On Wednesday January 11, 2012, a group of UC Davis students would enter the lobby of the US Bank branch in UC Davis’ Memorial Union, sit down, and conduct a teach in. Two days later, they would conduct their first blockade of the bank, causing it to close early.
Over the next 6 and one-half weeks, the bank would close early 27 times and not open at all three times, not including holidays. On February 28, the Bank would officially close its doors.
Documents obtained by the Vanguard, including correspondence between the bank and university, show that the bank desperately tried to do something, indeed anything, and it was then that they gave up and closed their doors.
UC Davis, for their part, still believes they acted appropriately not bringing in the police, however, they do acknowledge they could have responded more quickly.
In correspondence from US Bank’s Senior Corporate Counsel Neil Davis to the UC Regents, dated January 13, 2012, he writes, “As I am sure you are aware, on January 11, 2012, a group of protesters, led by a UC-Davis faculty member, entered the Premises at 12:30 p.m. and conducted a sit-down in our branch lobby. In addition to a disruption of our business at the Premises, this poses a severe security threat.”
He adds that when UC Davis Police were alerted, but “they refused to take action.”
Mr. Davis argues that “because the protesters were led by a faculty member of UC-Davis, our landlord, U.S. Bank considers this to be a severe breach of the Lease.”
He adds, “And because Campus Police failed to act, and suggested in the future to keep our doors locked during business hours allowing only one student in at a time to conduct their banking transactions, U.S. Bank was forced to employ its own security guard. The security guard will be in place through, at least, the end of the current school year. Moreover, Campus Police’s indication that they will take no action unless protests turn violent, is a continuing violation of the Covenant of Quiet Possession.”
UC Davis Spokesperson Barry Shiller told the Vanguard that the context of this action is that when the students occupied the Cross Cultural Center, the university was able to use students and school personnel rather than police to convince them to leave after just four days.
“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.”
The critical difference in this matter is that there was a third party involved – the US Bank. And the protesters in this case could not be persuaded to leave.
Through the documents provided, we see frustration from the bank that the university was not simply willing to arrest the demonstrators.
This is demonstrated, as Emily Galindo, Associate Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, wrote at the end of January, following on-campus meetings between bank officials and university administration.
She wrote, “With respect to the on-going issues relating to the protests, Mr. Wellborn presented a clear picture of the Bank’s needs. He explained that as the Chief Security Officer for U.S. Bank he needs to be able to report to the Board of Directors that the branch on the Davis campus is not a ‘dangerous’ or ‘high risk’ branch, and that if he is not able to make this report in two weeks, the Bank is going to close this branch.”
So UC Davis was warned more than four weeks before the bank closed that this was a possibility.
AVC Galindo continued: “Although he did not insist upon a particular strategy, he explained that in his experience it is important to draw a clear line as to unacceptable and illegal conduct, provide proper notice of that line to the protestors, and then enforce it.”
However, from Ms. Galindo’s response it becomes clear that the university dragged its heels.
She writes, “Chief Campus Counsel Steven Drown presented the perspective of UC Davis. He stated that the University and the Bank have shared interests in the success of the bank for the benefit of the students, and that the University is very eager to work with the Bank on these important issues.”
However, “He cautioned, however, that it is important that, as we look for effective solutions to the current circumstances, we weigh the consequence of actions, and not focus too closely on the short-term results of arresting protestors. and instead focus on a long-term strategy of success that is tailored to the circumstances at the Davis campus.”
Two days later, in a letter from AVC Galindo to US Bank’s Chief Security Officer John Wellborn, she indicated that she had directed the building maintenance crew at the Memorial Union to ensure that all doors providing “ingress and egress to commercial establishments in Memorial Union, including U.S. Bank, have lines on the floor that clearly designate the necessary clearing so that doors can be safely opened and closed during protest activity.”
Basically, as Mr. Shiller explained to the Vanguard, they put tape on the floor in hopes that the students would move forward enough to allow the double doors to open out while still making their point. But the protesters did not do this.
Ms. Galindo communicated to the bank: “With respect to law enforcement, we feel that it is important that we are careful to develop strategies that effectively enforce the laws relating to ingress and egress, while not infringing upon peaceful and lawful protest activity and not inflaming and prolonging the protest.”
It was at this point, she informed US Bank, that “the UC Davis police are actively working with the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office to develop strategies for enforcement of laws during protests directed at U.S. Bank. The DA has advised very careful planning and coordination with their office and we are following this advice.”
Moreover, Chief Matt Carmichael, in consulting with other law enforcement agencies, came to the conclusion that police action was not the way to go.
Ms. Galindo did note: “Additionally, in the event that any employee or customer of the bank makes a citizen’s arrest under California law, the UC Davis police are prepared to take immediate steps to respond. And finally, should the bank pursue civil remedies against any of the protestors that are unlawfully disrupting bank business, the University will provide the bank with all evidence and support in accordance with the law.”
It is important to realize that this letter comes three weeks into the action. It was, in fact, not until Friday February 3, after 12 earlier bank closures, that the time line shows the university intervening, and in that case it was to put a ” ‘dialogue team’ in place to discuss time, place, and manner laws and policies with demonstrators.”
The next week the dialogue team would alternately distribute “Rights and Responsibilities” handout to the demonstrators.
In the meantime, US Bank was understandably losing its patience. Robert Fineman, from the firm retained by US Bank, wrote Daniel Sharp, representing the UC Regents, a sharply-phrased letter on February 17 in follow up to a February 14 assertion claiming that there was “no action… taken by the Regents to cure the conduct at the Branch.”
He continues, “On both February 15 and 16, protestors led by UC Davis faculty member Professor Clover showed up at the Branch after it had opened for business. Once again, the protestors proceeded to sit in front of the doors to the Branch in the common areas immediately adjacent to the Branch entrance/exit. As has occurred on each day the Branch has opened for business since January 11, 2012 , this human barricade has prevented customers from accessing the Branch and has prevented Branch employees from freely existing and re-entering the Branch without the assistance of a police escort.”
“Additionally, University Police passively observed the situation, but have taken no action to prevent the protestors from creating the human barricade in the common area outside the Branch.”
He noted that the protesters were given flyers notifying them that they were in violation of PC 647c, however, he argued, “Although this notice advises the protestors that they may be prosecuted for their actions, to date no actions have been taken by the University to prevent the daily disruption of business at the Branch which continues to force the Branch to cease operations prior to the end of each business day. Instead, the University continues to permit these illegal actions to continue unabated.”
Five days later, Greg Haworth, from the same bank, wrote Mr. Sharp, “U.S. Bank was again prevented from doing business at its Branch on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 because of the presence of the protestors. The protestors showed up before the branch opened for business. The protestors locked arms and refused to permit U.S. Bank employees to enter the Branch when the request was made to enter. The university police did nothing to give the employees access. As a result, no business was conducted at the Branch. In light of the circumstances, U.S. Bank did not try to open the Branch today.”
“The present situation is not acceptable. U.S. Bank’s use of the Branch has been completely disrupted for more than thirty (30) days. This is not a case of force majeure,” he wrote. “Regents are not helpless to stop the protestors. The student protestors are led by a member of the university’s faculty. The protests take place in the common area controlled by the university.”
“U.S. Bank cannot accept more excuses. Customers and employees need full and unfettered access to the Branch without intimidation,” he added. “U.S. Bank: vehemently disagrees with the Regents’ suggestion that it has not been cooperative.”
As we know, less than a week later, on February 28, the bank would finally close its doors.
In light of this ongoing discussion, it is difficult to blame the bank.
Still, 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.
However, he added, “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.”
There is always a danger in hindsight assessments, but looking again at the timeline, it seems even without the benefit of foresight that it is difficult to justify, from the university’s perspective, that an action that began on January 11, had the first bank closure January 13, and had 12 bank closures in all before the university finally intervened is indeed moving too slowly.
We see the bank in multiple correspondences begging for the university to do something, indeed anything, to stop the disruption of business.
In light of this evidence, we no longer believe that the bank was hasty in its departure and now place the primary blame on the university.
We indeed sympathize with the plight of the university here. They were clearly attempting to avoid the problems that befell them in November on the Quad. However, the situation at the bank in the confined space of the MU with the outward opening doors set up a perfect storm that required much more proactive action then they were willing to provide.
The Vanguard had also attempted to determine damages, however, we were informed by the university that negotiations are ongoing and represent potential legal action.
Elizabeth Wisnia, Information Practices Analyst at the Office of the Campus Counsel, informed the Vanguard, “Since negotiations with the bank are ongoing, records responsive to this portion of the request either do not yet exist or are protected from disclosure in accordance with attorney-client privilege. California Government Code § 6250-6270 does not require public release of ‘[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.’ Among the privileges encompassed by Section 6254(k) is attorney-client privilege.”
In addition, the Vanguard requested videos of the bank blocking. However, “With regard to the video requested in item 1, the records you have requested are educational records that contain personal information about students (34 CFR 99.3). These records are protected from disclosure under the The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (‘FERPA’) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g) which protects the privacy of records directly pertaining to students. The California Public Records Act (‘PRA’) also prohibits the disclosure of the records that are exempt or prohibited under federal or state law (Government Code Section 6254(k)).”
While the Vanguard thinks this is questionable grounds to withhold records, given that these incidents occurred in public and outside of the classroom, at this point we are unlikely to pursue further action.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What was the Chancellor’s role in the decisions or non decisions made during the protest period? I would think she would have been an active presence in trying to resolve things given the Nov incident?
[i]In light of this evidence, we no longer believe that the bank was hasty in its departure and now place the primary blame on the university.[/i]
Your statement is completely incorrect. The cause of the bank leaving were the law breaking students, who sought to impose their will by blocking the bank’s right to operate a lawful business and by blocking bank customers from engaging in lawful business with the bank. The protestors broke the law, and caused significant damage to the bank and the impeded the rights of others.
The university may not have reacted has strongly as it could have, but the circumstances were very difficult, and the university may well have decided that the bank leaving was a better option than confronting the students in what would have likely been a physical situation, replete with more videos and outrage from the Occupy bunch. Once the crowd dispersed, after the bank closed, the arrests were made without incident.
[i]”As I am sure you are aware, on January 11, 2012, a group of protesters, led by a UC-Davis faculty member, entered the Premises at 12:30 p.m. and conducted a sit-down in our branch lobby. In addition to a disruption of our business at the Premises, this poses a severe security threat.”[/i]
And so, despite your numerous protestations to the contrary, it appears that faculty are leading the protestors. And now, it’s the protestors facing charges. Are you prepared to withdraw your conclusion about the level of influence of the faculty?
Adam Smith: You are starting from the wrong premise. Protesters should not have been sufficient to cause the bank to have to leave. Given that, where does the blame lie for the bank leaving?
“And so, despite your numerous protestations to the contrary, it appears that faculty are leading the protestors. “
That’s the banks claim. That doesn’t mean they are accurate.
[quote]“As I am sure you are aware, on January 11, 2012, a group of protesters, led by a UC-Davis faculty member, entered the Premises at 12:30 p.m. and conducted a sit-down in our branch lobby. In addition to a disruption of our business at the Premises, this poses a severe security threat.”[/quote]Verrrry interesting! Do your documents reveal who this UCD faculty member might be?
Son of a gun, it looks like the same Professor Josuha Clover we’ve been talking about for months. Arrest his ass!
There is only one faculty member charged.
However, once again, I want to see the videos. I think it was a poor decision by the university not to release the video. Vanguard attorneys are dubious as to whether there is really a FERPA issue in that this does not involve activities in the classroom.
Oh, no, it’s not Professor Clover and, even if it is, he wouldn’t be “leading” anything.
P.S.–Who are these “[i]Vanguard[/i] attorneys”? Any relation to attorneys who have speaking about and for demonstrators?
“Any relation to attorneys who have speaking about and for demonstrators? “
No
Adam Smith
“Your statement is completely incorrect. The cause of the bank leaving were the law breaking students, who sought to impose their will by blocking the bank’s right to operate a lawful business and by blocking bank customers from engaging in lawful business with the bank. The protestors broke the law, and caused significant damage to the bank and the impeded the rights of others. “
I find this too simplistic a view. While I agree that the law breaking students were the immediate cause of the banks closure, the police and the bank are not free from responsibility. It is the job and responsibility of the police to enforce the law. They are not paid to cite excuses for why they are not enforcing the law such as bad press associated with previous use of excessive force. Let’s suppose for a moment that the crime was bank robbery rather than blockade. Would it be reasonable or defensible for the police to allow repetitive robberies because of previous bad press ? As for the bank, they also had other options. I am sure they have the resources to sit out a situation longer than six weeks. Many other businesses have sat out adverse circumstances longer than six weeks when truly committed to providing a service.
Medwoman: While I mainly agree with you, I think the bank could have waited a lot longer but I think they also in the end grew tired and frustrated dealing with the university in addition to the protesters.
Same old talking points. Only this time, they fly in the face of your own cherry-picked information and the unbearable number of past articles you’ve written trying to make the point that the blockaders (just a bunch of kids with serious minds of their own not led by any faculty members) are the victims, not the bank and the university.
Now, you characterize the bank’s frustration about how demonstrators blocked employees as “understandable” when, in the past, you claimed the charges weren’t true because the demonstrators said they wouldn’t do such a thing.
Over and over, you’ve excused and minimized the actions of the demonstrators–and, today, you try to use the seriousness of their deeds as evidence that the bank was right to leave and the university was somehow wrong.
You’ve constantly ignored the chancellor’s announced efforts to allow demonstrators on campus to do their thing. When she does it, you announce that she should have been arresting and releasing the blockaders day after day, week after week until they somehow decided their principle object no longer is worth it. (Or, until Professors Clover and Brown have to go teach a class?)
You’ve constantly ignored the [s]very real possibility[/s] likelihood that demonstrators would not cooperate with arresting officers and would resist being dragged off to booking, day after day, week after week. Even operating carefully, they might have given some student a reason to say “they hurt my wrist.”
The primary blame is on the people who decided to the block operations in a campus building.
The demonstrators disrupted legitimate business being conducted by fellow students (and fellow faculty), cost the university (and, hence, students) lots of money, embarrassed their own school and look like fools (only partly because they’re whining for being charged for the crimes that they knowingly, publicly and purposely committed).
You’ve claimed the demonstrators didn’t think they could shut down the bank even though they did it and although it was their announced intention. You still say the bank should have stuck it out and that the university should have kept arresting the blockaders until they finally got bored and went home on there own. This view is not based on reality.
The “evidence” you’ve selected for us simply reaffirms the magnitude of the damage caused by the blockade and, for which, the Dirty Dozen should be prosecuted. Now, that it’s apparent how damaging their actions were to the university, I’m for more serious penalties than just 80 hours of community service.[quote]“There is always a danger in hindsight assessments….”[/quote]Sure is, especially when one ignores the evidence he’s gathered that conflicts with his preconceived stand.[quote]“We indeed sympathize with the plight of the university here….”[/quote]Sure.
“Now, you characterize the bank’s frustration about how demonstrators blocked employees as “understandable” when, in the past, you claimed the charges weren’t true because the demonstrators said they wouldn’t do such a thing.”
Two responses to this.
First, my view of the banks frustrations changes in light of new evidence.
Second, I never said: “the charges weren’t true because the demonstrators said they wouldn’t do such a thing.”
“Over and over, you’ve excused and minimized the actions of the demonstrators”
Stated position: I don’t beleive the actions by the demonstrators should have been sufficient to cause the bank to close without serious mistakes by the other actors involved.
“you try to use the seriousness of their deeds as evidence that the bank was right to leave and the university was somehow wrong. “
In light of this new information: do you really believe that the university handled this appropriately?
David, medwoman, et al:
The nuanced views that you are describing clearly help paint a full picture. I think it is ok to point out that UCD could have handled differently, but in the end, the students caused the bank to close 27 times over a 6 week period (a little more than 4x per week) and not open 3 times (once every two weeks). They clearly broke the law and trampled on the rights of a law abiding business, as well as the rights of the law abiding customers of that business. Your attempts to absolve the students of wrong doing are misguided. (Had the students been demonstrating on the Quad, then this is a much different story – the bank would still be in business, and no one would be arrested.)
If I throw rock through a window while a policeman is watching, does that mean it was ok for me to do it? Does it mean that I did no wrong? What if my parents told me not to do it, but didn’t stop me from going out that night? Does that mean it would be my parent’s fault.
[quote]“The present situation is not acceptable. U.S. Bank’s use of the Branch has been completely disrupted for more than thirty (30) days. This is not a case of force majeure,” he wrote. “Regents are not helpless to stop the protestors. The student protestors are led by a member of the university’s faculty. The protests take place in the common area controlled by the university.”
“U.S. Bank cannot accept more excuses. Customers and employees need full and unfettered access to the Branch without intimidation,” he added. “U.S. Bank: vehemently disagrees with the Regents’ suggestion that it has not been cooperative.”[/quote]
So now we see that UCD faculty were directly involved in the protest, egging the student protestors into engaging in illegal activity. This puts the university in an extremely difficult position of having to arrest their own employee – an extreme embarrassment. Secondly, the university would also have to run the risk of a police confrontation and more bad publicity, which we can surmise was most likely part of the protestors’ plan. After all, it worked before, and garnered the infamous pepper-spray video footage. The university was placed in a position of “da_ned if you do, da_ned if you don’t” BY THE PROTESTORS, including a UCD faculty member. No matter what the university did, it was going to be the wrong thing…
[quote]There is always a danger in hindsight assessments, but looking again at the timeline, it seems even without the benefit of foresight that it is difficult to justify, from the university’s perspective, that an action that began on January 11, had the first bank closure January 13, and had 12 bank closures in all before the university finally intervened is indeed moving too slowly.
In light of this evidence, we no longer believe that the bank was hasty in its departure and now place the primary blame on the university.
We indeed sympathize with the plight of the university here. They were clearly attempting to avoid the problems that befell them in November on the Quad. However, the situation at the bank in the confined space of the MU with the outward opening doors set up a perfect storm that required much more proactive action then they were willing to provide.[/quote]
The Vanguard “blames” the university, but “sympathizes with the plight” of the university. The Vanguard cannot have it both ways. One thing is clear – the Vanguard refuses to place any blame on the real culprits – the protestors – but continues to blame the victims, the university and the bank.
Frankly, I hope the DA throws the book at the UCD professor who was involved in this, and egged these impressionable kids into engaging in illegal activity…
[quote]Your statement is completely incorrect. The cause of the bank leaving were the law breaking students, who sought to impose their will by blocking the bank’s right to operate a lawful business and by blocking bank customers from engaging in lawful business with the bank. The protestors broke the law, and caused significant damage to the bank and the impeded the rights of others.
The university may not have reacted has strongly as it could have, but the circumstances were very difficult, and the university may well have decided that the bank leaving was a better option than confronting the students in what would have likely been a physical situation, replete with more videos and outrage from the Occupy bunch. Once the crowd dispersed, after the bank closed, the arrests were made without incident. [/quote]
Well said!
[quote]Same old talking points. Only this time, they fly in the face of your own cherry-picked information and the unbearable number of past articles you’ve written trying to make the point that the blockaders (just a bunch of kids with serious minds of their own not led by any faculty members) are the victims, not the bank and the university.
Now, you characterize the bank’s frustration about how demonstrators blocked employees as “understandable” when, in the past, you claimed the charges weren’t true because the demonstrators said they wouldn’t do such a thing…
The primary blame is on the people who decided to the block operations in a campus building.
The demonstrators disrupted legitimate business being conducted by fellow students (and fellow faculty), cost the university (and, hence, students) lots of money, embarrassed their own school and look like fools (only partly because they’re whining for being charged for the crimes that they knowingly, publicly and purposely committed).
You’ve claimed the demonstrators didn’t think they could shut down the bank even though they did it and although it was their announced intention. You still say the bank should have stuck it out and that the university should have kept arresting the blockaders until they finally got bored and went home on there own. This view is not based on reality. [/quote]
Bingo!
“So now we see that UCD faculty were directly involved in the protest, egging the student protestors into engaging in illegal activity. “
We actually don’t see anything. We don’t know what the professor was doing. We have the representation of a bank official in Minneapolis who never even saw what happened. Until we see a video of what happened, none of us are in position to make judgements here.
Was his presence enough for the bank to ASSUME he was leading? Did he lead the teach in? Is that enough evidence to suggest he was leading the way.
“
Frankly, I hope the DA throws the book at the UCD professor who was involved in this, and egged these impressionable kids into engaging in illegal activity… “
They charged Professor Clover with the same charges they did the other protesters.
[quote]They charged Professor Clover with the same charges they did the other protesters.[/quote]
IMO he is more culpable bc of his age and position…
[quote]“I would think (Chancellor Katehi) would have been an active presence in trying to resolve things given the Nov incident?”[/quote]Now, let’s see, SODA. Once, when she was an active presence at a building takeover/demonstration, protesters characterized it as “the walk of shame.”
Once, when she was a active presence in planning to get lawbreakers and their tents swept from the quad, her instructions/communication complicated the matter and helped lead to an international embarrassment for UCD.
I, for one, am happy to have stick to her day job and leave law enforcement to the professionals.
The chancellor might not be adequately trained in riot control, but she must notice what happens when she does show up and she ain’t stupeed.[quote]“I find this too simplistic a view….They are not paid to cite excuses for why they are not enforcing the law such as bad press associated with previous use of excessive force. Let’s suppose for a moment that the crime was bank robbery rather than blockade. Would it be reasonable or defensible for the police to allow repetitive robberies because of previous bad press ? As for the bank, they also had other options. I am sure they have the resources to sit out a situation longer than six weeks.”[/quote]Adam Smith’s summary certainly is accurate, medwoman. Of course, he wasn’t supposing things that did not happen which, I agree, would make a difference.
We have plenty of laws broken during these weeks without positing a bank robbery or, worse yet, an atomic bomb being placed in the bank doorway. Certainly, the FBI would have been called in; somebody may have been shot dead, etc., but, of course, only what happened actually happened.
We have reasons that the university gave for allowing the protest to continue; the police did [u]not[/u] “cite reasons…such as bad press associated with previous use of excessive force.” They could have–David and others did–but they did not.
