After voting to sue the BCR at J-Council, the Berkeley ACLU has opted instead to focus on the trend of campus political groups searching patrons at their events to confiscate opposing literature. These challenges will take place at the level of student group code of conduct either in changes or enforcement, rather than by way of lawsuit.

The reason for dropping the lawsuit approach seems to be a matter of efficiency in promoting free speech. It seems nothing at the campus level prohibits view-point-dependent confiscation at public events, and the action is certainly not limited to BCR. Even worse, the confiscations are not confined to protestors carrying stacks of fliers, but anyone possessing them in the solitary, which is entirely unreasonable.

Most BACLU members still stand against the prohibition of 11”×17” placards (i.e. large paper in size) at public events and in favor of allowing groups to prohibit posters (anything larger than that). This highlights what an ambiguous issue the freedom of speech truly is; people will always disagree on what constitutes a public versus private forum, what actions squelch dissent, and so on.
Email This Post!

I put together a list of stories that I can reasonably claim were on Calstuff first. I'm using it more as an example of the ability of Blogs to do original stories then as any claim to being a journalist. It also includes some iffy examples: stuff that may have been on the Indybay newswire or perhaps another website beforehand. There's also more then a few that are 'first' by virtue only of instanteous posting, rather then any skill in gathering information. Quite a few aren't mine, in addition. The arguably top story ever first seen on here-- the Mayor Bates thefts-- was posted by Mike Mcfarlane.

Those caveats aside, I still think it's a pretty good record for nearly two years of Blogging.

Theft of California Patriots (2.26.02)
University Frat Party Suspension (4.22.02)
Further delayal of Elections results (4.29.02)
Firing of 3 Resident Assistants for party in dorms. (9.19.02)
Makeup of Student Conduct Committee on Hernandez hearings (9.29.02)
Internal Daily Cal Rebellion (10.30.02)
BCR President forced to resign (11.02.02)
Berkeley Mayoral Candidate caught trashing papers (11.04.02)
Office of Student Life investigates Rally Committee Axe Parade (12.05.02)
Stabbing at Top Dog (2.19.03)
Internal struggle in the Student Advocate Office (2.20.03)
Wheeler occupied by Protestors (3.5.03)
Eric Schewe elected new Daily Cal EIC (4.12.03)
ASUC Elections thrown into turmoil by incorrect voting (4.14.03)
Code violations by the Berkeley Jewish Journal (4.17.03)
Student Advocate Candidate disqualified from running (5.4.03)
Daily Cal suffers thefts after story on football player's arrest. (5.7.03)
Regents vote to increase student fees (7.17.03)
Lawsuit filed against Regents over fee increases (7.24.03)
Injunction against student fees fails in court (8.13.03)
Cal student fails to get enough signatures for Gubernatorial run (8.14.03)
Student sent to hospital by gang violence on Frat Row (8.21.03)
Student Advocate Office collaborating in absence of actual Student Advocate (8.21.03)
Had the only existing copy of the ASUC Budget for 4 months (8.28.03)
OSL Greek Advisor to resign (9.5.03)
BCR / OSL arguments over reserving Sproul steps for 9.11 memorial (9.9.03)
Swastikas scrawled in Leconte Hall (9.9.03)
GSIs to strike (10.01.03)
ACLU filing lawsuit against BCR for propaganda restrictions (10.10.03)
ASUC President arrested for fighting with police (10.19.03)
Administration interviewing students with low SATs (10.20.03)
Daily Cal to stay in Eshleman Hall (10.27.03)
Email This Post!

Berkeley Bowl's Unionization vote is today. Here's their last rally, with Regent Huerta in attendance.Email This Post!

I have JSU's side of the DAFKA/JSU argument. Their primary reasoning was that being JSU-affiliated meant your leadership had to be student-run, instead of being run by an older, non-student organizer. The two bylaws that broke were

a) Be formed, led and directed by Jewish students (a majority of whom attend U.C. Berkeley),” and “c) Not serve, primarily or exclusively, as a vehicle for non-student, community groups, organizations, or persons.”

JSU was willing to work with DAFKA to come up with a compromise. Instead, DAFKA started urging visitors to not donate to Berkeley Hillel, and stonewalled against changing their bylaws at all. Typical ineffective extremism-- the crux of the matter was changing leadership roles, but groups like DAFKA are unable to handle compromise or bending to an external requirement.

In any case, after DAFKA went nuclear, JSU voted to revoke affiliation with them, for the foreseeable future.Email This Post!

Word on the Street is that there's been a serious rift between the mainstream Jewish organizations, basically the Jewish Student Union and Hillel, and the extremely pro-Israel group DAFKA. DAFKA Organizer and non-student Lee Kaplan has gone public with a raft of accusations against JSU and Hillel.

What I hear this boils down is the mainstream Jewish organizations being tired of DAFKA's extremism and association with even more extreme groups. Their last two public activities were infiltrating a pro-Palestinian rally with mock suicide bombers and the dubious anti-semitism charges against an Iraqi Professor. More if I hear about it.

UPDATE: Here's DAFKA's side of the story. I wouldn't believe any of it.Email This Post!

Here's those Profiles that Berkeley was working on. Even given that these are self-selected to make the sub-1000 group look good, they still tend to confirm what has been suspected: Most are either athletes or English-Second-Language.

Actually, what should be examined is the relationship that the UC Outreach programs have with the Admissions people. Participating in an Outreach program gives you a big boost towards Admissions, something I haven't seen examined at all by the LA Times. How do you get involved in these programs? How much of a boost do they give you? How do they select candidates and how do they exercise influence in the Admissions office? If there's a smoking gun in this story, which I still doubt, it'll be if the Outreach programs turn out to be poorly regulated and arbitrary.... Email This Post!

I keep forgetting to post that the Daily Cal's Board (Board of Directors, not Editorial Board -clarification) voted to stay in Eshleman Hall. The primary consideration was apparently their shaky financial situation. The Board felt that on the not-uncommon days when they just can't make rent, the ASUC is more likely and has been more likely to allow extensions and missed deadlines. Whereas a private renter would be legally allowed and likely to kick them out after missing one month's rent.

This isn't a bad argument, although I don't know why Ned's would be so quick to boot out a big tenant like the Daily Cal would be. Who else would fill that space? Things like this can be worked out in advance.

In addition, the Daily Cal is really hampering their ability to cover earthquakes in the Bay Area. If there is one, they'll all be dead. Eshleman is an earthquake deathtrap. I'm looking forward, some years down the line, to reading the inevitable recriminations that come after numerous students are killed by its' toppling.

Also, the Daily Cal is not helping their own consistency on maintaining independence. First the DC cries foul when the ASUC meddles with their Rent Agreement. 'We're just a private, independent business! Political considerations should not be a factor in business negotiations. Don't meddle in our neutrality!'

And then they turn around when rent falls short and say 'We're the campus paper! It's a goal of yours to support student groups and maintain a student-run newspaper. Take this into consideration!'

You can't only be the important campus paper when it's politically convenient and get away with it.Email This Post!

Bears stomp hapless Wildcats, 42-14

Recap...

Email This Post!

Email This Post!

Here's the LA Times story with me in it.

For many on campus, the growing debate over who should be admitted bears little resemblance to the battles over free speech or other movements that have roiled this activist community in the past. The issues are muddier, more complex — and many of the relevant facts, for now, remain under wraps.

"There's not enough information," said Kevin Deenihan, 21, a senior economics major who runs a Web log for campus news. "It's still pretty vague."

I like the implication that if we really understood what was going on, we'd actually care. What I actually meant was that the LA Times is clearly pushing harder then their own knowledge. All we know is SAT information, a now-minor part of total admissions and a poor measurement in any case. 'Muddier?' 'More Complex?' How about LESS Complex-- in that this is a very predictable result of Comprehensive Admissions. And it's much less complex then the fight over Affirmative Action, over Free Speech, and so on, mostly because this is a marginal result to an Admissions process that basically ensured these results in advance.

