Perspectives

The cost of protests

Tree-sitting and Marine bashing in Berkeley

By Thomas D. Owens
From the April 2008 Print Edition

For many of the protests taking place on and around campus, its time to see the writing on the wall. While their aims may be genuine, the protesters have cost both the city and the university at a time when neither Berkeley nor a UC campus can afford these publicity stunts.

The financial burden created by these protests is even less justifiable when their futility is considered. The chances for these demonstrations to succeed are slim, to say the least: the UC Regents will not budge on the BP deal, which brings valuable funds to our university; the new athletic center will be built as long as the courts permit it; and the Marines, if anybody, will never retreat from Berkeley.

In response to the Marine protest, Move America Forward, a conservative activist group, is now running television ads lambasting Berkeley by name. Is this what Mayor Tom Bates and Code Pink wanted? Probably not, but their stubbornness and refusal to grant the Marines their right to recruit from the best public university in the country have cast shame upon themselves and, by extension, the city and our university. According to The Daily Californian, the city of Berkeley spent $210,814 on overtime police officers at recent protests.

Another protest erupted, as an individual named Michael Schuck, or Fresh, climbed into the tree across from Wheeler Hall. When he refused to leave, the police put up barricades around him and posted two officers and a squad car on him every hour until he came down. Most people probably didnt even know why he was up there. Did he even know? His laundry list of complaints included the war in Iraq, Native American remains, and the UC Regents. For approximately two weeks, he berated passers-by, making noise rather than change. The financial costs of keeping him and passers-by safe are at the present time unclear.

The tree-sitters still up by Memorial Stadium are no better. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that $367,000 has been spent by UC Berkeley to protect the protesters with fences and guards. That, by the way, is more than three full-ride scholarships to Berkeley. Not to mention that this report came out four months ago in December 2007 its anybodys guess how much the cost is now. So its acceptable to protest against education budget cuts, but squandering three full rides is no big deal. Is that progressivism in action?

I would expect most students to share in my indignation, but, as one friend recently quipped, the major political movement on campus is apathy not progressivism or conservatism. That is evident in the distribution of The Daily Californian, the low turnout in campus elections, and in the very demonstrations draining our financial resources. Rest assured, once the city and campus have to cover the costs with a tax or fee increase, youll see the creation of a broad-based coalition railing against greed and wasteful spending. Couldnt we nip this in the bud now, and avoid having to go through that?

To be fair, Berkeley has a rich history of free speech and of broaching controversial ideas. This is true both on the right (Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week) and on the left (the three aforementioned demonstrations). Such a legacy shouldnt change, and will not change after these protesters cease their activities. Yet these protests bring little but ridicule to our community. While we were once a city of tolerance and ideas, we are now a city of obnoxious tree-sitters and contemptuous Marine-bashers.

A major leadership deficit is also at play here. Our public officials are failing to serve our interests as citizens and students. Bates and Chancellor Robert Birgeneau have been remarkably quiet about the costs of these demonstrations, the former probably on account of his tacit approval of Code Pinks actions. Nevertheless, their silence on this issue is deafening, given how loudly they complain about Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggers recent budget cuts, or about reductions in federal assistance to local communities.

Of course, $400,000 and a 10 percent across-the-board cut are on completely different financial scales, but cutting costs should be a priority for both Bates and Birgeneau. The ASUC raised little attention to the subject, squabbling over Schucks motives instead of protesting against the financial strain he was putting on the campus. Also, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller was expected to make a ruling on the Memorial Stadium situation two months ago.

Lambasting Berkeleys Marines was offensive, considering their selfless service to their country, and draining valuable funds to protect protesters is harmful to all of us. Cals progressive community needs to organize future demonstrations in a more respectful and organized manner, so that Berkeleys free-speech legacy lives on in a way that benefits, not harms, its intended audience.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot