by Eric Lee
Special to the Vanguard –
BART actions to inhibit free speech activity isn’t new to University of California students who earlier this year uncovered internal documents showing officials have conspired to monitor and control constitutionally-protected fee hike protests at UC Davis.
Students and community members are particularly disturbed in light of similar Bay Area Rapid Transit police transgressions on the freedom to communicate.
“We feel threatened that public institutions like UC Davis and BART are actively pursuing policies that treat students and passengers respectively like criminals,” said Eric Lee, a 21- year-old recent graduate of UC Davis who has been active in student anti-austerity protests for the past three years.
“In the throes of the current economic meltdown, it is perhaps more valid to question the criminality of dishonest actions taken against those who are trying to fight for a better life. It is a telling sign that decision makers in these institutions feel the need to incriminate others in order to avoid public pressure for their own, sometimes violent, actions,” he said.
The documents, obtained through the state public records act, reveal high-ranking administrators, staff members, and leaders of the campus police department formed a network called the “Activism Response Team” to keep close tabs on student activists, including monitoring student Facebook activity, infiltrating protests and attempting to obtain information about “anticipated student actions,” and individuals involved in the protests.
In one case, an undercover campus police officer marched with students in plain clothes and refused to identify herself as a member of the UCD police department. UCD has apologized, calling it a “mistake.”
Students, faculty, staff, and the Sacramento and Yolo Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union are extremely concerned about the deepening abuse of police power in publicly used spaces-both public transit terminals and college campuses.
Students take offense at these incursions in light of the political merit of campus protests against tuition hikes: undergraduate tuition at the University of California has increased by more than 40 percent since 2009 and 300 percent since 2001 as essential services have been cut, class sizes reduced, and lower proportions of in-state students admitted.
“Students worry about the precedent that is being set by a law enforcement apparatus that is using the pulpit of ‘security’ to restrict our rights as citizens of the United States and as human beings. Time and time again history has shown that the false cry of ‘security’ can only be used to roll back the hard-fought advances of a democratic society,” Lee said.
“If we wish to learn from history, we must not sit idly as the pillars of democracy begin to erode and tremble in the wake of a polarizing and precarious reality.
“People, including students at a major university and commuters using public transportation, have the right to dissent without being “monitored” by a secret team of administrators and undercover police or having their right to communication impinged upon.
“If police or administrators wish to observe in a public fashion protests then that is their right. But it ought not to be done in manner more befitting a totalitarian regime than an open public university,” he concluded.
[quote]“We feel threatened that public institutions like UC Davis and BART are actively pursuing policies that treat students and passengers respectively like criminals,” said Eric Lee, a 21- year-old recent graduate of UC Davis who has been active in student anti-austerity protests for the past three years.[/quote]
As a citizen, I feel threatened by students who decide to protest in the middle of I-80; and by rioting passengers on the BART. When citizens, be they students or otherwise, engage in lawless activity, the gov’t can step in and do things as drastic as declare martial law to keep the peace. There is a natural tension between freedom of speech and public safety. Just because a citizen has the right to free speech, does not give him/her the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or to walk out on I-80 to carry on a protest, or to stop BART trains from functioning.
“When citizens, be they students or otherwise, engage in lawless activity, the gov’t can step in and do things as drastic as declare martial law to keep the peace. ” There is, as yet, no determination of ” lawless activity” by any court or grand jury of which I’m aware in the BART protests . No declaration of martial law has been made . Yeah it’s inconvenient and can be frightening, but that’s what makes civil disobedience work . I’m not so willing to bargain others freedoms, lest mine be abridged .
[quote]There is, as yet, no determination of ” lawless activity” by any court or grand jury of which I’m aware in the BART protests . [/quote]
Did you see the film footage?
[quote]Yeah it’s inconvenient and can be frightening, but that’s what makes civil disobedience work . I’m not so willing to bargain others freedoms, lest mine be abridged .[/quote]
Your right to protest does not necessarily trump my right to safety.
ERM
I am truly perplexed by a seeming incongruity in your posts. In many of your writings, you seem to have a deep distrust of government.
Yet on issues of law enforcement, you seem to almost always have an inclination to support the actions of the police. Can you elaborate on your views?
On a different note, their are many instances in which “lawless activity” otherwise known as “civil disobedience” has been instrumental in effecting needed change. Two examples, The original Boston Tea Party ( an act of blatant lawlessness ) and the actions of Rosa Parks and her contemporaries. Now, before you castigate me, I am not equating the causes of the current student, or Bart protestors with the examples that I sited. I am, however, a strong believer that when the rule of law is injust or unduly oppressive, it is the right, and in some albeit rare cases, the duty of the citizens to engage in civil disobedience.