Oh well. I felt bad for the Reporters. They were sent up to write the text for the headline 'Students really care about LA Times story.' But this is of no interest to non-political students; they were admitted! This was a good result for pro-aff. am. students, who are hardly inclined to complain. The Republicans are a bit teed, but they have more important battles to fight. I suggested that a better story would be 'Students lose interest in Admissions battles,' but it didn't fly. It is, of course, possible that there will be a furor if this leads to a push to ditch Comprehensive Admissions, but we aren't there yet, and I doubt we ever will be.

Word on the street is that some more LAT Reporters are poking around Berkeley, trying to find the people admitted with low SATs. They're also following up on the story I broke a few days ago about the Administration interviewing some of the students admitted with low SATs.Email This Post!

Intriguing that 'University of California' is the number one giver to the Dean campaign-- and that other Universities also dominate the top 20. (Link via Clam.Email This Post!

*Breaking*

Word on the street is that the Administration has been quietly interviewing members of the 400 students admitted with low SAT scores. They're checking to make sure the students do in fact merited getting in. And word also is that the Administration is satisfied with what the interviews are telling them.

In related news, the LA Times was here this weekend to get 'the student reaction' to the 400 admittances story. I basically told them that no one here cares. I think this is essentially accurate. Email This Post!

The Computer Science and Business Association has been quietly but enthusiastically coming up with superb utilities for students. First they created Final Distance, the gold standard in schedule management, and now they've compiled 'UCB Live,' an event-finder. Lots of neat features.

These are masterminded by Patrick Shyu, who also came up with the infamous Berkeley Hot or Not.Email This Post!

Cal Football Update
Even with Aaron Rodgers making up for his lackluster performance against OSU with today's 28 completions, 0 interceptions, and 322 yards, the California Golden Bears lost to the UCLA Bruins 23-20 in OT. [recap] After the Bears stumbled over themselves repeatedly through most of the game, including one missed and two blocked field goals, Rodgers led a fierce fourth quarter rally to tie the game with a touchdown and two-point conversion in the last two minutes; unfortunately, a Fredrickson 50-yard field goal attempt bounced off the goal post in OT and sealed the game for the Bruins.

The Golden Bears (3-5, 1-2 Pac-10) will host the Arizona Wildcats (1-6, 0-3 Pac-10) next Saturday, October 25th, at Memorial Stadium. Kickoff is at 12:30pm.Email This Post!

Email This Post!

The IFC announces that it has hired a rent-a-cop for presence during the more social days of the week. He will patrol frat row Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday 11p - 5a. He has no power of arrest but a direct line to the BPD and a presence that can deter Berkeley's more brutish elements. This will be useful when frats wants to get rid of high school hooligans but are afraid of the cops busting them for inevitably illegal actions of their own. For the number, contact the president of a Greek house. This may be the most worthwhile thing the IFC has ever done, (not that there is much competition).Email This Post!

Last week the Office of Student Life cleared Michael Grey of all charges in the incident last Spring when a Fraternity Brother in Pi Kappa Phi got his head broken open by someone. Several members of Pi Kapp identified the culprit as Mr. Grey, but OSL's final word was 'the witnesses did not identify Grey clearly as the aggressor in the altercation.'

What was OSL looking for? A videotape? Was Mr. Grey not identified as being there at all, or not identified as the one that broke someone's head? Were there any other suspects that were let go? Why is all this being kept from the Brothers in Pi Kappa Phi who were attacked? And why weren't the ones who testified believed? Is it, just maybe, because Pi Kapp has a reputation for 'causing trouble?'

The secrecy with which OSL has conducted these proceedings has made it impossible to either clear Mr. Grey completely, or at least to give the Greek system some confidence that this wasn't being hushed under the rug on someone's behalf. Now there's nothing but unanswered questions.

The Daily Cal's coverage of this has been disgraceful. I prodded them all summer to do a followup; I knew that they knew information that would've moved this story along. The only DC story was the lame 'Grey cleared of Criminal charges' story that was a month old. Instead, it's all been neatly let go, and whoever rushed en masse into a Fraternity, beat the occupants up, and rushed out, will be getting away. There aren't even any new safety measures to give some comfort this won't happen again. What will it take? Someone getting shot? Someone nearly got shot this time.

A very proud moment all around.Email This Post!

I had neglected to mention that there's a new Student Comics magazine-- Bezerk. It's largely anime-inspired, with some notable exceptions. An interesting read.

I'd love to get some of their artists do Squelch illustration work on the side. Interested? E-mail me.

What really impressed me about Bezerk was their level of business organization. In the short time they've existed, they've already evolved an aggressive advertising division, have distributed just about everywhere you could possible imagine, and have an excellent website. This is in contrast with the vast majority of campus magazines, which mostly suckle at the teat of the ASUC and do a half-assed job getting ads.

In other publications news, some members of my Fraternity put together a Libertarian magazine, the Practical Idealist. It also looks like Satellite is trying to make a come back. Email This Post!

The latest issue of the Squelch is out today. Look for it on Sproul. Email This Post!

UPDATE: For some reason, the Daily Cal doesn't mention that the 'business on Durant' that President Primm ducked into was Kip's.

The details of President Primm's arrest are out. Worse then I could imagine! I had thought the rumors of him fighting with five or six police after running away from them were too sensational to be true...

when the officers attempted to issue an "open container" citation, Cuaresma-Primm allegedly took off running, discarded the beverage and ducked into a business on Durant Avenue.

Officers escorted Cuaresma-Primm from the business and after a brief struggle in which one arresting officer suffered minor injuries, Cuaresma-Primm was detained and transferred into a police car, Curtin said.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: Why did President Primm run? An open container citation is not a big deal. Was he too drunk? Or, as one commentator asked, was he doing something more incriminating?

Why did he fight with cops? Again, too drunk? Possible. Did the cops go after him first? Again possible, but more unlikely then some seem to think. Don't forget that President Primm is a former track star and is generally pretty big. And standard police procedure would not have additional cops on the scene just hanging around while two-three others were struggling to arrest him. Your goal is to arrest him, not to have a fair fight!

Political effects? Everything and nothing, I would say. Inside the ASUC, this will have little to no effect besides some eye-rolling. But outside of it? The Presidency is one of the few positions with an institutionalized access to the Administration. President Primm meets with the Chancellor AND is on the Committee to select a new one! How much influence will he have with the Administration and Faculty once this gets out?
Email This Post!

**BREAKING**

Multiple sources have told me that ASUC President Primm was arrested over the weekend. According to sources, the President was at Kips when he was arrested for Drinking in Public.

UPDATE: One more confirmation. Looks like the entire campus saw our President being hauled off.

**MORE AS IT COMES IN**
**THIS IS STILL GOSSIP**
**BUT VERY INTERESTING**Email This Post!

UPDATE: Despite the vote, memebrs seem resolved not to take this action, electing rather, to focus on the fact that BCR searched people's backpacks to remove opposing literature, even that which was not intended to be distributed.

BACLU vs. BCR

A cadre of action-craving Berkeley ACLU members will bring charges against the Berkeley College Republicans, the club voted Tuesday. The aim is to revoke a portion of BCR's ASUC funding for allegedly oppressing freedom of speech of dissenters at a Ward Connerly event they hosted (the lawsuit is before ASUC Judicial committee).

On September 23 BCR brought the regent and author of Proposition 54 to speak on the matter, and forbade those in attendance from bringing in signs of any nature. Buttons, T-shirts, etc. were allowed, but on at least one occasion, opposing literature was confiscated out of a backpack. BACLU also voted to seek to disallow clubs from such confiscations through the OSL, but this is not the priority.

The co-presidents of BACLU read disapprovingly on a flier that signs would not be permitted, and after consulting with lawyers at the Northern California affiliate of the ACLU, decided to become their own test case. A dozen of the BACLU brought 11" x 17" anti-54 placards, demanding admission. After arguments and legal threats, they were denied. Following contentious debate, the vote to go through with the lawsuit passed by a small margin, although many members question its validity (they were not told that the lawsuit intends to revoke funding at the time of voting) and there is still chance for a revote.

Here is how one member expressed support:

Public funds and facilities may not be used to promote or facilitate events which do not grant equal access to members of the public (or on a more strict interpretation, members of the UCB student population). . . When granted permission to use campus facilities they are not granted a corresponding right to deny access to people simply based on the fact that they intend to practice forms of speech which are protected (non-disruptive). This is not altered in any way by that fact the they were distributing tickets.

...university policy may not restrict on campus speech in public arenas (including facilities opened to "dialogue" with faculty of the University [e.g. Regents]). It is a valid inference, and clear provision of legal precedence, that school funded groups holding events which are ostensibly to promote dialogue, are obliged not to limit the speech of others. . . . To deny admittance for the potential to cause a disruption is not a valid reason for a student group to limit the speech of individuals, even it they find it distasteful.

BCR members are shocked and thrilled, and with good reason. It appears unlikely the ACLU will win this case, and it may provide fodder for those types who wuv the fact there are conservatives in Berkeley.

For at least the time being, I have excised my commentary on the matter for fear of editorializing too soon. I retract nothing though.Email This Post!

The newest issue of the Berkeley Mic is out. Same with Hardboiled and Onyx Express.Email This Post!

UPDATE: ACLU People have conclusively proved that this has nothing to do with the BCR/ASUC flap. I apologize for the inorrect insinuation.

Rumor Mill:

An ASUC Senator who really should pay more attention to Disclosure rules tells me that the ASUC/GA is very seriously considering a lawsuit against the Administration.

Also, the Berkeley ACLU is poised to sue BCR for attacking their friends in the ASUC... whoops! Ha ha, I mean they're suing them because BCR refused to allow signs to be brought in to the Connerly speech. I really have no idea what kind of argument they could make. No ASUC money was used. I'm sure the close ties between ACLU and CalSERVE over Prop 54 matters has nothing to do with this.Email This Post!

Connerly: 14 more years!

Something no one seemed to consider! Regent Connerly-- the ever-lasting bete noire of Progressives-- will have his term expire in March 1, 2005. Pretty soon! Why can't -- and wouldn't -- Governor Arnold reappoint him to a 14 year term? It's not like Mr. Connerly has anything better to do...

I voted:

No on Recall
Georgy Russell for Gov
No on 54
No on 53

More as it comes in! Email This Post!

Here's the full text of the op-ed that ran a week or so ago regarding the ASUC/GA's position. The Daily Cal cut it considerably. Too bad, when the full explication of the GA/ASUC's position is so important in judging what to do next.

Free Speech Movement: Forty Years Later

By ASUC President Kris Cuaresma-Primm, Graduate Assembly Academic Affairs
Vice President Temina Madon, Catherine Ahn, Law Student Delegate

Whether you support or oppose Proposition 54, the Graduate Assembly’s recent censure by the UC Berkeley administration for funding a “No on Prop 54” student group should concern you.

The GA’s allocation of funds for lobbying activities is entirely legal.

But questioning that allocation undermines students’ rights to exercise authority over their own fees. Graduate students, undergrads, and faculty across campus should be worried that individuals are challenging student rights guaranteed by the US Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the UC Berkeley administration requested that the UC Office of the President’s General Counsel investigate alleged Graduate Assembly violations of UC policy governing student group funding.

We argue that our government’s allocation abides by the “University of California Guidelines for Funding Registered Campus Organizations and Related Programmatic Activities by Compulsory Student Fees.

Policies noted by representatives of the Daily Cal, namely the UC Policy on Student Governments (80.00), are obsolete because they have been superseded by court cases, including a Supreme Court case, affirming the right of student governments to fund politically partisan activities.

Outdated campus policies have not been amended to recognize the provisions of the Southworth v. University of Wisconsin Supreme Court case of 2000. This case, along with more recent guidelines published by UCOP, undeniably protect the right of student governments to take positions on issues and, more importantly, to devote funds to promoting those positions. Indeed, the UCOP guidelines reflecting the Smith v. Regents and Rosenberger v. Rector decisions state that, “official student lobbying activities on student-related matters may be funded by compulsory student fees available to such student governments.

Furthermore, these same guidelines provide for the funding of organizations considered to be political, religious, or ideological in nature. Examples of these organizations include any group that “supports or sponsors ballot initiatives, candidates seeking election, or other political purposes.” The guidelines further state that students who object to the positions represented by these groups “are entitled to a pro rata refund.”

University policy could not read any more clearly.

The decision by the delegates to the Graduate Assembly to fund Proposition 54 activities was the product of a transparent and democratic process, not of the particular views of its executives (who do not vote on allocation of funds). By challenging the allocation of funds by the Graduate Assembly, our democratic process is undermined.

We urge the student body to carefully evaluate this issue. Failing to engage in thoughtful examination of the facts could result in a substantial weakening not only of our student governments, but also of student governments nationwide.

The power that we currently hold has been gained through decades of steadfast work by scores of student leaders. That power is too precious not to protect.

Email This Post!

GA: A New Hope

Have I been looking at the GA/ASUC's tactics the wrong way this entire time? I've been preceding on the assumption that there was no way the UC Administration was going to allow the no-on-54 reimbursements. Maybe I'm wrong! Word on the street is that they're still considering whether or not to allow it. (Same source tells me the amount needing reimbursement is in the 'thousands.')

The crux of the matter is the UC regulations on student governments. They're not entirely against this spending. Essentially, students are allowed to lobby against political matters of an educational nature. But when I say they're 'not entirely against it,' what I mean is that they're a hopeless mess of interpretations. Some lobbying is allowed. But it needs to be educational. And viewpoint neutral. And it can't be political. Heck, it even looks like if 54 was a bill in the legislature it'd be more legal to lobby against it then the proposition version. Why should that be? Go through it yourself... nothing is clear.

Anyway, the sum of this is that you could plausibly argue for or against the anti-54 spending. On balance, it leans against the spending, especially because of the vague nature of where the money actually went and the more-illegal fact of Eshleman being used to lobby against 54.... but this is not the point!

The point is that if UC declares that the regulations DO protect the GA/ASUC spending, they can probably get away with it! That might be why the ASUC/GA has been so zealously compiling those Court decisions-- if UC declares that the spending is legal under their guidelines, all of them become a lot more applicable. Then all you have to worry about is a possible PLF lawsuit, which can probably be fended off with some adroit rebranding of the GA as more of a student group then a government and labeling 54 as a threat to Graduate Student research needs. It would probably work! Not only that, but you get the added bonus of having the University acknowledge that this kind of politicized spending is basically fine.

Is this what the ASUC/GA has been pushing for behind the scenes this entire time? It's the only way that their actions make sense to me.

Email This Post!

Cal Football Update

Although Adimchinobe Echemandu put on a show with his third 100-yard game (146 yards on 19 carries today), Cal didn't have enough to defeat the Oregon State Beavers, and lost 35-21. [recap] Other highlights from the game included a 72 yard interception return by freshman cornerback Daymeion Hughes to score Cal's first touchdown.

The Golden Bears (3-4, 1-1 Pac-10) take this week off, and will play their next game in Los Angeles against the UCLA Bruins (currently 3-2, 1-0 Pac-10) on October 18th. Kickoff time is TBA.

As was evident in today's game, Cal is definitely missing the presence of star reciever Jonathan Makonnen, who has been sidelined for the rest of the season after surgery earlier this week to repair a stress fracture of his left foot. [more]Email This Post!

Email This Post!

More Union correspondance from Calstuff Correspondant GSI:

> The UAW Local 2865 Bargaining Team has called for a 1 day unfair labor practice strike at all UC campuses on Friday, October 3, to protest the University of California's continuing pattern of unfair labor practices in our contract negotiations.

Striking means we don't perform any of our assigned work duties including teaching, consulting with students about class work, and emailing or posting assignments. It also means not making up "struck work" later in the term.

UAW Local 2865 members should report to the main picket site at Telegraph and Bancroft from 7:30 am to 5 pm. We are encouraging people to go on campus and demand the services that aren't there because of the strike over UC's
unfair labor practices
.
Finally, if your department communicates anything to you concerning this strike, it is vital that you forward it to the Union office (agseuaw@earthlink.net). For more information, contact the Union office (510-549-3863).

It'll be interesting to see turnout. I've had one TA cancel Office Hours for today already. But I've also seen complaints from several GSIs that the Union does a terrible job of communicating with them, and indeed, they have no idea exactly what they're striking about.Email This Post!

The CRENOGate supporters have issued their latest legal defense, which adds new cases to the basic Wisconsin one. It relies on an extremely odd and tenuous interpretation of the concept of 'viewpoint neutrality,' as well as not addressing the crucial distinction between student groups and student governments. It also doesn't address the distinction between allowing political spending and requiring it. The Clam analyzes it here.

But lets assume for a minute that the legal argument is 100% correct and examine the consequences.

First off, there is no argument that campaign finance restrictions weren't violated. That would be important.

Second, even assuming that this spending is completely legal, it will require the ASUC suing the Regents to prove. The Administration has already scoffed at the legal argument and can sit all day blocking expenditures. Note that there has been no denial that the ASUC/GA violated campus regulations. They've more or less accepted it! Thus, the only way to push this forward is a lawsuit to prove that the regulations themselves are illegal!

Furthermore, lets say that any reasonable judge will find for the GA/ASUC on all counts. This requires that the judge be reasonable on all four of the possible exceptions the Administration can use-- that it wasn't viewpoint neutral, the student government is not a student group, we're not required to allow political speech, and you can't force us to spend money that would violate campaign finance rules. The Administration only has to win on one point-- or rather, any Judge will have to be so reasonable to find for the ASUC/GA FOUR TIMES. This also assumes that the Administration, losing, won't appeal to a higher level, where the ASUC/GA has to win four times again...

In sum, even assuming the GA/ASUC is legally correct, they're locked into a course that requires heavy legal expenditures and heavy bets against all odds in order to get any spending approved

I forgot that ASUC offices and phones were used for this campaign, which is another possible violation.

Anyway, even supporters of the ASUC/GA spending should take stock of their legal/political situation. It's a thin, thin reed! Back off now before it's too late...Email This Post!

Calstuff Correspondant GSI passes along this Union e-mail... strike on Friday! (Errr... this is in regards to the UC/GSI Labor Negotiations

UC labor relations in the Dynes era: Moving backwards?

Talks broke down yesterday in our contract negotiations with UC and the situation shows no sign of improving. We have charged UC with committing 64 unfair labor practices at the bargaining table and beyond. The UC administration has also tried to buy our rights to support other Unions who have filed similar unfair labor practice charges against UC. Moreover, UC demands that we withdraw our unfair labor practice charges and grievances over their failure to provide us critical information for enforcing our rights.

The Union bargaining team, in consideration of UC's unfair labor practices, calls for a 1 day unfair labor practice strike at all UC campuses on Friday, and continues to resist the University's attempts to buy our rights. To sign up for a picket shift and find out more about how to! become involved, call your Union office at 510-549-3863. We need to make sure that the Dynes administration is a step forward in labor relations, not a step backward.

The Union Bargaining Team

Email This Post!