If you believe UC Davis, the US Bank fiasco is the fault of everyone but them. Twelve of the protesters will get their second shot at arraignment this week, on a series of misdemeanor charges stemming from their role in the bank-blocking protests that went from January 13 until February 28.
And on Friday, UC Davis filed a lawsuit against US Bank who, after they had to close the bank 27 times early and not open at all three additional times, finally gave up and closed their doors.
Perhaps a telling statement was what UC Davis spokesperson Claudia Morain told the Vanguard, that basically the bank was going to file suit and so they reluctantly decided to file it themselves.
And I asked her if that meant they were attempting to do this preemptively, sue the bank before the bank could sue them. And she responded that those were my words, not theirs. But it seems pretty clear that this is what the university is doing.
And the Vanguard fully believes that the decision to forward the names of protesters to the DA’s office was a preemptive strike to avoid liability.
The question I think we must all ask ourselves is whether it was reasonable that the bank would close its doors after protesters caused them to have to close early 27 times and and fail to open 3 times, over a six and a half week period.
I think one of the key legal questions is who is responsible for the space immediately outside of the doors of the bank – in the Memorial Union but, technically speaking, not inside the branch.
The university is claiming that the Bank neither requested nor received assurances that the university would exercise government power at their behest.
“The Bank agreed that the Regents have ” ‘no obligation whatsoever to provide’ security measures.”
Moreover, “The Bank ‘assumes all responsibility for the protection of the Bank, its agents and invitees from acts of third parties.’ The Lease does not obligate the Regents to indemnify the Bank for the costs of providing security.”
I would take that to mean that the Bank would have to provide its own private security inside the bank. However, are you telling me that if a person entered the bank, drew their gun, and stole money from the bank, that the police would not get involved? I find that very difficult to even imagine that’s what the clause meant.
Moreover, in this case, since it is actions just outside of the bank that are ostensibly preventing the use of the bank, the bank would have to rely on the university and the university police to enforce state laws.
We agree that the university does not have the power to “to control the behavior of individuals who are not its agents or who are not acting within the course and scope of their employment with the Regents. Students are not employees or agents of the Regents, and conducting a ‘sit-down’ at a bank is not within the course and scope of any faculty member’s employment at UC Davis.”
In other words, the university has no control over the conduct of student protesters or professors who are not acting in the course of their duties of employment.
At the same time, and I’m sure the bank will argue this, the university is responsible for ensuring that no laws are broken in areas under their jurisdiction, and it is reasonable to presume that the Memorial Union is one of those areas.
The university then presents us with this view: “Although the police tried to dissuade the protesters from continuing their ‘sit-down’ at the Bank, the protesters refused to comply,” they continue, noting that following the events in November 2011, “the police were especially careful to avoid escalating conflict.”
They contend that “the police formed the opinion that trying to physically remove protesters posed an unacceptable risk of emboldening the protesters and others to act violently, or to cause the situation to deteriorate in other ways that would be more difficult for the police to manage.”
The Regents charge: “The Bank asked the Regents to ignore the professional judgment of the police and to order the physical removal of the protesters, no matter the consequences.”
The Vanguard had a lengthy conversation with UC Davis Spokesperson Barry Shiller on this very subject, and he said that they had consulted outside agencies and all of them believed that using the police to clear the area would be a mistake.
So here, as we reported on Tuesday, we have the bank basically screaming that they can’t do business, and asking the university to enforce state laws to allow them to open their doors. And we have the university claiming that they do not want to escalate things.
I think this is where the timeline really comes into play. We see, on January 11, there was a teach-in in the lobby of the bank branch.
The Regents draw a legal distinction between the teach-in that occurred inside the bank branch and the protests outside, arguing, “Although the Regents [are] not responsible for the acts of third parties, after the week of January 13, 2012, there were no more ‘sit-down’ protests inside the Branch, and the alleged default was cured.”
But two days later on January 13, began the blockade of the bank as described on UC Davis’ timeline.
From January 13 to February 2, there are 12 days of blockage, each of which resulted in the bank closing early. It is on February 3, day 13, that UC Davis reports, “Dialogue team discussed time, place, and manner laws and policies with demonstrators.”
Now you are going to tell me that there is nothing that the university could have done in those 13 days to ensure that the bank, their partner, is able to perform their business?
Barry Shiller, of course, defended the university’s response.
“We hoped the situation could be resolved through engagement and education, as occurred earlier in January when the brief occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center ended peacefully and congenially,” Mr. Shiller told the Vanguard. “Based on that, we had reason to hope bank protesters might realize that they could expressively demonstrate their displeasure with the bank’s presence without denying others the ability to enter and exit safely.”
But how long did it take the university to realize that this was not going to work?
Barry Shiller stands by the university’s decision not to use the police to clear the way.
“Yes, we do believe it was appropriate,” he said. “Demonstrators were afforded weeks to modify their behavior. When they elected to continue the blockade, they were warned — verbally or in writing, on 11 occasions between February 3 and 27 — that they were subject to possible criminal and campus sanctions.”
He does however, concede that the university should have, at the very least, moved more quickly to take the steps that were taken.
“Perhaps [we should have] accelerated the steps outlined [previously], moving somewhat more quickly to the above steps,” he conceded.
Really? Perhaps?
He continued: “But we believe that focusing first on engagement, and relying on police to intervene when it is clear there are no other options for safeguarding the rights of all members of the campus community, is a very viable long-term approach for resolving campus conflict while preserving the rights of all community members to engage in expressive, protected free speech.”
We stated that we felt the police needed to be brought in far sooner – that the university had the obligation to ensure that the bank could do its lawful business.
On the other hand, I think the university believes it did the right thing by not arresting protesters.
As math professor Greg Kuperberg noted, “[The] university was right not to arrest protesters in a hallway choked with smartphones and thus risk another YouTube-driven fiasco.”
The university likes the way it did this because, from their perspective, it is clean. The DA investigated, filed charges and sent the notices to appear in the mail. Now the DA and not the university gets to be the heavy.
The problem is that it took too darned long to achieve this. 27 days the bank had to close early. Three days they did not open at all.
The UC report on the “Response to Protests on UC Campuses” they tellingly write: “Civil disobedience by definition involves violating laws or regulations, and that civil disobedience will generally have consequences for those engaging in it because of the impact it can have on the rest of the campus community.”
Moreover, “The First Amendment does not guarantee any right to engage in civil disobedience – which, by its very definition, involves the violation of laws or regulations to communicate a political message – without incurring consequences.”
In fact, it requires for the protester to in fact be arrested “as a sacrifice to the political cause in question.”
The bottom line here is that there needs to be an understanding that these kinds of actions require the university police to intervene. And if the reason we do not have them intervene is fear, then we have a problem.
The reason we have police is that they are the first responders to an emergency crisis. They need to be trained as to how to peacefully effect arrests in what is understandably a tricky situation involving civil disobedience.
But the reason the police need to respond is that the DA’s office is not equipped to make quick investigative decisions. Instead, they are equipped to conduct lengthy investigations so that they can not only gain a conviction but have reasonable assurances that evidence can support the charges that they file so that they don’t unduly put an innocent person through the legal system.
That due diligence means that it might take a few months for them to complete their investigation. As we saw, those few months were enough to force the bank, frustrated understandably at what they saw the lack of will by the university to make the tough choices, to close their door.
We cannot possibly believe that the university will prevail on their action. What reasonable person could believe that it was the bank and not the university who breached the contract following six and a half weeks of inaction on the bank-blocking front, after 27 early closures and 3 more days of never opening?
It is inconceivable that a group of students sitting in front of a bank could close a bank branch down. Inconceivable, I say. And the only possible way to have conceived it is massive errors, in this case falling squarely on the shoulders of the university.
As UC reviews its policies, we need clear guidance on how to respond to civil disobedience, because more and more it seems that UC police are in the business of figuring out how to properly handle protests and protesters, and attempting to avoid repeats of November 9 in Berkeley and November 18 at UC Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]dmg: Just as I fully believe that the decision to forward the names of protesters to the DA’s office was a preemptive strike to avoid liability.
[/quote]
Preemptive strike to avoid what liability? This doesn’t make sense. It would seem to me forwarding the names of the protestors to the DA’s office was a nonviolent method of handling the bank protestors illegal activities…
[quote]dmg: Moreover, “The First Amendment does not guarantee any right to engage in civil disobedience – which, by its very definition, involves the violation of laws or regulations to communicate a political message – without incurring consequences.”
In fact, it requires for the protester to in fact be arrested “as a sacrifice to the political cause in question.”[/quote]
Where in the law does it say “thou shalt arrest protestors to make sure they are sacrificed to the political cause in question”? Why does the gov’t have to politically play into the hands of the protestors? There is more than one way to skin a cat, to wit:
[quote]dmg: As Math Professor Greg Kuperberg noted, “[The] university was right not to arrest protesters in a hallway choked with smartphones and thus risk another YouTube-driven fiasco.”
