Emails from the belly of the beast. The first one is from Stephen Stoll, of UCPD and Homeland Security (yes, that Homeland Security):

SPROUL HALL

As you may be aware the OCCUPY CAL organization has planned a number of events for November 9 which call for a walkout and noontime rally on Sproul Plaza and setting up an encampment in support of the national Occupy Wall Street movement. We have information Sproul Hall may be one of the designated buildings for “occupation”

To ensure the safety of our staff and the continuance of routine business throughout the day, we will be locking down the building beginning at 1100am for the remainder of the day. Entry will ONLY be from the SOUTH first floor entrance. Please ensure your department staff are aware of this and have their Cal ID’s available for entry. If student workers or employees  do not have their ID’s they will have to call someone in their Department to come down and vouch for them.

We apologize for the inconvenience, but this is a precautionary measure to ensure everyone’s safety

Stephen Stoll

UCPD

642-1258

The second email is more general, but no less hilariously alarmist:

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 8:47 AM

Subject: Nov. 9th - OCCUPY CAL - Events

Dear All,

Please read the following message from the Office of Emergency Preparedness concerning tomorrow’s “OCCUPY CAL” events.  

As you may be aware the OCCUPY CAL organization has planned a number of
events for November 9 which call for a walkout and noontime rally on
Sproul Plaza and setting up an encampment in support of the national
Occupy Wall Street movement. While it is unknown how these events will
unfold over the course of the day, these activities may present some
unique challenges for the campus as the majority of our facilities are
open to the public. These actions may cause some disruptions to the
everyday routine, including erroneous "fire alarm" pulls or other
associated activities around the campus, including potential marches
through campus buildings and "sit-ins". Although we do not expect any
malicious activities, it’s possible your building may be marched through or
even have minor disruptions, so it is best to be a little more vigilant
for those who may be roaming our halls.

For those buildings that have been the target of occupations or
"erroneous" fire alarm pulls in the past, it may be worthwhile to have an
"extra" presence in the hallways and common areas.

*********************************************
Please follow these procedures should
marchers enter your building:

If marchers enter your building, let them. Try to carry on business as
usual. If the noise becomes too great, or the crowd too large, feel free
to close and lock your office doors - this is a departmental decision. Do
not close your buildings unless the Police advise you to.

As a reminder, in the past, some of these activities have included
repeated fire alarm pulls. If a building fire alarm sounds, follow your
normal procedures and evacuate the building. Do not re-enter until given
the “all clear” by a Campus official. We are working with the Campus Fire
Marshal’s office to address these types of situations and if your facility
is involved we will be contacting you.
As always, if you have questions please feel free to contact the UC Police
department at 642-6760 or call via cell phone to 642-3333.

************************************************************

From an informational perspective, if you observe any unusual gatherings
or activities in your building/facility; if you observe any suspicious
activities or if you experience actual disruptions to classroom or
administrative routines, call UCPD (911 or Cell phone 642-3333) and we
will provide the appropriate support.

We will be utilizing the BC email as a conduit for campus-wide specific
information we need to disseminate, so please check your email regularly.

Thank You,
The Office of Emergency Preparedness

[Update 3, Wednesday 9:54am]: Reports from the ground: people have been spotted on the roof of the UCOP building. As reported below, the building has been shut down due to the general strike. So who are the people on the roof? "They must be police."

[Update 2, Wednesday 7:22am]: I just spoke with Diane Klein, a spokesperson for UCOP, who flatly denied the story. "That is not true," she said. "The building will not be used as a staging site for the Oakland Police."

[Update Tuesday 9:22pm]: We have not been able to independently confirm this as of yet, but we just received this report from a comrade:

I was just told by the receptionist at the UC Office of the President that they are lending the UCOP conference room near 19th and Franklin to the Oakland Police Department to be a Command Center. I even called back to double-check. I suggest we all email and call the UCOP and demand that they do not lend UC space to the OPD after the level of police violence last week against citizens of Oakland (including many UC faculty, staff, and students). Is there a way for us to send this word around to other students, faculty and staff?

From a friend on the inside:

November 1, 2011
3:15pm

Dear Oakland-based UCOP employees:

As a follow up to my message this morning, we have decided to operate Oakland UCOP offices in weekend mode tomorrow, meaning all employees should work from home as best they can.

Essential operations personnel who must be in the office tomorrow will need their employee badges for access.

Please continue to monitor local news and your UC email for updates.

All employees should plan to come to work on Thursday as scheduled.

Sincerely,

Nathan

Couldn't have had anything to do with this...

It's comforting to know Homeland Security is on the job at the UC:

From: John Wilton, Vice Chancellor - Administration & Finance
To: "Staff, All Academic Titles, Students,"
Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:09 PM

The campus`s annual emergency drill will take place this Friday, June 24, with participants testing their skills in locations across campus, including outdoor areas where mock victims and real emergency responders will be visible to passersby.

The annual exercise is designed to demonstrate the readiness of UC Berkeley to effectively respond to major emergencies on campus, and to test emergency communications, tools and equipment.

Organized by the campus`s Office of Emergency Preparedness, the drill will take place from 8 a.m. to noon. The campus`s emergency sirens and public address system will alert the campus to the start of the drill and its end.

More than 700 campus personnel will participate in the drill including the Chancellor`s Cabinet and representatives from various units, schools and departments including Environmental Health & Safety, University Health Services and the Office of Public Affairs. The UC Police Department, working with the various campus units, will oversee the management of the mock emergency.

Campus emergency officials will send WarnMe test messages to randomly selected 2,500 subscribers. WarnMe is the campus alert system that sends brief email, phone or text messages to alert members of the campus community to major emergencies.

The scenario for this year`s exercise, "Resilience 2011," involves a moderate earthquake that results in an explosion on campus. Passersby will likely see most drill activity taking place around Wurster Hall, Stanley Hall and University Health Services. Mock injured victims, wearing signs that identify them as such, will be in view along with UCPD officers and Berkeley fire department responders. Fire and police officials will be in standard uniform and with standard emergency gear.

All members of the campus community are encouraged to sign up for WarnMe http://warnme.berkeley.edu/ and to view emergency preparedness tips listed on the Office of Emergency Preparedness web site: http://oep.berkeley.edu/emergencies/earthquakes/index.html

Supervisors: Please print and distribute this message to staff who do not use computers or email at work.

For further information, please contact:
Stephen Stoll
Director, Office of Emergency Preparedness/Homeland Security UC Police Department
(510) 642-9036
oep@berkeley.edu

Chair-a-pillar action against the proposed sit-lie law in Berkeley will take place next Sunday, May 22, 12-2pm.

In the early hours of the morning, police from both the CSU and SFPD, dressed in full riot gear entered the administration at Sacramento State -- which was going into the fourth day of occupation by student protesters -- advanced on sleeping students in attack formation and from multiple directions, and ordered them to leave. Occupiers left voluntarily, with no arrests. Here's part of their statement of the eviction:

This morning on the fourth day, April 16 at 3:24 A.M. we were met with the administration’s opposition expressed through a riot taskforce.

Earlier that morning at approximately 12:30 A.M CSUS police entered the building for the first time accompanied with San Francisco State police. We were told that the new forces were needed, and that our own police were showing them the layout of our building. At this time we asked to be updated about the situation and we were refused that request.

Our police liaison Yeimi Lopez, again approached CSUS police with questions and she was told that they could no longer release information, and that they were following the orders given to them.

At 3:24 AM there was a police officer at the front doors unlocking the entrance, when asked what was happening and why, we were told that he could not answer that question. At the same time police were assembling in a militant formation with full riot gear, batons, and a large amount of zip ties. They were approaching sleeping students from multiple directions within the building. They threatened with force that if we did not leave we would face arrest. Our police liaison met with Lieutenant Christine Lofthouse that if we did not leave the peaceful demonstration that we would face arrest.

This is to be expected. In the end, these administrations don't care whether student action, especially direct action like occupation, is "peaceful" -- in any form it constitutes a threat to their ability to impose whatever measures they deem appropriate. At UC Berkeley, for example, we experienced something similar in December 2009 during Live Week, when riot police descended at 3 am on sleeping students and arrested 66 of them. We scare them. As our compañeros at Anti-Capital Projects wrote,

From this perspective, the bottom line is: fuck yeah Sac State! Solidarity with occupiers everywhere!

* OCCUPY * DISRUPT * RECLAIM * FIGHT BACK *

Again, thosewhouseit has the goods:

The following email was written by Felicia Lee, Chief of Staff for Vice Chancellor Harry LeGrande. She has been the administration’s pointperson for interfacing with the Wheeler ledge occupiers regarding the “dialogue” to be had this Friday. We write “dialogue” because -- and we can’t say we’re surprised -- the administration is not interested in negotiations with students and workers about campus privatization; they are only “interested in having a serious exchange of ideas through thoughtful dialogue and not a negotiation.” Moreover, Lee explicitly threatens to cancel the meeting if a rally takes place.

In addition, she rejects all but one of the student negotiators who have been preparing for this meeting. Only those who were actually on the ledge are invited. The worker is rejected as well, as apparently AFT doesn’t count as a real union to these people. In short, with 2 days’ notice, everything is up in the air.

These people disgust us. They “welcome a serious exchange of ideas regarding OE and to support that goal, it would be great if the attendees could take a few moments to review the OE website prior to the meeting.” We are welcome to discuss these cuts, but they are a given. Negotiations are off the table. Here’s what the head of OE Andrew Szeri had to say:

This is meant to be a civil, open discussion to see why these students are so adamant about ending [Operational Excellence]. We will not be ending Operational Excellence, it is that simple. But we do want to hear what they have to say.

We can’t say we’re surprised. These are the people who consistently call in riot cops on students with no history of violence, turn a blind eye as they are blasted with pepper spray, and disseminate Mogulof lies to the media. We will not stand idly by as the administration attempts to use this meeting as a shroud of legitimacy for its austerity measures. We are not interested in “exchanging ideas.” This budget-cut fatalism masks the substantive issue on the table: austerity is a done deal for these people. A line is drawn in the sand. We will not decide how and where we would like to be cut; we decide not to be cut.

Dear ✖✖✖,

I recognize that it is difficult to keep having these conversations over email and appreciate the professional nature of our exchange.

As outlined in ✖✖✖’s email on March 4th, the Chancellor agreed to a meeting with “students participating in the ledge sit-in on Wheeler Hall on March 3, 2011” to discuss Operational Excellence. As I have stated before, the Chancellor has asked that the numbers be kept to four students and one worker in order to facilitate a thoughtful conversation. Upon review of your submitted participant list, there is only one student (✖✖✖) from the list who was on the ledge. Please send me the names of four currently enrolled UC Berkeley students from the original list of nine individuals who would attend Friday’s meeting:

[names redacted]

Furthermore, please send me the name of one worker from your submitted list:

[names redacted]

I omitted ✖✖✖ from your original list due to his status as lecturer and not as a staff worker.

I do not want to presume that you are aware of the notices circulating that Friday’s meeting with the Chancellor is a negotiation and additional protests outside California Hall are being planned during the time of the meeting. The Chancellor is interested in having a serious exchange of ideas through thoughtful dialogue and not a negotiation. Presenting demands will not be a fruitful use of time or aligned with the original spirit of this meeting. Furthermore, the Chancellor is concerned this meeting is being utilized as a catalyst for a public rally. He is prepared to postpone the meeting should it escalate as such and/or create disturbances for academic classes, students studying in nearby buildings, or staff working nearby.

We welcome a serious exchange of ideas regarding OE and to support that goal, it would be great if the attendees could take a few moments to review the OE website prior to the meeting (http://oe.berkeley.edu/). We are open to receiving any questions or thoughts you may have that you would like to share in advance of the meeting in order to maximize our meeting time in addressing your concerns.

We cannot agree to your request to record the meeting. Note-taking responsibilities, as with other meetings with students, have been a collaborative process. Typically, an administrator and a student representative take notes and these notes are compared and agreed upon with the entire group before distribution when necessary. As a matter of respect for all attendees, no tweets, texts, or recordings during the meeting are permitted. I trust you and the others will honor this request.

The meeting will begin promptly at 3:30pm so please arrive at Cal Hall by 3:15pm and I will escort the group to the meeting room. As a reminder, the meeting will also conclude promptly at 5:30pm in order for the Chancellor to attend a separate event welcoming parents and students shortly thereafter.

Please remind the attendees to bring a photo ID. I would appreciate receiving the attendee names no later than 5:00pm on Thursday April 7, 2011. I look forward to seeing everyone on Friday.

Sincerely,

Felicia J. Lee, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Division of Student Affairs
University of California, Berkeley
130 California Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
510.642-6757 (office)

In light of this bullshit, we recommend our post on "No negotiation, occupation!"

Section 102.24: Conduct, where the actor means to communicate a serious expression of intent to terrorize, or acts in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing, one or more University students, faculty, or staff. ‘Terrorize’ means to cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm or death, perpetrated by the actor or those acting under his/her control. ‘Reckless disregard’ means consciously disregarding a substantial risk. This section applies without regard to whether the conduct is motivated by race, ethnicity, personal animosity, or other reasons. This section does not apply to conduct that constitutes the lawful defense of oneself, of another, or of property.
 
Section 104.90: Sanctions [for any violations of Section 102.00, Grounds for Discipline] may be enhanced where an individual was selected because of the individual’s race, color, national or ethnic origin, citizenship, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, marital status, ancestry, service in the uniformed services, physical or mental disability, medical condition, or perceived membership in any of these classifications.

Obviously this is a long-delayed response -- a year and a half after the fact -- to the property destruction at the Chancellor's house, which then-Governor Schwarzenegger called not only a "criminal act" but went as far as to label it "terrorism" itself. In fact, the text of these violations is almost exactly the same as what we posted last October -- the only difference is that where the new version uses "those acting under his/her control" the previous version read "his/her confederates." A strange word choice, admittedly.

But the question this raises is the following: when have members of the university community had cause to fear bodily harm or death, perpetrated by the actor or those acting under his/her control? Oh right, it was when the Chancellor invited the riot police onto campus, and they, acting under his control, hit us with clubs, shot us with pepper spray and rubber bullets, and aimed their guns at us. We know what this is all about.







It's like the budget cuts, where the highest-level administrators have declared themselves exempt: one set of rules applies to them, another one applies to the rest of us.

Yesterday was a Day of Action for Public Education in which you and many others made your voices heard in support of public higher education. Like all of you, I am dismayed at the staggering size of a $1.4 billion cut to all sectors of public higher education. I am fully sympathetic with your concerns about the State’s disinvestment in public higher education and have been working hard in Sacramento to address this issue.

However, you have chosen a method of protest that I cannot support. I am very concerned about your health and safety and urge you to end this unsafe action. In the interest of your safety and that of others, we have closed Wheeler Hall. Please consider your fellow-students’ right to attend classes.

These are some very strange things to say. What jumps out first are the usual propaganda strategies deployed by the UC administration: shift the target of criticism to dodge the blame. "Like all of you," Birgeneau writes in a desperate attempt to conjure up a feeling of solidarity -- the demands of the protesters on the ledge included rolling back the $1.4 billion budget cuts but Sacramento was far from the only target. The key target, which Birgeneau clearly understands, is the UC administration. As we wrote here last fall,

California's economic devastation has little to do with the UC administration's decision to impose austerity on the university. One of the most important goals of the protests on UC campuses [in 2009] was precisely to combat this rhetorical maneuver, to focus attention back on the administration. It's hard work -- politics is synonymous with government, and so it seems that the natural outlet for political protest is Sacramento. But Sacramento is everywhere. The regents, the administration, the built environment of the university itself. Not that it was necessarily our goal, but the protests last year caught Sacramento's attention -- they were the "tipping point" in the state government's decision to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars more to the UC in this year's budget. But as we've been saying all along, more money from the state is irrelevant without regime change in the administration. And, effectively, we've been proven right: this year [i.e. 2010] the regents came together to raise our tuition once again.

UC administrators were the ones responsible for turning to risky Wall Street investments, which cost us $23 billion when the economic crisis hit; UC administrators were the ones who committed themselves to using student tuition -- and the promise of future tuition increases -- as collateral for construction bonds to feed an insatiable appetite for capital projects. For their part, the UC regents are appointed by the governor -- they are extensions of the political center of the state, nodes in a plutocratic constellation of corporate interests and exploitation that hides behind the aura of the country's most "liberal" university. Sacramento, it bears repeating, is everywhere.

But there's a lot more here than just dodging the blame. For starters, look at the language: lots of "I" sentences. "I am dismayed," "I am sympathetic," "I cannot support." We don't care how you feel -- we just care what you do. "I am very concerned," Birgeneau writes, "about your health and safety." Health and safety. What is that most bureaucratic formulation? Not health, not safety, but health-and-safety. What is this compound noun, and what does it mean?

We've received a report that the UC Merced student who is being charged with a felony (among other things) based on allegations stemming from the protest at the UC Regents' meeting in November, and who was subjected to a full-fledged manhunt organized and carried out by UCSF police, will surrender himself into custody today. He will be arraigned Tuesday (tomorrow) morning at 9am at the San Francisco courthouse at 850 Bryant St. Come out and support him!

[Update Wed 12/29]: From thosewhouseit:

Peter Howell, the UC Merced undergrad facing a felony count for the Regents' meeting, had his arraignment today around 10:45 am. Brought out in orange scrubs and cuffs, Howell's lawyer asked that the felony charge be reduced to a misdemeanor given that the prosecution’s case is so weak and that there is video evidence demonstrating that Howell never touched the weapon. The prosecutor attempted to defend the position that he grabbed Kemper's baton, but the reasoning was incoherent. Here's Howell on the scuffle:

"I put my hands on my chest and backpedaled," Howell said in the interview. "I was trying to get away. [Officer Kemper] shoved through me, and he may have lost control of his baton. You can hear it rattle on the ground in a video. At no point did I strike him on the head, so I believe that statement was false."

Regardless, the judge refused to engage the debate, pushing it back to the hearing date, now scheduled for February 22 upon the request of the defense. The judge denied him release on O[wn] R[ecognizance] but reduced the bail from $30,000 to $15,000.

[...]

Howell's lawyer, John Hamasaki, is looking for anyone who witnessed the alleged incident on November 17 at UCSF-Mission Bay. Contact him at john@hamasakilaw.com if you are a witness, or else if you have photos or videos of the alleged incident.

Safety reminder: Please do not offer yourself as a witness if you have uncharged conduct from that day (that may also show up in photos or videos). This is not an assumption that anyone does, just a precaution. Also, please don’t discuss any possible evidence or witness testimony you may have in writing, including comments sections on blogs and over listservs. Due to the recent increase in state/university repression, we should actively consider being very careful with information, in order to care for each other and ourselves.

Assholes.

Behind the fee hikes, a line of riot cops... with guns drawn.

(photo from sf chronicle, more details at occupyca, some analysis here.)

... pepper spray too.

[Update Wed 5:17pm]


[Update Thursday 4:59pm]: There's a lot of bad news coverage out there, where reporters repeat word for word the absurd story that the chief of police came up with. Cops lie. There's some better coverage and analysis at Student Activism, SF Bay Guardian, and the Informant.