As for the bank, they could have stayed longer than six weeks or left earlier. They didn’t. The students could have left after a week of demonstrating, and the bank still would be there. They didn’t, and they announced their intention to stay until they could get the bank to close. Now, [u]that[/u], they did!
The hypotheticals you offer make for interesting discussions. I’m thinking there’s plenty here–plenty of real things that happened–that it helps to focus on what we know. Even if it’s simplistic. I guess simple, clear-cut facts tend to make for simplistic views.
“The university was placed in a position of “da_ned if you do, da_ned if you don’t” BY THE PROTESTORS, including a UCD faculty member. No matter what the university did, it was going to be the wrong thing.”
Yes, exactly, just like black civil rights protesters sitting at white-only lunch counters. The university admin had the difficult choice of enforcing the contractual arrangement it had made with the bank or recognizing the validity of the protesters concerns. Unfortunately it did neither.
The protest concerned US Bank issuing UC Davis student ID cards that could also function as ATM cards and thereby use the University’s persuasive imprimatur (an authority developed through decades of academic excellence and civic service) to encourage students to become US Bank customers. The symbolism of turning student IDs into ATM cards is particularly disturbing to many because rapidly rising tuition is linked to rapidly rising student debt.
“The American Conservative” put the concern this way just last week:
“…with a quarter of all student-loan payers now delinquent, there are worrisome indicators that much of it will remain a permanent burden, reducing many millions to long-term debt peonage.”
Moreover, since banks profit from increased student debt, and since dramatically higher tuitions threaten to price public higher ed out of reach of its market–i.e., the public–the business arrangement with US Bank gave the appearance of the University having a vested interest in its own demise.
It is unusual for the university administration to rethink its own decisions in response to members of its community, but that would have been another way it could have responded.
[quote]“‘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’.”[/quote]This is pretty much what the university said it was was going to do, to allow students to get some odd “educational experience” out of their demonstration exercises. This is pretty much what the demonstrators said they were going to do, block the bank branch until it went out of business.
David, did you get copies of any of the written warnings provided to blockaders that they were breaking the law and “subject to possible criminal and campus sanctions”? Please post them if you did. Do you know upon what dates UCD authorities provided these warnings?
Doesn’t this finally blow away all the bullshit about demonstrators being blind-sided by “retroactive prosecution.”
The demonstrators must have know they were “willfully and maliciously obstructing the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk or other public place, or to intentionally interfere with any lawful business.” Yep, that’s a crime; do not collect $200.
Elaine:
As I have previous stated, I don’t think you are in a position to render an informed opinion on the matter of influence by a professor. I have seen enough first hand to believe the students largely acted on their own and while professors may have been part of their group, they did not lead. In fact, the organizational structure of their movement largely would preclude that.
JS: I have previously posted copies of the warnings and the time I linked in this article shows the dates you are asking about.
“Doesn’t this finally blow away all the bulls**t about demonstrators being blind-sided by “retroactive prosecution.” “
This is not new information and has been previously reported. The complaint is that instead of arresting on the spot, they have been ordered to appear in court. Instead of one count, they face 21.
“The demonstrators must have know they were “willfully and maliciously obstructing the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk or other public place, or to intentionally interfere with any lawful business.” Yep, that’s a crime; do not collect $200. “
That presumes that because they are charged they are guilty of those charges.
[quote]“The protest concerned US Bank issuing UC Davis student ID cards that could also function as ATM cards….”[/quote]This is something I hadn’t heard before; what amazing things is modern technology doing to/for us*. I thought the bank symbol was just advertising for which the university got money, thereby lowering the costs it had to cover from student fees.
I’m fully understand and am really disappointed about the cycle of federal loan programs/university tuition and fee increases/textbook ripoffs/resulting debt personal debt. I’m all for lawful demonstrations that might change minds of Congress, school officials and others who are responsible for these intended and unintended consequences.
Fighting the “symbols” about which you’re offended with protests certainly is appropriate. Having gone through civil rights (and Vietnam War) demonstrations, however, I cannot quite accept your suggestion that there’s much equivalency between the causes. I guess every generation gets their own big missions in life.
Purposely breaking immoral laws is right and moral, partly because people who do it are willing to go to jail and accept a lifetime criminal record for the greater good. Even if we disagree about the law in question, we have to respect people who take a stand and pay the price.
Breaking laws (like the ones under discussion) when the “unfair law” itself is not the issue and knowing that it damages other people shouldn’t get the same level of respect. Compound that with whining about getting charged for what you’ve intentionally done, and you’ve lost my support for the tactics even if I support the cause.
You can really get money from an ATM with a student ID card? Fascinating!
– – – – – – – – – – –
*I’m old enough to have been given one of the first cards that could be used in the first ATMs. However, I have never, ever done such a transaction in all these years. This was a conscious protest about the inhumanity of it all. Eventually, I expect to bring down the entire banking industry (without breaking a single law in the effort) with my dissent demonstration about non-personal service. We then doubled-down on our protest by moving all of our funds last year from two banks to a credit union, but it was too late to stop the world’s financial collapse. I’m beginning to lose a little confidence, but…keep hope alive!
[quote][u]JS[/u]: “The demonstrators must have know they were ‘willfully and maliciously’ obstructing the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk or other public place, or to intentionally interfere with any lawful business. Yep, that’s a crime; do not collect $200.”
[u]David[/u]: “That presumes that because they are charged they are guilty of those charges. When I met with the spokesperson from UCD, he agreed that it will be difficult to convict these individuals.”[/quote] Sorry, I meant to presume that this confirms that they [u]knew[/u] they were breaking the law because they were told so and that they shouldn’t now claim surprise because they weren’t arrested on the spot.
I agree that 21 counts are much more severe than one. So, the university would have done the law-breaking demonstrators a favor by arresting them after one day? But, the point gets lost unless we’re sure that “arrest and release” wouldn’t see them back again, everyday, until the bank finally closed the branch. UCD had no reason to believe such a thing while it was happening, just as you have no certainty to support your claim that the university (and not the demonstrators) are at fault for the bank closure.
Do you want to identify the “UCD spokesperson” who “agreed that it will be difficult to convict these individuals”? There’s got to be some context there. And, even a new job in his or her future. I can’t imagine UCD could have screwed up this one–given all of the time to decide and the massive evidence they must have accumulated–even given their recent history.
Can we agree as a guiding principle that when we talk about charges against people we’re presuming innocence from the legal standpoint, and the conversation is whether what they did is chargeable and reasonable?
If not, you can claim what they did wasn’t a crime and, when challenged, you can choose to disregard the point being made with: “they haven’t even been tried yet.” Oh, yeah, that’s what you do do.
If we grant that the presumption of innocence is an accepted American principle of justice, we can eliminate the need for such clarifications and banter about “guilt” and “innocence.”
[i]Re. the documents: I can’t locate any links in this article. I’ve run my cursor over the whole thing without success. I don’t see any colored text that’s typical of links. Maybe you could try to do it in a comment. Thanks.[/i]
“Sorry, I meant to presume that this confirms that they knew they were breaking the law because they were told so and that they shouldn’t now claim surprise because they weren’t arrested on the spot. “
The people who told them that they were breaking the law, in most cases actually don’t have the authority to determine whether or not they are.
“I agree that 21 counts are much more severe than one. So, the university would have done the law-breaking demonstrators a favor by arresting them after one day?”
You know my opinion on this.
“But, the point gets lost unless we’re sure that “arrest and release” wouldn’t see them back again, everyday, until the bank finally closed the branch. “
Arrest and release would not have forced the bank to close their doors, because the bank would have been able to conduct business.
“UCD had no reason to believe such a thing while it was happening, just as you have no certainty to support your claim that the university (and not the demonstrators) are at fault for the bank closure.”
All I stated was that the demonstrators could not have accomplished this without serious errors by the university.
“Do you want to identify the “UCD spokesperson” who “agreed that it will be difficult to convict these individuals”?”
Barry Shiller, quoted in the article.
“There’s got to be some context there. And, even a new job in his or her future. I can’t imagine UCD could have screwed up this one–given all of the time to decide and the massive evidence they must have accumulated–even given their recent history. “
It’s very simple, you have to find 12 people in Yolo County including Davis who would convict college students for protesting.
Brienna Holmes? Jury hung 6-6. DA had to drop the case.
“Can we agree as a guiding principle that when we talk about charges against people we’re presuming innocence from the legal standpoint, and the conversation is whether what they did is chargeable and reasonable? “
Yes. I’m not referring to the presumption of innocence in my discussion, however, understand this – I have requested to see the video, I have no seen the video. Neither have you. Until I see the video or watch the trial, it is difficult for me to pass judgment on whether the protesters broke laws. Nevertheless, even without such information, I believe if this goes to trial, the DA will find it difficult to get 12 people to convict. It is probably one reason they have offered a low offer.
“I’m fully understand and am really disappointed about the cycle of federal loan programs/university tuition and fee increases/textbook ripoffs/resulting debt personal debt. I’m all for lawful demonstrations that might change minds of Congress, school officials and others who are responsible for these intended and unintended consequences.”
Perhaps you could suggest what students and others might do. It might be worth noting that most historically effective protests have been both unlawful and symbolic gestures against larger systemic issues (think of the original tea party, for example). So too, while I am sure you are right that there has been some whining by some of the kids (I haven’t heard any but I take you at your word), you can imagine that others would see the balance between the offense of whining vs the offense of the massive redistribution of wealth over the last 30+ years that has put students in the position they are today, tipping the other way.
[quote]“So too, while I am sure you are right that there has been some whining by some of the kids (I haven’t heard any but I take you at your word), you can imagine that others would see the balance between the offense of whining vs the offense of the massive redistribution of wealth over the last 30+ years that has put students in the position they are today, tipping the other way.”[/quote]You can catch up by reading David’s past dozen articles articles about the students’ (and don’t forget a couple professors’) comments about the charges, and decide whether “whining” is the appropriate word. Some think not.
I can’t suggest a solution to the massive redistribution except to fill Congress with like-minded candidates and a President to match, then demonstrate on the Mall every week until they enough courage to fix these things. Almost everything (including the current topic) has resulted from laws that enabled businesses and other institutions and individuals to make these massive profits without paying taxes to support the country that allows their gluttony.
Peek at any enterprise (finance, higher education, war/defense, agriculture, etc.) and we can see that special interest laws allegedly passed for a public good end up channeling money in exchange for less and less value for the rest of us. (Check out Gail Collins’ new column, “A Very Pricey Pineapple,” to see how “No Child Left Behind” has become it’s own giant money-sucking, lobbiest-driven waste at the K-12 levels.)
So, let’s talk strategy. What purpose was served by breaking the law while protesting the bank branch’s cooperative activities with the university? Why not protest in a lawful manner? What was the added value to deciding to break the law?
One could argue one difference–that the bank probably wouldn’t have pulled out if their employees and customers had access and simply had to run a gauntlet of people with signs to do business. I agree, but at what price to everyone involved? And what difference will that difference make in the larger systemic issues?
Maybe this tiny event will spark, like the original Tea Party, a whole new renaissance, this time in free higher education for the masses. And, I’ll be able to tell the grandkids how I was just across campus when it all started.
[quote]Sorry, I meant to presume that this confirms that they knew they were breaking the law because they were told so and that they shouldn’t now claim surprise because they weren’t arrested on the spot[/quote]
I don’t think you understand the way the justice system works. Whether they were breaking the law or not is up to a jury to decide. It’s not simply true because some administrator says it’s true. That’s why we…uh…have courthouses.
[quote]You’ve constantly ignored the very real possibility likelihood that demonstrators would not cooperate with arresting officers and would resist being dragged off to booking, day after day, week after week. Even operating carefully, they might have given some student a reason to say “they hurt my wrist.” [/quote]
Radial nerve damage and paralysis in the wrist is not simply whining about a hurt wrist. Given the tremendous competency of UCD admin and police, I wouldn’t be one bit surprised to hear about a tinge of non-cooperation. What did we learn from the Reynoso report? THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR ANY POLICE ACTION. Did you forget that little detail?
idrab, I know about the presumption of innocence; please see my earlier note David; sorry it still wasn’t clear. My comment had to do with whether protestors could have been ignorant that they were breaking the law.
Let’s say I’m blocking a bank door to keep out employees and customers out, and to try to get the bank to close up shop and get off campus forever. Even if a distinguished professor, Joshua Clover, claims “we’re the law here now,” what if he’s an English professor and ignorant of the actual law?
So, along come the cops and say, “You need to move out of the doorway; you’re illegally blocking people. What if I keep doing the same thing, and the cops are back with a note, detailing the laws I’m breaking, and letting me know I’m subject to charges if I continue? What if the same thing happens to me “verbally or in writing, on 11 occasions between February 3 and 27”?
Now, David claims if the cops just would have arrested me the first day, booked and release me, then I’d have given up the illegal protest and gone home–so the bank still would be operating. But, I know better: they could arrest and release me week after week and I’d be back the next day. I know I’m breaking the law, but I’d committed to shutting down the bank, for God’s sake.
David thinks that every time the cops say, “You’re under arrest. Be a good guy and walk out to the wagon so we haul you to Woodland,” that we’ll do what they say. But, I know better; we’ve already got our plan to lock arms, collapse to the floor and scream bloody murder. Somebody’s bound to get hurt along the way, but that’s a worthy risk since it means more sympathy for the cause.
If I decide to keep it up and to ignore such warnings, I’d realize my choice could land me in the courthouse. I guess I could whine, “How did I know those cops really knew what they were telling me about my purposeful lawbreaking?” But, in my heart, I’d know what I did was illegal.
Actually, idrab, I was pointing out to David the dangers inherent in making repeated arrests of non-cooperative blockaders. Nobody wants demonstrators hurt, and that, no doubt, weighed on the UCD administrators’ minds in deciding to let the demonstration play out. A hurt wrist is minor compared to the potential injuries.
David, please help out so idrab and the rest of us can read the written warnings provided to demonstrators. I still can’t locate any of the links you mentioned.
“Maybe this tiny event will spark, like the original Tea Party, a whole new renaissance, this time in free higher education for the masses. And, I’ll be able to tell the grandkids how I was just across campus when it all started.”
Here’s hoping. Either way, it’s hard not to be proud of those who are braver than us and risk their personal wellbeing on our behalf and that of our kids and grandkids by actually doing something. If the renaissance doesn’t pan out at least there will be the moral of the story–“Have the courage to use your own reason,” as it was once put–that we can pass on to our offspring as we do our best to give them a grounded sense of right and wrong.
[quote]So, along come the cops and say, “You need to move out of the doorway; you’re illegally blocking people. What if I keep doing the same thing, and the cops are back with a note, detailing the laws I’m breaking, and letting me know I’m subject to charges if I continue? What if the same thing happens to me “verbally or in writing, on 11 occasions between February 3 and 27[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying, but my earlier point still stands. Arrest does not equal guilt. *That’s why you go to court.* And it has been shown rather clearly on this campus that what the cops say or do does not equal a competent understanding of the law.
[quote]Here’s hoping. Either way, it’s hard not to be proud of those who are braver than us and risk their personal wellbeing on our behalf and that of our kids and grandkids by actually doing something. If the renaissance doesn’t pan out at least there will be the moral of the story–“Have the courage to use your own reason,” as it was once put–that we can pass on to our offspring as we do our best to give them a grounded sense of right and wrong.[/quote]
well put.
[quote]Breaking laws (like the ones under discussion) when the “unfair law” itself is not the issue and knowing that it damages other people shouldn’t get the same level of respect. Compound that with whining about getting charged for what you’ve intentionally done, and you’ve lost my support for the tactics even if I support the cause. [/quote]
If I understand correctly, the protestors aren’t “whining” about getting charged. Their complaint is that the university administration, who is now unable to call in riot cops to stop the students from protesting the privatization of the university, is calling on the county, via the DA, to issue them criminal charges, as if their protest were not a political protest. The admin this way gets to distance itself from responsibility and from the charge that it is complicit in the privatization of a public good. It’s now the burden of Yolo county tax payers (who also protest against banks, and who have helped bail banks out already, even as they continue to foreclose on homes across the county and enrich themselves via predatory lending)to pay for the costs of 12 criminal trials against students/faculty who protested privatization on their own campus. Shouldn’t this be a 1st amendment debate? And shouldn’t the university have some means of handling it themselves, without violence?
What’s astonishing about justsaying and some of the other [i]extremely [/i]devoted contributors here, is their practical ignorance of a national–and international–protest movement on college campuses against the continued course of privatization. Perhaps they just can’t find time to read around, given their understandable obsession with the Vanguard (admittedly, it’s a rare example of investigative journalism that deserves attention). But if they did, they’d surely notice that these protests they believe are ‘lead’ by one or two professors, are happening all over California, the nation, and yes–the world. Professors Clover and Brown might be persuasive, but they’re not ring-leading the occupations at Cal, in Chile, in England or Canada–are they? And if these readers got out a little, they’d notice that on this campus and others, professors, poet laureats, faculty organizations, researchers, and even the notably uncharismatic, support and join in with their students, in countless ways, but more visibly all the time. The November occupation of the quad at Davis wasn’t led by a professor. And the US Bank has been the sight of many many student protests since it arrived in 2010; the photo in this article wasn’t taken this year; students have been opposed to a private bank setting up in their student union since it appeared, and even with Professors Brown or Clover on leave, or no where to be seen, protesters managed to find the doors, enter, chant, amass outside,and repeatedly voice their displeasure about its presence on campus. If protestors escalated, I wouldn’t pretend that the bank was welcomed quietly until some enchanted day this January–when suddenly, as if by magic–a professor appeared with a flow chart… and Poof!! He revealed the heretofore unsuspected connections between rising tuition and the convenience of those ever-available, high-interest student loans!! Do you think anybody’s that good with a sharpie and some arrows?
It seems the desire to blame and punish a professor for these protests (on the part of comment contributors) is creepily similar to the desire for the Yolo County DA to press the charges (on the part of the UC administration): both desires permit us to deny what the protests–going on for years now–are [i]really[/i] about, and who is really to blame for the fact that they are only escalating, and won’t stop.
[quote]As I have previous stated, I don’t think you are in a position to render an informed opinion on the matter of influence by a professor. I have seen enough first hand to believe the students largely acted on their own and while professors may have been part of their group, they did not lead. In fact, the organizational structure of their movement largely would preclude that.[/quote]
A professor taking part in the bank protest, as an adult and representative of the university, is in a unique position to hugely influence impressionable young students not fully baked. They look to their professors for guidance/support/advice. When a professor is leading the charge, it is not hard to conclude the students would follow/emulate. To infer the professors participating in the bank protest had absolutely no influence on the student protestors flies in the face of reality and common sense…
[quote]And the US Bank has been the sight of many many student protests since it arrived in 2010; the photo in this article wasn’t taken this year; students have been opposed to a private bank setting up in their student union since it appeared, and even with Professors Brown or Clover on leave, or no where to be seen, protesters managed to find the doors, enter, chant, amass outside,and repeatedly voice their displeasure about its presence on campus.[/quote]
And what right do a small group of protestors have to decide for everyone else whether a bank branch is allowed to operate on campus? It is a tyranny of a minority and a trampling of other people’s rights…
Elaine:
First you write: “A professor taking part in the bank protest…”
Then you write: “When a professor is leading the charge…”
So in the course of two sentences go from taking part to leading the charge. There is no doubt that the professor took part. But were they leading the charge?
I have been to a few of their general assembly meetings. What happens is that people state their positions, they debate their course of action, they decide by consensus. Based on that, what evidence do you have that the professors’ role was more influential than other members of the organization?
“And what right do a small group of protestors have to decide for everyone else whether a bank branch is allowed to operate on campus?”
Probably the same right that any group of people have when they express their opinions in a disproportionate manner in a variety of different bodies.
[quote]Elaine:
First you write: “A professor taking part in the bank protest…”
Then you write: “When a professor is leading the charge…”
So in the course of two sentences go from taking part to leading the charge.[/quote]
Look at what I said specifically, IN CONTEXT:
[quote]A professor taking part in the bank protest, as an adult and representative of the university, is in a unique position to hugely influence impressionable young students not fully baked. They look to their professors for guidance/support/advice. [/quote]
To look at the protestors in a vacuum, without taking into account the professors participation as mentors/UCD representatives/fiduciaries to the students, is not looking at the big picture/reality.
[quote]“And what right do a small group of protestors have to decide for everyone else whether a bank branch is allowed to operate on campus?”
Probably the same right that any group of people have when they express their opinions in a disproportionate manner in a variety of different bodies.[/quote]
Expressing opinions is one thing, expressing opinions in a way that tramples on the rights of others is illegal, and the reason the protestors are being charged. What the protestors did was tyranny of the minority…
Elaine: What you are saying has no context, because it’s not based on actual observations of the interactions and debates and decision making process. It’s based on conjecture and your own prejudices and preconceived notions of students.
“Expressing opinions is one thing, expressing opinions in a way that tramples on the rights of others is illegal”
I have to laugh because what I often see in local government is a small but committed group of people coming to a meeting. Their presence sways the governing body which doesn’t stop to wonder if the people who showed up represents the views of everyone, and often those decisions trample on the rights of others. Of course there is nothing illegal about this.
Elaine: What you are saying has no context, because it’s not based on actual observations of the interactions and debates and decision making process. It’s based on conjecture and your own prejudices and preconceived notions of students.
vanguard article after vanguard article on this subject, no matter what will not bring itself to criticize student behavior under any circumstances. This shows more about the vanguards own prejudices, and preconcieved notions of protestors – namely they all have halos over their collective heads – they can do no wrong.
[quote]Elaine: What you are saying has no context, because it’s not based on actual observations of the interactions and debates and decision making process. It’s based on conjecture and your own prejudices and preconceived notions of students.[/quote]
??? How could you possibly know what I have observed?
[quote]It’s based on conjecture and your own prejudices and preconceived notions of students.[/quote]
And you know this because? This seems a bit below the belt…
“How could you possibly know what I have observed?”
because I know you weren’t at the GA meetings.