaffirming the city’s long-standing reputation as a bastion of political activism 45 years after the famous Free Speech Movement student protests.