Dear Vice Chancellor Harry LeGrande et. al,

I am writing to voice my concerns regarding my interactions with the Office of Student Conduct and to inform you of my experience in dealing with the process as a student journalist accused of participating in the November 20 demonstration in Wheeler Hall last fall. I am one of about 40 students who the university charged with student conduct violations in relationship to the demonstration. As I understand it, the Code of Conduct doesn’t include a provision for an “interlocutory appeal,” but my experience last night calls out for intervention by your Office.

On Thursday, Oct. 20, Dr. Robert DiMartino led a pre-hearing conference to discuss my charges under the code of student conduct. The previous month I participated in a previous pre-hearing conference under a different chair, Dr. Georjana Barnes of the Department of Molecular Biology. Dr. Barnes aborted that meeting after the lawyer for the University of California Office of the President said he couldn’t stick around to see the meeting to completion.

In all previous meetings involving student conduct, the university officials permitted Thomas Frampton, a law school student and my advisor in this matter, to speak on my behalf. I had no reason to think the situation would be any different coming into my most recent meeting, but my experience yesterday differed dramatically from my previous experience.

Almost immediately after our meeting began, DiMartino ordered my observer Stephen Rosenbaum to leave. Rosenbaum is on the Berkeley Law School faculty and is also a practicing attorney. After returning from a discussion with Frampton about my charges, DiMartino announced that my advisor would not be allowed to speak on my behalf; not only is this inconsistent with my previous experiences, but it is a clear departure from other pre-hearing conferences on campus.

DiMartino’s position is that because an advisor is not explicitly allowed under the code to speak at pre-hearing conferences, there is an implicit prohibition on his doing so, which is the same reason he cited for ejecting Rosenbaum. DeMartino further suggested that I should be aware of this prohibition, despite the fact that his conclusion is based on a nuanced interpretation of the code that runs counter to my own past experience and that of others.

After explaining that I was not fully-prepared to argue all of the issues we planned to bring up at the pre-hearing, DiMartino countered with the option to file a written brief addressing two issues he deemed pertinent to the pre-hearing: Whether the hearing should be open, and what witnesses I planned to call in my defense, a provision which is itself not explicitly allowed under the code. After explaining that I wasn’t prepared to answer whether such a proposal would be acceptable, I asked for a recess and a new pre-hearing date.

DiMartino refused to reschedule the pre-hearing and said that any objection I had to proceeding this way could only be taken up after the panel has delivered its decision in the charges I’m facing. Have I therefore exhausted all of my administrative remedies available to me at this time?

I realize that it is important for the panel chair to retain some discretion over the student conduct process, but it is imperative that the code is clear on exactly what is within his or her discretion. Student conduct is heralded as an educational process, but I’m really fumbling over what I’m supposed to learn from this experience, and I know other students facing conduct charges feel the same way.

A few years ago, a federal judge sent me to jail for refusing to turn over my unpublished materials of a political demonstration I filmed in San Francisco. During the seven months I spent at a federal detention center fighting for the rights of a free press, many described my situation as Kafkaesque. It saddens me to realize that my experience at UC Berkeley has been a far more appropriate use of the term.

Given the clear deficiencies in the code of student conduct, which the university has acknowledged by calling for a task force to address these problems, I ask that you suspend this process for myself and others until there is policy in place that serves an educational function of the world-class caliber this institution offers in academics.

I would be happy to meet with anyone to address my concerns over the code of conduct, and I know that other students facing charges and members of the Campus Rights Project, an advocacy group comprised of law school students who are providing pro-bono representation to students facing conduct charges, would also be willing to make themselves available to discuss this issue as well.

Thank you for your consideration,

Josh Wolf

UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism
2011 Master’s candidate in documentary
Tel: 415.794.2401
e-mail: joshwolf@berkeley.edu


CC:
Robert Birgeneau
Chancellor

Jonathan Poullard
Dean of Students

Susan Trageser
Director of Student Conduct

Laura Bennett
Student Conduct Officer

Nanette Asimov
San Francisco Chronicle

Gerry Shih
The Bay Citizen

Rebecca Bowe
San Francisco Bay Guardian

Frances Dinkelspiel
Berkeleyside

Laura Dobler
Student Press Law Center

Good reporting from the Daily Cal:

Months after students were charged with misconduct for their involvement in demonstrations last November, conduct hearings commenced last Thursday, but questions about UC Berkeley officials' handling of the cases have clouded the proceedings in controversy.

The proceedings, since their inception, have been fraught with multiple allegations of procedural violations on the part of the Office of Student Conduct. In response to these allegations, officials from both the campus and the office said they could not comment on specific cases but said they follow procedure as laid out by the campus code of conduct.

"The code is just a tool for (the office) -- they use it when it's to their own advantage and ignore it when it isn't," said Daniela Urban, a student at the UC Berkeley School of Law and member of the Campus Rights Project who has been advising students charged with conduct violations. "They don't see the code as a written text they have to adhere to."