“I am, however, a strong believer that when the rule of law is injust or unduly oppressive, it is the right, and in some albeit rare cases, the duty of the citizens to engage in civil disobedience.”
An who makes that determination? You? Me? Would you feel that way if the Tea Party stormed the White House and threw Obama out of office? I’m sure there are many on their side who believe that Obama’s actions are unjust or unduly oppressive. Would you think that is their right or their duty? Or because that doesn’t line up with “your” view of the world would you think they should be stopped?
Good point Rusty. I expect that the answer to your point will be that consistency is the sign of small (i.e conservative) minds.
Regarding the article:
“Students take offense at these incursions in light of the political merit of campus protests against tuition hikes: undergraduate tuition at the University of California has increased by more than 40 percent since 2009 and 300 percent since 2001 as essential services have been cut, class sizes reduced, and lower proportions of in-state students admitted.”
I had no idea that students were offended by class sizes being reduced. Apparently they like larger classes. Who knew?
rusty49
Well, that is the crux of the issue isn’t it? And I am sure that many on the opposite end of the political spectrum, who believing that Bush was “selected”rather than elected the first time, found his presidency oppressive. The fact that in our country we have long managed to maintain
civility and peace despite deep philosophic and political division is a testament, in my opinion, to two attributes of the American public.
First, an innate belief in fairness. Sue Greenwald has exemplified this spirit in several recent posts on City Council votes, ” I lost, fair and square”. The second trait I find much less reassuring. That is apathy. I believe that the majority of Americans, unless their personal well being is threatened, are quite content to sit back and do nothing, even in the face of apparent inequities. While these two traits have so far proven sufficient (among other factors) to maintain peace and order, my concern is that when the disparity in wealth becomes large enough, these stabilizing influences may no longer hold.
J.R.
if you were writing tongue in cheek, I apologize for what I am about to write.
The issue of reduction in class sizes is one of inability to get into required courses. Not uncommonly this results in what should be a four year process to obtain a bachelor’s degree dragging out into a fifth year at steeply escalating cost.
[quote]I am truly perplexed by a seeming incongruity in your posts. In many of your writings, you seem to have a deep distrust of government.
Yet on issues of law enforcement, you seem to almost always have an inclination to support the actions of the police. Can you elaborate on your views? [/quote]
Distrust of gov’t and law enforcement are two separate issues in my mind. I can distrust my gov’t, but that does not give me the right to personally decide to disobey the law and endanger other people’s safety. Secondly, I have disagreed with some law enforcement actions and said so, e.g. Buzayan (sp?) case, Gutierrez shooting. As you can tell, I am not a big advocate of civil disobedience. I would much prefer citizens first try to work within the law, and/or peacefully protest. But some think it is their God given right to disobey the law no matter the circumstances. I strongly disagree w this view, which is exemplified by Rusty49’s point:
[quote]An who makes that determination? You? Me? Would you feel that way if the Tea Party stormed the White House and threw Obama out of office? I’m sure there are many on their side who believe that Obama’s actions are unjust or unduly oppressive. Would you think that is their right or their duty? Or because that doesn’t line up with “your” view of the world would you think they should be stopped?[/quote]
When some citizens advocate for civil disobedience as a means to justify an end, they are only referring to the notion of civil disobedience if they agree with the initial cause. But you cannot have it both ways. Either ALL ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS or they don’t.
Just as an afterthought, I was at U of MD during the Vietnam War protests, where the National Guard were called out on campus to quell the riots that broke out. Cars were overturned and burned, traffic blocked, classes cancelled. I do not agree that civil disobedience was appropriate to deny my right to attend classes I had paid for, to destroy property of totally innocent citizens who had nothing to do with the Vietnam War, to keep me from driving home at the end of the day. Civil disobedience, as I saw first hand, can get quickly out of control and become mob rule completely divorced from the ostensible higher cause it was started because of.
ERM
We have a very different view of “ends justifying the means” and civil disobedience in the Vietnam Nam era. while we are in agreement that
civil disobedience can get quickly out of control….” this seems to have lead us to different conclusions about it’s worth. First using the Vietnam Nam example, there were many here, myself included who felt that the violence here paled in comparison to the carnage and devastation that our country was choosing to wreak in Vietnam. Certainly, in my late teens at the time, I had little alternative to letter writing and public protest
to express my extreme dismay over napalming villagers and other war atrocities. I think this is a matter of line drawing. I think the question
everyone has to answer for themselves is, is there any degree of injustice, that if I perceived I could not change it within the existing legal system, for which I would engage in peaceful civil disobedience ? The key word is peaceful. This is where I suspect we differ. It seems to me that your position is that the risk of a protest turning lawless is too great to tolerate even this risk, while I feel that the right to peaceful protest
conducted in a safe manner is too precious to be deterred preemptively because of what “might” happen. Am I wrong about your position ?