The university likes the way it did this because from their perspective it is clean. The DA investigated, filed charges, and sent the notices to appear in the mail. Now the DA and not the university gets to be the heavy.[/quote]
And lastly:
[quote]dmg: We cannot possibly believe that the university will prevail on their action. What reasonable person could be believe that it was the bank and not the university who breeched the contract following six and a half weeks of inaction on the bank blocking front after 27 early closures and 3 more days of never opening.[/quote]
I wouldn’t want to be a judge sitting in a decision-making posture on this one. Difficult case. I think the bank probably has the stronger case, the university had some valid points, and courts can be quite unpredictable…
Elaine
“and courts can be quite unpredictable…”
A very profound statement. It happens to be at the heart of my two largest objections to our current legal system. If every judge was indeed unbiased and weighing with a completely open mind all information provided and if the goal of the disputants was to achieve the fairest settlement possible rather than just o advance their own cause, then one would presume that there would be far less “unpredictability”. As it is now, our judges have at least the appearance, if not the reality of political bias, and too many judgements appear to be based on whose lawyers are capable of presenting the most compelling story.
This is merely how it seems to me. Since I am no lawyer, I would very much like to hear the perspective of those of you who are on this issue.
[quote]It is inconceivable that a group of students sitting in front of a bank could close a bank branch down. Inconceivable I say. [/quote]
Sounds like you and reality are not operating under the same assumptions.
“
Preemptive strike to avoid what liability? This doesn’t make sense.”
Being sued by US Bank, which is a very real possibility. Their defense will be that they prosecuted the protesters but did not want to risk a repeat of what happened on November 18.
“Where in the law does it say “thou shalt arrest protestors to make sure they are sacrificed to the political cause in question”? “
What do you mean? This was quoted from the UC Report on Responses to Protests. Why are you asking where in the law it says that?
[img]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0805/inconceivable-demotivational-poster-1211219787.jpg[/img]
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Once again I ask what role the Chancellir played in the bank decisions/indecisions. I believe she needs to be evaluated on her role here too. It does not appear she nor the university team have yet ‘gotten it right’.
Elaine: courts can be unpredictable, but that does not mean the university ought to sue for breach of contract here. In fact, it suggests they ought not.
Greg: Honestly I almost put the quote there from Princess Bride, that’s where I got to idea to use that word. There is an irony of course, given what the hero in Princess Bride, Westley, had to do to continue the pursuit, Vizzini was not wrong – it was inconceivable, that was part of the joke in the movie. Yes, I actually intentionally used that word and for that reason.
Some of us don’t want to checkmate the university between student liability and vendor liability.
[quote]Elaine: courts can be unpredictable, but that does not mean the university ought to sue for breach of contract here. In fact, it suggests they ought not.[/quote]
If they are going to be sued anyway, it makes some sense to be the first to sue as a legal strategy, no?
“It is inconceivable that a group of students sitting in front of a bank could close a bank branch down.”
Except that was the blockaders’ objective. Except that’s what happened. Except the demonstrators take credit for it. Except the whole world was watching and saw it happen.
Unless you’re trying to make some point by describing their disrupting and stopping business as simply picnicking in front of a bank,” these folks actually were successful at what they tried to do–they forced bank officials into deciding whether it was worth staying in business in the face of a blockade that would have gone on for many more months or years.
You might be in denial about what the blockade’s impact could on a small operation in a UCD building, but the bank couldn’t afford to ignore it.
The only rationale you have for this constant blaming of the university for the outcome is that the demonstrators somehow wouldn’t show up day after day if they were arrested, not charged and released day after day. That, of course, is inconceivable.
You allocate the basest motive to every decision UCD officials made without any proof, just rank speculation without even an attempt to justify the statements.
For example, you attribute the university’s decision not to drag off protesters and arrest them to “fear” and a desire to avoid blame for eventual charges being made. In fact, the university based its decisions to allow demonstrators to stay as long as the situation remained peaceful on a number logical, appropriate reasons which you were provided.
“In fact, it requires for the protester to in fact be arrested “as a sacrifice to the political cause in question.”
The way you use this statement misrepresents the “response” report. It is not intended to suggest an obligation on authorities at all. It’s an effort to define “civil disobedience” as distinguished from other demonstration types. Their attempt is to have folks understand the alleged purpose of certain disobedient acts, not to suggest police need to accommodate their desire to be arrested.
We agree on at least one thing, UCD should have a difficult time prevailing. The blockaders are the reason bank decided to leave. But, if university officials decided for their own legitimate and considerate reasons not to assure unfettered access for tie bank to do business on UCD property, they can’t expect the bank to fight to do business indefinitely.