(...)

The Timeline

According to students, the delays in proceedings may be attributed primarily to the suspension of the timeline for conduct hearings as well as to the multiple iterations of the code, both of which complicated the proceedings.

Campus officials and students worked on changes to the code over spring and summer 2009 but did not institute the new code until the beginning of spring 2010.

Provisions in the code have always maintained that students be charged within 30 days of misconduct and tried 45 days after being charged. But the old code reserved the right to suspend the timeline expressly to the Dean of Students, currently Jonathan Poullard. The new code allows either the dean, or his or her designee, to suspend the code.

Poullard could not be reached for comment as of press time.

But Christina Gonzales, associate dean of students, suspended the code in August 2009, before the new code was instituted, in response to budget-induced campus-wide furloughs. She said given the days that staff would be able to work, the timeline was no longer "feasible."

Students charged for conduct violations during the protests in November 2009 argued that the timeline's suspension was invalid because the language of the code at the time of the suspension precluded Gonzales from suspending the timeline.

"Suspending the timeline has had the most significant impact," Urban said. "Every time something doesn't happen, (the office says) the timeline has been suspended. It's absurd, stringing these people along for 10 months."

Gonzales has maintained that she had the authority to suspend the code because Poullard was "out of the office," and in his absence, she is the acting dean of students.

Civil Action

If the delays continue, bringing the issue to court is an option that is on the table, according to Dan Siegel, a civil rights lawyer with Oakland-based law firm Siegel & Yee, which has been supervising the law students who are advising the students facing misconduct charges.

In April, the firm issued a letter to campus officials demanding unrestricted legal representation for students and the dismissal of charges against students charged with misconduct during fall 2009's protests. Later that month, the campus responded to the firm, dismissing its demands.

The group is considering asking a judge to issue an injunction either forbidding the university from proceeding with the charges or at least ordering the campus to resolve the hearings quickly, Siegel said.

"We're kind of at the end of our rope here," he said. "We thought that the university would move promptly to get these cases solved when school started, but we've been involved in what seems like endless conversations and prehearings and hearings that are rescheduled, postponed and cancelled at the last minute."

According to Gonzales, students should be able to resolve the issues without having to turn to outside mediation.

"The students on this campus are some of the smartest in the world along with our staff and faculty," Gonzales said. "We should be able to resolve this."

One student organizer was threatened by UCPD Officer McWilliams (badge number 72). As McWilliams crumpled up a student banner, he said “I hope you like the face of the devil, because you’re going to be looking at it. The fucking cavalry is coming.”

Williams is on the right.

... defending Birgeneau's house. All East Bay jurisdictions (UCPD, BPD, OPD, Alameda County Sheriffs) present and accounted for.

I.

Like all regimes of law (or quasi-law), the UC Berkeley Code of Student Conduct corresponds to a particular spatial jurisdiction, within which it is considered to be in effect and therefore applicable [1]. What is the nature, and what are the contours, of this space?

To begin, however, we must take a step back and start with a different question. What is conduct? According to the Code, the university constitutes a “community of scholars” governed by “rules of conduct intended to foster behaviors that are consistent with a civil and educational setting” (1). Although this “civil and educational setting” remains undefined, what is clear is that the Code is aimed at regulating the practices of those who participate within the scope of the university community. This formulation points to an initial, reflexive reading of the term conduct: what is at stake is the way in which one “conducts oneself.” That is, the Code (like the law) presumes to produce self-regulating subjects, or rather, certain kinds of subjectivities that become embodied in everyday practices. Here, a second understanding of conduct as transitive verb, one that suggests directionality or purpose, emerges: to “conduct something” is to advance it along a determined path. The Code of Student Conduct, then, is an apparatus designed to produce (student) subjects that are simultaneously subject to and defined by the privileges and restrictions accorded to that particular subjectivity.

The Code’s target, in other words, is the student body. It is telling that the administrators of the Office of Student Conduct consistently talk about the disciplinary process as “developmental.” As a biological metaphor, development reads the student body as unfinished material, as pre-person, as person-to-be. Thus, the Code’s language of “fostering” the development of the student body must be read as part of a matrix of evolutive images and ideologies that ground the legitimacy of the Code and its Office.

But the student body is not only the target of the Code: it is also the jurisdiction of the Code.

A work in progress, from the folks at uncivpro: "The Urgent Necessity of the Abolition of the University’s Regulation of Student Political Activity."

In Fall 2009, direct-action resistance to the UC Regents’ project of privatizing the University of California (“UC”) erupted systemwide. In response, the UC Administration is now punishing students on a mass scale for violating various provisions of the Code of Student Conduct.

