Don't mess this up!
-Kevin Deenihan, Emeritus Home Archive Extended Help CalStuff! Disclaimer: Calstuff and/or the opinions expressed are not affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley. Recent Guest Posts
Tenants' Rights Weekby Jason Overman Search Powered by: Contact
FaceBook CalStuff! Allen L. About IM Andy R. About IM Ben N. About IM Cooper N. About IM Syndication
Site Feed (ATOM)
Comments Feed Add to LJ Friends Berkeley Blogs
CalJunket With humor. Cal Patriot Blog Conservative Blog UC Berkeley Livejournal Discussion Forum California Patriot Watch Self Explanatory Brad DeLong Econ Prof The Bird House Cal Prof on everything Cal Politik Rants & Raves Beetle Beat Full Time Whiner "Frat" Life Cal "Frat" Boy Cal Tzedek Jewish Students Blog Personal as Public
Soft Boiled Life Hilariously Un-PC. Cal Alumni/ Squelch Blogs
Kedstuff Remember him? I Fought the Law Optimus Primed Zembla With Cuteness Ne Quid Nimis With Photography |
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
President Quindel has sent out a detailed analysis of the GA's position on the relevant UC political speech regulations.
(I won't have time to read it until tomorrow, if you're curious about the lack of analysis.)Email This Post!
I'm looking forward to seeing the terms of this initiative.
The most important part-- to my mind-- will be if the Initiative tries to preserve voting rights for Grad Students in both the ASUC and the Graduate Assembly. I'm assuming right now that Independence means just that.. but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the GA tries to keep voting rights. It's not like the current Executives have ever gone with the less brash policy. For me, and most undergrads will probably agree, there is no way I'll vote for an initiative that gives Graduate Students two votes to my one. To do so would be to make Grad Students a privileged group, with overall funding far exceeding that of normal students, and double the representation. Otherwise, chances are I'll vote for GA Independence. Email This Post! Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Not unexpectedly, the University has moved to prevent direct spending on Ballot Initiatives. The ASUC is defining this as the University fearing the political power of the students, when it's actually the University fearing the lawsuit power of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Indeed, I think it's most accurate to see this move as an attempt to have it both ways. The University appears to be trying to cover its legal butt while keeping open the valves of student political participation. This isn't to say that the University is being altruistic-- more likely their fear of student movements is still ingrained-- but the effect is the same for students. The most important thing here is how limited this move is-- the University could've tried to limit political spending entirely or instituted oversight Committees over ASUC spending. A ban on direct spending is easier to circumvent then a new bureaucracy would be, leaving open a wide range of political activity. After all, the ASUC can still simply fund front groups that perform the actual lobbying. Most interesting is the careful legal definitions that the University is trying to craft. “University resources should not be used to directly impact the electorate on how they should vote, but rather communicate student concerns to the Legislature,” Smith saidMore worrying is this redefinition of the ASUC as simply an arm of the University. Alarm bells ring! An arm of the University is subject to the whims of the Chancellor. This is far more dangerous then a narrow spending restriction. “UC systemwide policy means the ASUC is an official unit of UC and is subject to the same funding restrictions,” said UC spokesperson Hanan Eisenman.In essence, the ASUC has won, but somehow fails to see it. They essentially preserved the right for student lobbying. They escaped significant regulation. And the University found a way to stay out of ASUC affairs while still staying clear of legal threats. They even got paid for the now-illegal spending they already committed-- an implicit admission by the University that its rules were unclear enough to be successfully manipulated. And yet we're going to risk everything for a right-- to directly fund ballot initiatives-- that feels essentially meaningless to me. All we need to do, in the very rare case of Prop 54-esque initiatives, is start a bullshit student group. That's as effective! It's no wonder that the GA and ASUC officials are complaining about this on symbolic grounds. The university could face a lawsuit from the ASUC, on grounds of alleged free speech violations.If we win, the University will once again face legal threats. And they will most likely go to plan B, which is direct oversight of ASUC spending. The University is happy to stay out of ASUC affairs, so long as they're assured that they won't be dragged into legal entanglements. Instead of accomodating this relatively simple need, the ASUC keeps choosing to see the University as a simplistic, anti-student monstrosity. This is part and parcel of a general UCSA/ASUC policy that relies on lawsuits and threats instead of negotiations. Granted, the University is unresponsive to student negotiation requests. But in the long run, this strategy is bound to fail. Email This Post! Saturday, February 21, 2004
Common misconceptions of the ASUC
I had always thought that student complaints about the ASUC were related to specific problems: fiscal mismanagement, jockeying for power, and simple incompetence. But recently I found out that many students have complaints about the ASUC that reflect a basic misunderstanding of A) Democracy and B) Berkeley. 1. The underlying problem with the ASUC is that they're pursuing their own narrow interests instead of the interests of all students. Unity would solve everything. Kevin thinks this is stupid because: A) There is no 'United Students Policy.' The very fact that Senators are opposing certain policies demonstrates that 'all students' don't support them. There isn't much that the entire student body would support wholeheartedly. Sports? No. The ASUC Ball? Not really. Israel's existence? Hardly. The ASUC's primary responsiiblity is allocating funding, which is inherently a partisan process. Either someone gets the money or they don't get it. There are no groups that can be funded that are pan-student. Even groups that get closer then others-- SUPERB, or the Squelch-- still exclude large parts of the student population. Who gets the last $500? the Jewish Student Union or Hardboiled? Funds are limited, but demand is insatiable. In this case, the only possible solution is a representative government, with the understanding that the legislative battle will be vicious. But the compromises that emerge and the majority votes that allocate money are as fair as funding battles can be. What's the alternative? A clueless University Committee? No funding? Representation is the only accountable and representative method possible. A Senator elected by a constituency, if everyone represents their constituency, will do the best for all students by getting the best share of the pie they can from the budgeting process. 'Narrow interests lead to compromise' is the cornerstone of Democracy. B) Any policies that are pan-student, the ASUC already wholeheartedly supports. The few student-friendly policies that are most reasonably inclusive are already the province of the Executive Branch, where there is no partisanship. Everyone is on board with lowering student fees. Everyone would love more lights on campus, and a Class Pass for BART, and superior DC options. But there's either nothing the ASUC can do about it, or they're doing all they can already. Every year students complain that the Senators they elected don't fulfill their promises. True! But typically their promises are to push for student housing or get the University to do this or that. And the ASUC can't fulfill those promises. Even more ironic is when Senators from weaker groups complain about 'narrow interests' stopping them when their proposals are shot down. Hello, if your idea couldn't get 11 votes out of 20, I doubt students as a whole support it. Your problem is not the Senators being partisan. It's that your friends didn't get enough votes last Spring. True, your proposal to spend $11,000 on volleyball courts at Soda would benefit students. It's just that that $11,000 could also go towards rebuilding Heller Lounge. And since you lost, your view is less popular, unless you believe that.... 2. The Senate is not representative of all students A) The Senate is surprisingly representative of students, demographically. Take a look at the constituences of the Senate and most will conclude that most groups are reasonably well represented. (Greeks... Engineers... Republicans.. Asians... Progressives... Indians...) But even if they aren't representative of all students, it's not the Senator's fault. Many students didn't vote. If they had, they would be better represented. If you don't vote, I'm under no particular obligation to represent you. I worked my ass off to get elected on a 'Pro-Squelch' platform. I intend to fulfill those promises. If the anti-Squelch people had bothered to vote, they'd be able to get their side shown as well. That's basically why it's important that you vote. B) This hard-hearted view of Democracy aside, almost all Senators do try to represent all students. It just so happens that there are many different visions of what 'serving all students' actually means. Maybe it means strictly following Senate finance bylaws. Maybe it doesn't. I doubt any Senators are actually thinking "Man, I think I'll really bone all students in favor of my narrow group." It's just easier for the losers to claim partisanship instead of acknowledging that their view of what 'all students' means is less popular. 3. Parties are the root of all evil and partisanship, formed by ambitious Senators to perpetuate their own power. A) This is more possible then most. But the important thing to understand is that parties are not an aberration in our political system, one that can be rooted out with one ballot measure. They're an inevitable consequence of competition for a limited number of spots. Parties are superior at getting people elected to Executive positions and filling up the Senate. If you want to win, the best way to go about is to start a party. And if your opposition starts a party, you owe it to your constituents to do the same, if you want to be able to compete. It's no wonder that every anti-party group in the Senate ends up either starting a party or dying out. It's very possible to weaken parties; for instance, banning party names on the ballot. That might be a good idea. But remember that it's not Senators fault they're forming parties. They aren't doing it to grasp at power. They're doing it because they have no choice, should they want to compete. All the evils that come from parties-- and there are very many-- are just a consequence of this basic fact of electoral competition. I was really surprised by how many of these complaints are really complaints about the logic of Democracy. In Democracy, representing constituencies takes precedence before representing 'everyone.' In Democracy, parties are a consequence of competition, not ambition. Everyone seems to jump on the explanation that represents Senators as evil liars before the explanation that requires some knowledge of bargaining theory. Cooter's 'Strategic Constitution' goes over it in detail. Email This Post! Wednesday, February 18, 2004
The Associated Press reported late Tuesday that WILLIAM HUNG, THE UC BERKELEY ENGINEERING STUDENT who became a pop-culture phenomenon after being bounced rather icily from an "American Idol" audition, will be awarded a $25,000 check from the Fuse music channel on Wednesday, and a record deal from Koch Entertainment. The deal reportedly includes Hung recording a music video that will air on Fuse. The presentation, according to AP, was to be made at a UC BERKELEY volleyball game tonight....I've never even heard of Fuse. But then, I'm only Deenihan-cool, not Hung-cool. More on Mr. Hung's career.Email This Post! Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Former Daily Cal Columnist Myers is writing for Newsweek on 'student reactions to the Presidential campaign.' It's very good! Covering the 'campus mood' is usually a failure straight out, but Ms. Myers does it quite well. She hits on Kerry's non-prominence, the primacy of local over national ones on campus, and the relative success of the Dean Campaign here.
Pundits expect Dean's candidacy to falter, and if it does, his many supporters here will be looking for a new home. Kerry could be the one to bring them out of the cold. After all, not all of Berkeley's Vietnam habits have died. Most students still don't like war, and plenty of them also don't like this president. But while putting someone new in the White House is a priority, Kerry shouldn't take for granted that Berkeley students think he's right for the job. He's got work to do before they understand why war hero John Kerry is the best alternative to wartime president George W. Bush.Email This Post! Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Senator Leybovich's anti-Spring-Renovations petition has gathered 1600 signatures in the past couple of days-- remarkable for a word of mouth petition. (In contrast, the UCDivest from Israel petition has only 200 student signatures from Berkeley.)
Another good objection I've heard (from my better half) to the Spring plan is that it makes Upper Sproul a wasteland for this year's Graduating Class. I'm sure looking forward to a bulldozer in the background of my photo shoot. It's also gathered some opposition from officials involved in the planning process, including one who made it a very public dispute. Presented below are the Cohen/Leybovich e-mails. In bold is what I think Mr. Cohen meant to say. From: Adam Cohen [mailto:apcohen@uclink.berkeley.edu]Here's Misha's response From: Misha Leybovich [mailto:mile@berkeley.edu]And Mr. Cohen's response to the response. Misha - Email This Post! Tuesday, February 10, 2004
The Fulbright Scandal has ended in a sort of compromise-- with the Fulbright Board giving 'special awards' with the Fulbright name on it contingent on Berkeley paying for them.
The compromise allows Berkeley graduate students to cite the prestigious award among their accomplishments — should they merit a Fulbright scholarship under the program’s rigorous standards — while placing the burden for funding on UC.Email This Post!
Senator Leybovich is circulating a petition to delay the renovations to Upper Sproul. He brings up an excellent point: why are we turning Upper Sproul into a pit for Cal Day, our most important showcase event?
This plan will certainly end all student activity on the Plaza during construction and could cut off foot traffic altogether. Furthermore, it will render Cal Day ineffective as our campus's major recruitment tool by not presenting a complete, unified, whole campus to attract prospective students. Finally, and most importantly, it would cause a major hindrance to academic life in near-Sproul buildings as the hubbub normally confined to the Plaza as well as significant construction noise will spill out onto the campus to disrupt classrooms.Email This Post! Monday, February 09, 2004
BPD has more interesting info on the Carjacker suspect. After learning he was a suspect, the guy apparently turned himself in. Email This
Post!
One night only, featuring Cal's #1 celebrity, CLARK KERR OPEN MIC!:
Selling points: free admission, free food, Will Hung, and Squelch contributor Eamon Doyle performing his #1 single "Fuck It." 8:00 Monday night, Clark Kerr Building 12.Email This Post!
Saturday, February 07, 2004
The J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board will be reviewing the DOE's decision not to accept the Berkeley apps.Email This
Post!
Friday, February 06, 2004
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Adding to Berkeley's incompetence vis a vis the Fedex scandal, they deliberately kept the applicants in the dark while they tried to get the DOE to accept the applications. The applicants didn't find out about this until Tuesday-- almost two months after the University learned there was a problem in December!
The 30 applicants, all UC Berkeley doctoral students, found out about the error at a “shocking and terrifying” meeting Tuesday afternoon, said applicant Carl Freire.It's shameful that the University has been so concerned about avoiding blame, rather then doing the right thing. By not informing the applicants, they denied them weeks that could be used to find other fellowships or make other plans. It seems probable that, if this problem had been resolved, they would never have told the Applicants at all. Their press release was over-planned to place blame on the DOE. Kudos to the Daily Cal for closing with the essential problem: it's not so much the money as the prestige. And that's difficult to make up for. “What bothers me the most is that there is no way to get around the prestige of putting ‘Fulbright Fellow’ on our resumes,” Seawright said. “Half of us could have had it, but now we never will know.”Email This Post! Wednesday, February 04, 2004
**BREAKING**
The Chancellor has decided to completely renovate Upper Sproul over a four month period, starting after Spring Break. Along with disrupting student groups and diverting students, this is really messing up how Elections will be held. Upper Sproul is the center of Elections, and abruptly getting rid of a central area for students is not a great idea. Of course, Upper Sproul has needed renovations for a long time. But the sole reason that the renovations are going to be in the middle of Spring Semester instead of quietly handled during the summer is that the Chancellor wants to do it before he leaves office this June. This is a pretty terrible reason. There's the thoughtlessness of disrupting student life for a pathetic addition to the Chancellor's resume. But what's really silly is that the first time students learned of this was as a fait accompli presented to the Senate tonight. Way to make us feel like bugs. Put sand in our way and watch us scurry around it! ALSO: Word on the street is that the LA Times, among others, is planning a story on the Fulbright Scholarships Scandal. (How do I know? They called me....) Not only that, but I hear a story on Internet Sensation and Psych 160 student William Hung is planned. Don't forget the Techno Remix.Email This Post!
The Department of Education, in conjunction with FedEx and Berkeley's inefficient mailing division, have joined forces to deny Berkeley any Fulbright Scholarships this year over a trivial missed deadline.
The decision announced Friday, Jan. 30, by the Department of Education came after weeks of escalating appeals, including a special trip to Washington, D.C., by Chancellor Robert M. Berdahl in mid-January to meet with department officials.The complete story is a long litany of screwups and uncaring bureaucrats. But lets emphasize two things: 1) Berkeley's complete isolation from government. In days past President Kerr, among others, had enormous influence on education policy nationwide. Now our Chancellor can't even personally beg mid-level bureaucrats to change an arbitrary deadline for one of the top research Universities in the Country. What the heck happened? When and why did we become so utterly powerless? This is part of a general trend that has seen us be the budgetary whipping boy in California and possibly denied administration of a Lab this is down the street. Let us review: our Chancellor personally flew to Washington DC to beg officials to obey their own rules and they turned him down. Now we're reduced to sending out indignant press releases. 2) Berkeley's inefficient mailings. Considering that millions of dollars are at stake, UC still can't send a package anytime before the day it is due? Despite it being ready to send three days prior? The applications were processed and ready Friday, Oct. 17, and overnight express pick-up was scheduled for Monday, Oct. 20, the postmark deadline.For the University to pin full blame on the Department of Education is nearly correct, but ignores the fact that our Bureaucracy helped create a crisis situation.Email This Post!
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
...But what does it mean?
Everyone is fairly baffled by this Editorial Cartoon. Why do the Exit and the ASUC Senate lie in the same direction? Why are there stars coming from the door? What is the significance of the ambigious hand slap slash gesture? Why is one door numbered '3.5' and the other '211'? WHAT IS GOING ON? A Calstuff Favor to the best theory!Email This Post! Monday, February 02, 2004
Listen to KALX at noon tomorrow. The Squelch staff was interviewed for their insider look into 'Women and Comedy.' IE, why there isn't much.Email This
Post!
Sunday, February 01, 2004
A tribute site to Cal student and new celebrity William Hung. (Civil Engineering).
Thanks to Calstuff Correspondant AP for the catchEmail This Post! |
Advertisements
Cal Magazines
Heuristic Squelch Humor Mag California Patriot Conservative Hardboiled Lefty/Asian mag. Bezerk Comics Mag In Passing Bloggish Cal Newsites
Daily CalifornianStudent Newspaper Daily Planet City Newspaper Berkeleyan Faculty/Staff news Newscenter Administrative Announcements Indybay Hard Left News East Bay Express Alt-weekly Cal Other
UC Rally Committee Stand nineteen feet tall! Be united! Be tough! Be proud! CyberBears GO BEARS! ASUC Cal's Student government One Cal's Student Portal Berkeley Bookswap Good Deals |