It’s a mystery why UCD wants to point a legal finger at the bank, given the choices it made during the demonstration. No doubt, Ms. Morain figured the university’s legal strategy was none of your business. Anyway, the “preemptive strike” theory makes little sense it won’t have any effect on the bank’s motives to recover damages.
Both parties need to calmly admit defeat to the blockaders and move on. Even though the bank was victimized and suffered financial damages, it should back off and maintain good relations with UCD in hopes there will be future opportunities for mutual benefit undertakings. A settlement is in order here.
For those customers and students who might be concerned about lost financial benefit from the business arrangement, they should write off their losses as a small price to pay for the attention blockaders might have brought to the serious problems of college costs and educational loans.
JustSaying – That’s not the only rationale. The rationale is to checkmate the university between vendor liability and student liability. The whole point all along has been to amplify the influence of student protesters. Think of liability as an instrument of protest.
JustSaying
“but the bank couldn’t afford it”
Unless you have access to bank records, all we really know is that the bank said they could not afford it.
I probably would not be so picky about this comment, had you not called on me to name sources and provide facts with regard to the impact of Target before expressing my opinion. If we are going to state our opinions, that is fine. If we are going to base our posts on factual data, that is fine. I do take exception to holding others to a different standard than you choose for yourself.
The protesters of course are considering this a victory. However, I , not having access to any firm data only know that the protesters and the bank are making the same claim, each for their own reasons. This does not make that claim factual. If may be a matter of convenience to put this spin on events for both sides.
“Preemptive strike to avoid what liability? This doesn’t make sense.”
“Being sued by US Bank, which is a very real possibility. Their defense will be that they prosecuted the protesters but did not want to risk a repeat of what happened on November 18.”
I thought this theory had been debunked weeks when the timeline of various actions was published in the Vanguard. And if the order of events doesn’t compute, what happens when one adds on the prior decision-making and investigation time required to prepare charges?
In addition, here’s another case where rank speculation on something for you can’t have knowledge (about what “will be” the UCD defense) about one thing gives the only support you can develop for another claim.
Oops ! My apologies JustSaying.
I falsely accused you by confusing your comments with those of Adam Smith on another thread.
My point with regard to actual information about the banks financial dealings stands, but the rest of my commentary was in error.
Just Saying:
Objective means little. I can jump out of a window with a full objective to fly but that does not mean that there is a chance in heck that I can succeed without some outside intervention. I can stand in front of a tank with the objective to stop that tank from advancing, but only the individual inside has the capacity to make it so. That’s how I think we have to view their objective here.
“You might be in denial about what the blockade’s impact could on a small operation in a UCD building, but the bank couldn’t afford to ignore it.”
But that’s the point, the bank couldn’t afford to ignore it … when UCD failed to stop the protesters.
“You allocate the basest motive to every decision UCD officials made without any proof, just rank speculation without even an attempt to justify the statements.”
I pointedly did not ascribe a base motive to UCD officials. I think they are very honest in terms of why they handled the matter as they did. I don’t think they meant harm. Unfortunately I think they got it wrong.
“you attribute the university’s decision not to drag off protesters and arrest them to “fear” and a desire to avoid blame for eventual charges being made.”
Well okay, if you want to see that as a base motive, I do think their failure to act more quickly and decisively was based on fear of repeating November 18.
” It is not intended to suggest an obligation on authorities at all.”
I’m not intending to say that either.
“Their attempt is to have folks understand the alleged purpose of certain disobedient acts, not to suggest police need to accommodate their desire to be arrested.”
That is true.
“We agree on at least one thing, UCD should have a difficult time prevailing. The blockaders are the reason bank decided to leave. But, if university officials decided for their own legitimate and considerate reasons not to assure unfettered access for tie bank to do business on UCD property, they can’t expect the bank to fight to do business indefinitely.”
I agree.
“It’s a mystery why UCD wants to point a legal finger at the bank, given the choices it made during the demonstration. No doubt, Ms. Morain figured the university’s legal strategy was none of your business. Anyway, the “preemptive strike” theory makes little sense it won’t have any effect on the bank’s motives to recover damages.”
She pretty much said it in her words, US Bank was going to sue, so the UCD sued.
“I thought this theory had been debunked weeks when the timeline of various actions was published in the Vanguard.”
No it wasn’t. All that timeline showed was the chronology of *some* events. What it didn’t show is the interaction between UCD and the bank which clearly showed that this was going to be headed for termination unless something changed, it was at that point that the university forwarded the names to the DA, at that point they were able to claim that they had an alternative strategy involving non-intervention by police and could defend against a breach of contract suit by the bank on those grounds. The poster arguing the point about the timeline failed to consider the possibility that the suit option was on the table far sooner than the actual closure of the bank. In fact, the breach of contract charge was thrown out in the first letter on January 13.
[quote]“JustSaying – That’s not the only rationale. The rationale is to checkmate the university between vendor liability and student liability. The whole point all along has been to amplify the influence of student protesters. Think of liability as an instrument of protest.”[/quote] Sorry, I haven’t understood this comment either time. My hand is up; please say it a different way.[quote]“JustSaying: ‘but the bank couldn’t afford it’ Unless you have access to bank records, all we really know is that the bank said they could not afford it.” [/quote]Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply I knew anything about the bank’s financial situation. I was pointing out whether the bank could “afford” to ignore the potential effect the blockade might end up having on the business should it go on for months more or even for years. I should have written: [quote]“You might be in denial about it, but the bank couldn’t afford to ignore what the blockade’s impact could have on a small operation in a UCD building.”[/quote][quote]“All that timeline showed was the chronology of *some* events. What it didn’t show is the interaction between UCD and the bank which clearly showed that this was going to be headed for termination unless something changed….”[/quote]What “interaction” have you uncovered and are the dates of the “interaction”? And, what is the date that UCD decided not to arrest demonstrators if peaceful, and, instead, investigate and charge any serious law-breaking? I’m satisfied that the dates provided earlier (combined with the lead time needed to build cases and file charges) shows there’s no basis for your claim that UCD only wanted charges brought in order to build a civil case defense. Speculation doesn’t really require any foundation, but let’s call it what it is.[quote]“If they are going to be sued anyway, it makes some sense to be the first to sue as a legal strategy, no?”[/quote]Is this a question? You’re the attorney here, but I’d rather that university officials spend time trying to resolve this in an amicable way. The supposed “pre-emptive strike” idea would seem hopeless strategy. How would it keep the bank from suing or weaken the bank’s possible case? If UCD anticipates a suit, why announce its defense?
David sez Ms. Morain “pretty much said it in her words” even after quoting her as saying his characterization was words, but not hers. Of course, he was there face-to-face, and gets UCD spokespersons saying the outrageous things and, most certainly, most unhelpful to the university. (See the recent report that the top communications guy opines that the DA will have a hard time getting convictions for the 12 that have been charged!)
Still, I think he might have misinterpreted her; the statement doesn’t seem logical and just making such an admission would work against her own employer.
This from yesterdays article on the University suing the bank,[i]
“According to the suit, “The Regents entered the Financial Services Agreements in its proprietary capacity. The Bank did not request – and the Regents did not agree – that the Regents would exercise governmental power (such as police power) at the behest of the Bank. The Bank agreed that the Regents has ‘no obligation whatsoever to provide’ security measures. “
Moreover, “The Bank “assumes all responsibility for the protection of the Bank, its agents and invitees from acts of third parties.” The Lease does not obligate the Regents to indemnify the Bank for the costs of providing security.”[/i]
So, unless I am misreading the above, the Bank and University had a rental agreement in which the Bank agreed to provide it’s own security and absolved the University of all responsibility to provide security.
Now the bank breaches their contract with U.C. Davis based on a claim that the University failed to remove protestors, making it impossible for them to do business. In doing so they deprive the University of revenues (i.e. $167,000. plus rent of $8,333./mo.) I’d say that is reason enough for U.C. Davis to sue the Bank.
Regarding U.C.’s preemptive suit: when you get sued, it is common practice to counter sue in the hope of coming to a settlement, thus protecting your fiduciary interests. In this case, U.C. Davis is taking a big financial hit. I’m glad that U.C. is protecting taxpayers from a bank who failed to provide the security mandated in their agreement with the University , and then tried to make the University financially responsible for their failures.
As a taxpayer, whose money is supposed to be funding education, not banks, I have little sympathy for U.S. Bank, who should have protected their own interests,not put them onto their landlord.
It will be interesting, as this case works it’s way through Yolo Superior Court, to learn if the property on which protestors sat out side of the bank office, was in fact included in their lease agreement, as is so often the case in commercial rental agreements. I’m sure that will become a key point in determining just who failed in their responsibility for dispersing/arresting the alleged blockaders who are being blamed by both parties for the Bank’s decision to quit their business instead of protect their business.
[quote]“Objective means little. I can jump out of a window with a full objective to fly…”[/quote]Didn’t your mother tell you not to try this, and to stay off the roof with your cape and tights?
x–Chances of flying after leaping from window: very skimpy.
x–Chances of stopping a tank by standing defenseless in front if it: risky, but it’s worked before.
x–Chances of closing down a business by blocking employees and customers for weeks: pretty good, we’ve seen it happen here.
Objective combines with dedication to mean a lot. Many examples of protests that have had success built from “hopeless” objectives.
I suspect many could have expected that the blockaders might have given up sooner (in spite of their announced intentions) or that the university might have arrested everyone sooner (in spite of the shaky situation the police force must have been in at the time) or that the bank might have hung on longer (in spite the threat to its employees, customers and bottom line).
But, to base such high criticism on the concepts that no one could have thought such a blockade might succeed or that repeatedly arresting everyone would be a better solution than what university officials decided to do instead just seems weak.
For months, everyone (protestors, UCD, bank) involved made daily decisions that were completely reasonable at the time they were made. To look backwards and blame UCD for the outcome on a thin string of suspicions, unprovable guesses and conjecture isn’t reasonable. To attribute the best motives to one party and the worst to everything that the other two did isn’t a fair way to evaluate responsibility.
Roger, what are you suggesting the bankers should have done to blockaders who were on university property to “protect their interests” with their own security forces?
David-
[quote]The question I think we must all ask ourselves is whether it was reasonable that the bank would close its doors after protesters caused them to have to close early 27 times and and fail to open 3 times, over a six and a half week period.[/quote]
There are many times when I appreciate your commentary, but this time I think you’re completely off base. Asking this question implies that there could be a right and a wrong between the bank and the university. This is not the case, and frankly the question of who will or should come out with the alimony in their little lovers’ quarrel is largely irrelevant.
What we should [i]really[/i] be asking ourselves it this: should the university have ever entered into a contract with the bank in the first place? If you have any real understanding of how privatization works and how it affects students, you will say ‘no’. The bank was not there simply for ‘convenience’, or to ‘help the school out’ with money; although it did to some small extent do both of these things, it (like any business) [i]was there to make a profit[/i]. Specifically, it was there to make a profit on the backs of students- through credit cards, through overdraft fees (young people who are short on income are notoriously predisposed to irresponsible spending), through loan interest, and through the chance of reeling in life-long customers simply because “that was the bank they had on my college campus”. The deeper question is, should education continue to be public, a ‘common good’, or should it turn into a profit-machine benefiting the business interests of the regents, “America’s #1 mortgage lender,” and the likes of Sodexho and Coca-Cola?
Also, and aside on civil disobedience:
Defining something as civil disobedience has nothing to do with whether or not participants get arrested. This notion that protesters “have” to get arrested and “have” to accept the consequences is a fascistic fantasy of the administration. Civil disobedience implies that participants [i]disobey[/i], obviously, but it also implies that they are doing so to protest the content of the laws, the way the laws are enforced, or the right of the governing body to enforce them in the first place. The university cannot continue to lay claim to its “long history of protest, debate and rigorous discourse” if it continues to simultaneously as though there is no possible way the law could be used unjustly and anyone who breaks a law must be wrong. Any freshman who has passed an intro philosophy class knows better than that.
Greg-
[quote]“The whole point all along has been to amplify the influence of student protesters.”[/quote]
Are you kidding me? Where in the world did you get this idea? Do you honestly think that if the only thing the protesters wanted to do was “amplify their influence,” they would have attempted to do so by sitting in a hallway for two months, getting yelled at and hit by doors on a daily basis? This claim might have some weight with more spectacular protests like the occupation of the former cross cultural center, but in this case it just doesn’t even make sense. Come on, you’re a professor, you should know better than to make such absurd claims.
adamsmith – Sure, that’s the way that it looks. It’s not that I think that the bank protesters did anything particularly clever or labor efficient for those two months. I think that the whole thing was a waste. But having done all of that work, they would probably be happier if the bank kicked the university’s butt in court. I don’t believe that they consider the bank to be the real enemy. If the university wins, or if they call a truce and cooperate again, then it’s as if the bank blockade didn’t really happen.
“I think that the whole thing was a waste.”
By what standards?
“they would probably be happier if the bank kicked the university’s butt in court”
Is this just speculation, or do you have some basis for this?
adamsmith – No it’s not just speculation. Occupy UC Davis has accused the university of trying to avoid liability. Apparently they want the university to have liabilities.
adamsmith:
I chose to bracket the discussion of whether teh university should have entered into a contract with the bank though I tend to agree with you that they shouldn’t.
On civil disobedience, among the roots of at least the modern notion is Thoreau’s willingness to go to prison rather than pay taxes in protest the unjustness of the American war effort.
Greg: I don’t think you are thinking about it in the way the protesters are.
Also I’d like to see your response on the inconceivability counterargument I posted.
[quote]“Also, and aside on civil disobedience:
Defining something as civil disobedience has nothing to do with whether or not participants get arrested. This notion that protesters “have” to get arrested and “have” to accept the consequences is a fascistic fantasy of the administration. Civil disobedience implies that participants disobey, obviously, but it also implies that they are doing so to protest the content of the laws, the way the laws are enforced, or the right of the governing body to enforce them in the first place.”[/quote]I agree that civil disobedience is a term not being adequately thought out here. The university’s “response” report suggests that we all should see it as some notion based on such historical, romantic foundations as David points out.
I see no evidence that the blockaders (or the pepper spray demonstrators) were interested in making their point by getting arrested. Certainly, their actions and comments since they’ve been charged gives lie to that as even a tiny part of their strategy.
The university’s effort to carve out a “civil disobedience” category for which everyone will agree that arrests and charges are appropriate is based on a thoroughly out-dated concept of demonstrator strategy. This is not your father’s civil rights sit-in.
David-
re: UCD vs USB, I understand the desire to bracket the discussion, I suppose. I personally don’t think the question of who is more at fault is really one worth asking, because obviously they both are, but I can see why others might want to have this discussion.
re: Civil Disobedience- of course participating in civil disobedience means one is [i]willing[/i] to go to jail rather than obey an unjust law or illegitimate ruler, but that doesn’t mean that they [i]want[/i] to go to jail. There’s actually a huge difference between being willing to get arrested and wanting to. No one in their right mind [i]wants[/i] to go to jail. The same goes for JustSaying’s comment- there’s a difference between knowingly putting oneself in a situation where arrest is possible (as the pepper-spray protesters did- they even filled out “pre-arrest” forms before the cops arrived) and “being interested in getting arrested to prove a point.” Additionally, while I can make no claims about the thoughts of the bank blockaders, the pepper spray protesters were by no means a unified group.
Greg-
accusing the university of trying to avoid liability means the protesters want the university to have more liabilities? That’s some flawed logic, and as a math professor you should know better. If the university has done something wrong (i.e. create a situation in which UCDPD peppersprayed seated students) and then has evaded taking responsibility for it in any meaningful way (both of these points have been shown in the Reynoso report and the administration’s response to it- Reynoso calls the “leadership team” out for their incompetence, yet all of them simply threw Spicuzza under the bus and said they would try to have more ‘dialogue’), then yes, it would be appropriate that the university accept liability for their actions. It’s not a question of whether or not the protesters [i]want[/i] the university to ‘have more liabilities’, rather it is a matter of fact that the university acted improperly (and illegally) and they should accept responsibility for those actions, regardless of who wants what.
adamsmith: I still think there is plenty of blame on both the bank and UCD. I know the conservatives on here do not want to believe, but there is no way a handful of protesters should have been able to close down a bank. That’s where this discussion has evolved from.
In terms of want, it really depends on the situation. My wife was involved in action in Houston a few years back, their goal was to be arrested. Is that wanting to be arrested? I guess depends on how you view the term “want.”
I wonder why the UCPD didn’t just cite one or more of the protesters day by day? No need to arrest and handcuff and cause a ruckus.
Just Saying writes, [i]”Roger, what are you suggesting the bankers should have done to blockaders who were on university property to “protect their interests” with their own security forces?” [/i]
Good question. If you or I perform a citizens arrest, on our rented or owned property, of some criminal breaking and entering or just stealing our hubcaps, the Davis P.D. is obligated by law to respond and haul the guy off to jail. Same applies to U.S. Bank. If protestors are actually blocking their business entrance in violation of law all they need to do is have their rent a cop, (or branch manager) place the individual under citizens arrest and then call the U.C.D. police. Being the police agency in charge of U.C. Davis they are legally obligated to handcuff the person, read em their rights, and haul them off to the county Jail.
The bank, as the legal resident of a property being illegally blockaded, can also just file a restraining order. Then anybody under restraint who continues to blockade leaves themselves wide open to legal recourse
The fact that the alleged blockaders were allowed to repeat their behavior over and over and over again while the Bank refused to do anything to protect themselves and their business interests leaves them in a very poor legal position.
Just Saying, As i reread your question I now realize that you asked about” blockaders who were on university property”. Actually, as I understand it, they were not on University property. If you or me or U.S.Bank rents a property, in terms of control for purposes of tresspass etc., it is our property.
According to what David published in quotes, from the University’s complaint, both their business agreements and rental agreement with the University specifically absolved the University of any responsibility for security at the bank.
I’ll bet that whatever bank takes over the space in the M.U. previously occupied by U’S. Bank will not have the same agreement.
Your wife’s civil disobedience is the honorable, traditional type which UC wants to label “CD,” thinking the world will be fine with actions the university takes to arrest CDers since the CDers “want” to be arrested to further their cause.
The CD-A demonstrators violate the specific law (sitting in the front of the bus) that they’re protesting to help show the inequity of it; the CD-B demonstrators violate some random law (trespass) in order to get arrested and draw more attention to their otherwise unrelated cause. One has to give significant respect to those who want to be arrested to advance either type of cause, whether or not one agrees with the objective (if the law-breaking doesn’t hurt anyone.
The current crop of UCD demonstrators doesn’t want to be arrested and, when they are, they whine about it. They contend the university has no right to arrest them because they’re exercising free speech rights. Breaking the law is okay to these folks because their cause is justified in their minds. This attitude puts them on a collision course with those fellow students and others whose rights get caught up in the law-breaking. Eventually, the university will feel compelled to act–sometimes with undesirable consequences.
So, the “response” report effort to carve out a consensus category of demonstrators who break the law and “want” to be arrested are living in la-la (law-law?) land. No one around this campus wants to sacrifice for their cause this way anymore. They claim to have rights to break laws and violate university policies with impunity, and demonize those who are burdened with keeping the campus a welcoming place of learning for everyone.
A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is professors who conduct “teach-ins” that ignore the important history of real civil disobedience in our own country and other states around the world. Maybe this type of inconsiderate “free speech” too will pass, like the “free love” movement sounded great, but that brought with it unintended consequences we later realized were undesirable.
Let’s not kid ourselves JS, my wife chained herself to a group of people and sat down in the middle of the street. I don’t think they were protesting traffic laws.
“The current crop of UCD demonstrators doesn’t want to be arrested and, when they are, they whine about it. “
do we actually know this? Here’s one possibility. THey see the arrest and the prosecution as an opportunity to once again show that the university and now the DA are corrupt and they now get a chance to use the publicity they get to air their grievances about the process, the system, and their cause.
You disagree with their views, their message, they tactics, so to you it’s simple to label it as whining, but through this lens it’s easy to see this as just another avenue to raise their issue.
David- I concede that using arrest as a spectacle to bring awareness to an issue is a sometimes valid tactic. However, in the context of the university struggle, where everyone is already aware of the issue (fee hikes), attempting to cause a spectacle simply for the sake thereof rarely works out. I should have been more clear on what I meant.
Also, well-put on that last comment.
“Let’s not kid ourselves JS, my wife chained herself to a group of people and sat down in the middle of the street. I don’t think they were protesting traffic laws”
What do you mean? Wouldn’t you put her demonstration in the traditional, honorable CD-B category? Sorry I miss your “don’t kid ourselves” point. I meant to be complimenting her efforts and approach and contrasting them with the current approach.
I see your other point that, once arrested, their protestations become another avenue to claim corruption in the system. Whether they “want” to be arrested as part of a strategy still is not convincing and whether the DA is their target (even close to as much as someone else thinks it might be) still is an open question. But, you’re right that I haven’t been giving this adequate consideration.
I do not disagree with their views about education, student loans, university costs, financial institution ripoffs of our society. I do not disagree with their demonstration tactics until they break laws. However, I think their decisions to shut down the bank branch and to do it by breaking legitimate laws were poor, ineffective choices. That view probably makes it too simple for me to call it whining when they claim that charging them is somehow unfair. So, I won’t do it anymore.
“Sorry I miss your “don’t kid ourselves” point”
I think I got your categories reversed. But then you say…
“However, I think their decisions to shut down the bank branch and to do it by breaking legitimate laws were poor, ineffective choices.”
I thought you didn’t have a problem with chaining oneself in the street, so now I’m not sure if you have a problem with breaking all laws, only a problem with breaking legitimate laws, or a problem with breaking some legitimate laws but not others.
I appreciate, obviously your other points there, but I’m still stuck on your definitional issue of which laws people can or cannot break (in your mind rather than the law’s eyes).
My comments go back to whether your wife, Gandhi and Rosa broke laws because the laws themselves were wrong OR because the sought out laws to break in order to get arrested to advance the cause OR that they don’t want to get arrested and want to be excused from their lawbreaking. The ones who protest arrest fell into a less worthy category in my original scheme.
But, I’m trying to revise my categories to give more credit to the third category–which, as you pointed out, probably contains folks who see unexpected and undesired arrest as serendipity that should be appreciated and exploited. This is all good.
You can blame Fred Wood for most of this mess, above all for not garnering enough student buy-in in the first place.