Almost invariably, an alleged violation of the criminal law -- which, of course, exists independently of the Code of Student Conduct -- underlies the student conduct charges resulting from the demonstrations and actions in Fall 2009; almost invariably, the UC Administration commenced its student conduct charges against students after receiving a UC Police Department (UCPD) report detailing the student’s alleged violation of a particular law. Thus, students who engage in civil disobedience face significant repercussions from two independent State entities.

First, and most obviously, students confront the State and the possibility of State repression. It suffices to briefly mention that civil disobedience often results in suffering physical harm at the hands of law enforcement (i.e., police brutality), arrest, stints in jail, and citations for violations of the criminal law. The District Attorney can press charges against the students; the prospect of punitive fines and/or prison is real. Second, and less obviously, the University may sanction students for the same activity that the criminal law governs; that is, the University may impose additional punishments on students for their acts of civil disobedience.

A small group of law students working with National Lawyers Guild attorneys have closely monitored and defended students in these University disciplinary proceedings. Such scrutiny from a legal perspective has revealed administrators’ improper application of the University’s disciplinary process in addition to systemic abuses of students’ due process rights guaranteed under both the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and students’ contracts with the UC.

The purpose of this piece, however, is not to detail the UC Administration’s various and numerous violations of students’ legal rights. Instead, this piece generally seeks to contribute another opinion to the ongoing discussion of the student disciplinary process at the University. In addition, this article broadly aspires (with attendant modesty) to lay the groundwork for an anti-authoritarian critique of the student disciplinary process. This critique suggests an ultimate solution to the problems posed by the University’s use of its disciplinary process to sanction students for acts of civil disobedience: abolition of the student disciplinary process.

This solution may appear impractical, perhaps utopian, and too long term of a project to have any immediate relevance to the defense of students facing disciplinary charges. Undoubtedly, students facing disciplinary charges need immediate relief, and such long-term plans offer those already subjected to the student disciplinary process little assistance. This piece assumes that the most important objective for any defense-related project is to get the OSC off charged students’ backs. But it is our hope that this critique of the OSC will inform concerned parties as they move forward and formulate strategies to resist the Administration’s draconian effort to neutralize the most active elements in the Student Movement.

As a pragmatic first step, this piece argues for the abolition of the University’s authority to sanction students for conduct that the criminal law governs. Abolition of the University’s authority to sanction students for conduct that the criminal law governs is necessary, at the very least, to ensure that students can operate politically with as least restraint possible within the University context. Otherwise, the University can wield its power to deprive students of their education in order to coerce students to eschew direct-action resistance. Thus, there is an urgency to the abolition of the University’s power to sanction students for activity governed by the criminal law.

The first one was sent out today to UC Berkeley building coordinators by Stephen Stoll, Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness/Homeland Security:

Building Coordinators

PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS INFORMAITON TO YOUR BUILDING STAFF

As you may have heard, this coming week has several scheduled activities, including the planned rally on Thursday, March 4^th. There may also be other associated activities around the campus, including potential marches through campus buildings and “sit-ins”. These activities may present some unique challenges for the campus as the majority of our facilities are open to the public.

Although we do not expect any malicious activities, its possible your building may be marched through or even have minor disruptions, so it is best to be a little more vigilant for those who may be roaming our halls.

As always, UCPD will be continuously monitoring activities around campus and if the situation arises, be providing you with information specific to your building/facility.

It might be good to review standard operating procedures for this eventuality (see below).

**************************************************

Please remind your building occupants of the following procedures should marchers enter your building:

If marchers enter your building, let them. Try to carry on business as usual. If the noise becomes too great, or the crowd too large, feel free to close and lock your office doors - this is a departmental decision.

Do not close your buildings unless the Police advise you to.

As always, if you have questions please feel free to contact the UC Police department at 642-6760 or call via cell phone to 642-3333.

**************************************************

From an informational perspective, if you observe any unusual gatherings or activities in your building/facility, if you observe any suspicious activities or if you experience actual disruptions to classrooms or administrative routines, call UCPD (642-6760 or 642-3333) and we will provide the appropriate support.

We will be utilizing the BC email as a conduit for campus-wide specific information we need to disseminate, so please check your email regularly.

Thank you for helping get the word out!

PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS INFORMAITON TO YOUR BUILDING STAFF

The second email was sent out yesterday to the UC Berkeley faculty senate by chair Christopher Kutz:

Dear all,

Like many of the readers of this list, I am very excited about the March on the 4th in Sacramento -- SAVE has done
an incredible job organizing.

Perhaps like many of you, I am also getting pretty concerned by all the reports about plans for more occupations, "actions,"
and more confrontational kinds of campus protests next week, including on the 4th. I know a lot of this is just smoke, an attempt deliberately to rattle the cages of those of us who think we need to make the public, political case for higher education. But Durant Hall is evidence that some things will happen -- things that have the potential to get students hurt, and to shift the focus from the insistent demand to restore educational funding, to violent internecine conflict on campus. I really don't want either of those.

The students bent on occupation and confrontation will do what they do, and will take the consequences. But I am especially concerned to avoid another Nov. 20th-like event, where the real chaos and danger lay outside, with large groups of protestors. My fear is that there may be many students, eager to support the inside protest or simply curious, who will not know how to protest safely, without putting themselves at risk of arrest, on campus discipline, or injury, especially when they hear voices of some activists urging them to rush the police lines.

So I thought the Senate might directly recruit some "Casque bleu" peacekeepers from among the faculty, who could be counted on to play the role some faculty (particularly SAVE members) did in November, of trying to calm the crowd and instruct them, via bullhorn or leaflet, on "Peaceful Protest 101." If you would be willing to play this role, or know someone who would, could you please write me directly to let me know? You won't be representing the administration, or any particular principle except informed consent on the part of students -- how to engage in protest without (unwittingly) risking injury or academic career.

thanks,
Chris

Email sent out this afternoon at 3:15 pm:

With the Spring semester's beginning, we write jointly to remind the university community that use of our common resources -- our classrooms, labs, offices, and public spaces -- is subject to rules aimed at protecting the liberty of each of us to teach, learn, work, live, and engage in political expression. Rights of protest and demonstration are both protected and governed by rules of appropriate time, place, and manner, crafted collaboratively by faculty, students and administration, in accordance with First Amendment law.

In particular, we remind all that the following campus rules are fundamental to our respectful and vigorous life as a community diverse in beliefs, interests, and activities. These rules will be enforced as we embark on a season of renewed discussion and debate concerning the path forward for Berkeley and higher education. We expect the full compliance of faculty, staff, and students.

From the Campus Regulations Concerning the Time, Place, and Manner of Public Expression (http://students.berkeley.edu/uga/regs.stm), Secs. 300ff:

311. The University has a special obligation to protect free inquiry and free expression. On University grounds open to the public generally, all persons may exercise the constitutionally protected rights of free expression, speech and assembly. Such activities must not, however, interfere with the right of the University to conduct its affairs in an orderly manner and to maintain its property, nor may they interfere with the University's obligation to protect the rights of all to teach, study, and freely exchange ideas. These regulations purport to assure the right of free expression and advocacy on the Berkeley campus, to minimize conflict between the form of exercise of that right and the rights of others in the effective use of University facilities, and to minimize possible interference with the University's responsibilities as an educational institution.

312. These regulations provide authorization for certain uses of University facilities, and establish procedures for such authorized uses. Such uses must conform to these regulations, Berkeley campus and University policies, and state and federal laws that may protect or regulate matters of public expression on the Berkeley campus.

321. All individuals on University property or in attendance at an official University function assume an obligation to conduct themselves in a manner compatible with the University's responsibilities as an educational institution. This means that all persons are responsible for complying with applicable University and Berkeley campus policies, including but not limited to the listed prohibitions.
No person on University property or at official University functions may:

(a) block entrances to or otherwise interfere with the free flow of traffic into and out of campus buildings;

(b) have unauthorized entry to, possession of, receipt of, or use of any University services; equipment; resources; or properties, including the University's name, insignia, or seal;

(c) engage in physical abuse including but not limited to sexual assault, sex offenses, and other physical assault; threats of violence; or other conduct that threatens the health or safety of any person;

(d) obstruct or disrupt teaching, research, administration, disciplinary procedures, or other University activities;

(e) engage in the production of amplified or non-amplified sound that disrupts campus activities;

(f) exhibit disorderly or lewd conduct;

(g) participate in a disturbance of the peace or unlawful assembly;

(j) possess, use, store, or manufacture explosives, firebombs, or other destructive devices;

(k) possess, use, store, or manufacture a firearm or other weapon.;

(l) engage in the theft of, conversion of, destruction of, or damage to any property of the University, or any property of others while on University premises, or possession of any property when the individual had knowledge or reasonably should have had knowledge that it was stolen;

(m) fail to comply with the directions of a University official or other public official acting in the performance of his or her duties while on University property or at official University functions; or resisting or obstructing such University or other public officials in the performance of or the attempt to perform their duties;

(n) camp or lodge on University property other than in authorized facilities;

(o) climb up or rappel down any tree, building, or structure on University property;

331. The Sproul Plaza and Lower Sproul Plaza have traditionally been designated as areas for public expression. These areas are open to the public generally between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. Between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m., these areas are generally closed to all activities except coming and going to a University building or crossing the campus. During open hours, Sproul Plaza and Lower Sproul Plaza may be used without reservation for discussion or public expression which does not require or involve sound amplification equipment. Space in both areas may be reserved through the Center for Student Leadership for use by recognized campus organizations or non-University groups in accordance with facility use regulations and established office procedures. However, use of these areas for discussion or public expression may be limited when such use interferes with the orderly conduct of University business or authorized events.

Christopher Kutz
Chair, Faculty Senate

Fiona M. Doyle
Vice Chair, Faculty Senate

Robert J. Birgeneau
Chancellor

George Breslauer
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost