Suit Filed Over University Housing Plans
Stuart Flashman delivered on his promised, and filed suit against the University. The Berkeley Daily Planet has an article, "UC Sued Over Albany Village Development" discussing the lawsuit:

On Thursday morning the Committee for Affordable Student Family Housing (CASFH) filed suit against the University of California in Alameda County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleges that the university has acted illegally by approving plans that call for the demolition of 564 units of student family housing in Albany Village without having considered the environmental impacts that will result from the displacement of low-income residents.

The suit that Flashman filed on behalf of CASFH alleges that there were three major environmental impacts overlooked in the report that the University was required to file under California Environmental Quality Act. According to Flashman (as quoted in the article), the remodeled housing units will be substantially more expensive leading to

• an increase in traffic, since wealthier people are more likely to drive
• an increase in homelessness as those people priced out of Albany housing move into other low income housing and the current residents of that housing have nowhere to live
• an increase in housing overcrowding as low-income students begin sharing living quarters with each other potentially leading to the spread of infectious diseases

According to the UC administration, they haven't seen the suit yet, but I will be contacting them Monday for comments.

Here are my initial thoughts:

• When liberals bring up traditional affirmative action plans that take ethnicity into account, conservatives often respond by saying that if any favoritism in admission is given, it should be based on socioeconomic level. This is a valid point, in that a rich black student should not be given any advantage over a poor white student. Using the admission process to correct for the adversity faced by low-income high school students only makes sense if these students are then able to actually afford to make it through school. If UC Berkeley wants to represent the diversity in California with a diverse student body, including low-income students, then it must provide the cheap housing where these people can afford to live.
• All reports I have come across note that the housing that will be torn down is in rather shabby condition, and offering low income housing that creates a terrible standard of living for the people who inhabit it is not the ideal solution. (Anyone know anything about mold in the Albany Village units?)
• Finally, the key issues hear seems to be the University's unwillingness to address affordable housing issues. Flashman made this observation when I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago, and repeated it in the article. The University is renovating some of its housing (perhaps necessarily so) with no apparent concern or thought given to what effect it will have on the low-income students who reside there. There are a number of possible solutions I have heard proposed (including Flashman's, about allowing a loan structure that could be repaid over time), yet the Univerisy seems to be completely ignoring this issue as a they proceed with their plans.

Email This Post!

Mountain Lion Sightings Increasing
The SFGate has an article on the increase in reports of mountain lion sightings. Here is the pertinent information from the article:

A teenage boy saw what he thought was a mountain lion in Strawberry Canyon on the UC Berkeley campus Monday, one of three sighting of the big cats in the East Bay this week.
...
However, a university employee reported seeing a mountain lion across the canyon just north of the Lawrence Hall of Science parking lot at about 8:30 a.m. on June 15, she said. Both sightings occurred on undeveloped university land in the hills above campus.
...
The district typically receives about 20 reports a year, Bobzien said, but that figure has already been surpassed. He attributed the increase in sightings to increased awareness of the big cats in the wake of three attacks on people, one of them fatal, elsewhere in California earlier this year.

Consider this a word of caution about the danger that mountain lions present. It is probably a good idea to bring a friend along while hiking or jogging in the area up above campus because of the possibility of running into one of these animals. As the article notes, these sightings have not involved any threatening behavior by the animals, and should not be a reason to avoid any of the beautiful trails above campus, as long as a little common sense is exercised.

To learn more about mountain lions and for information on "How to reduce the chances of an encounter with a Mountain Lion" and "How to reduce the chances of an attack when encountering a Mountain Lion" check out this website.
Email This Post!

The San Francisco Chronicle and the Toronto Globe and Mail have already announced Birgeneau's victory in Berkeley.  New Mexico is leaning blue at the moment, but Florida is still anybody's guess.

More as the official word is posted (for the second time) on Cal's website.

*Update*  Andy here.  I'm at a Kinko's in Boston, and I didn't feel like writing another post, so I'm just going to update this one.  The official press release on Birgeneau can be found here (along with an online interview).  Ben is traveling at the moment, and I am busy with convention stuff, so any input from us will probably be limited for now. 

Consider this an open post to add any comments you may have about this recent news, and we will follow with more commentary soon. 

*Another Update*  Click here for the Daily Cal article.
Email This Post!

New Chancellor to be Named Next Week
Berkeley NewsCenter is reporting that the new Chancellor will be announced on Tuesday. Here is the full report:

BERKELEY – The University of California Board of Regents today (7/23) announced plans to hold a telephone conference call on Tuesday, July 27, for the purpose of appointing a new chancellor for UC Berkeley.

Immediately following the meeting, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Chancellor Robert Berdahl with UC President Robert Dynes will introduce the candidate to the Berkeley campus on the steps of Doe Library. Faculty, staff, students, alumni and community members are invited to attend the introduction. A visit by UC Berkeley's Straw Hat Band and campus mascot, Oski, is expected as part of the brief event.

The special UC Regents' meeting will begin at 2:30 p.m. with a closed session for personnel matters followed by an open session including the opportunity for public comment.

I will be at the Democratic Convention in Boston for the next week and will probably not be able to access a computer during that time, so any commentary will have to be left to others.  I will commence blogging next Saturday when I return.   My only comment at this time is that I hope they appoint someone who will be able to raise money.




Email This Post!

Admiring the Tight End

The Contra Costa Times is covering the "Cal Women's Football Huddle" at Veteran Stadium in August. For those of you not aware, the program is an outreach opportunity for female Golden Bear backers to have a first-hand experience of the physical aspects of football, a sport that some people claim is dominated by men. Participants pay $25 in order to go through physical drills (with pads, mind you) under the direction of Cal coaches, including Coach Tedford. A thought-provoking quote from the article:

"Tedford, who opens summer camp on Aug. 10, has a full plate as he prepares his Golden Bears for the 2004 campaign, but he thought the women's clinic was important enough to add to his schedule."

Well, I'm glad to see that Coach Tedford and his staff have enough time to do these publicity stunts. Especially since the Cal football program has plenty of pressure on it, being ranked in top 20 of the nation before the season even starts. Especially since the team needs to focus on fundraising in the current budget shortage. Especially since this time could have been spent raising student morale and making sure the student section is overflowing with rowdy Berkeley fans before halftime rolls around.

Hopefully, Coach Tedford has already prepared his team, and these problems have already been fixed. In that case, I hope the women in the clinic knock themselves out. Figuratively, of course.
Email This Post!

Berkeley Daily Planet Cracks Me Up
Once again I bring you something of minimial to non-existent news value, but potentially moderate to high humor value.  And yes, it is a slow news week.

First from the BDP [click the link to see the funny picture that accompanies the article]:

Mark Creek-Water, a Berkeley homeless man, drinks from Strawberry Creek at the point where it is channeled under Oxford Street after passing through the UC Berkeley campus. Creek-Water refers to himself as such because he says he has survived on creek water for more than 20 years. “People don’t believe me,” he says, “but once you build an immunity, it’s OK.”

Mr. Creek-Water's exploits contrast nicely with information such as this:

The settlement came on the day Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Susan Torrence filed charges against the company for allegedly allowing van operators to discharge hundreds of gallons of soapy wastewater into storm drains at UC Berkeley’s Foothill Housing Complex that feed Strawberry Creek.

...

Soap discharge into Strawberry Creek is a common occurrence, said Tom Kelly, a member of Berkeley’s Health Commission. From monitoring the creek at Strawberry Canyon Lodge in West Berkeley, he said two-to-three-foot-high suds appear every couple of weeks. “I don’t know how the hell the fish survive,” he said. “Hopefully this will send a message that it’s not OK to pollute the creek.”

Berkeley suffering from local crime increase?

While the Berkeley community has never been a stranger to crime, it seems that as of lately, crime has moved beyond the occasional flashing. Late Sunday afternoon, the year’s first (and probably not last) homicide occurred in Berkeley. This violent crime comes on the heels of a noticable increase in bank robberies, assaults, and other violent crimes in the last few months. In fact, Berkeley has been host to an unusual amount of crime since May, when there was an unusual high number of assaults and robberies victimizing students just before finals began.

Some of Berkeley's annual crime statistics can be found here. While I have not had time to double-check other statistics, I know that there has been one homicide, meeting our quota for the year already. With five months left in the year, somehow I doubt that that number will hold.

Because the current increase in crime has been over such a short time, its source is still unknown. It could be cyclical, a result of a still-struggling economy, spillover from Oakland, or any number of reasons. Or, it could even be the result of a sensational media covering more crime in Berkeley than usual. But, it does mean that students in the area should be on extra alert. Being a crime victim can be prevented through a number of different measures, most of which being common sense. The UCPD provides safety and security tips on their website.
Email This Post!

Applications Available for Office of the President
 
There are many positions still available in the ASUCOP for the 2004-05 school year.  If you want to be a newsmaker on CalStuff in addition to a newsreader, feel free to submit this form. 
 
If the links do not work, I can email the files out.  My email address can be found on the left side of the website - send requests there.

Likewise, I am still looking for a senate intern for next year.  Applicants are preferably female, physically attractive, and have an intimate knowledge of cigars.  I do love a good cigar from time to time.

 

OP Staff Application.doc

OP Staff Positions.xlsEmail This Post!

Potential Exhibitionism Occurs, Hilarity Ensues
This week's Berkeley Daily Planet contained an especially hilarious crime report, a section of which I have quoted below:

Hard-Hatted Weenie Wagger
An irate citizen called police shortly after 3:30 p.m. Monday to report that a heavyset construction worker clad in jeans and a hard-hat apparently at work on a UC construction project on Berkeley Way near Shattuck had exposed his shortcomings. 

ASUC Executive Vote Counts Released 
 
Here are the official vote counts for the ASUC Executive Elections. 
 
There are some interesting statistics here.  Three of the five races (AAVP, Exec VP, External VP) were decided by less than 150 votes.  This makes the presidential margin of 800 votes seem like a landslide in comparison. 
 
DAAP candidate for student advocate Ronald Cruz ended up in a relatively close second place in that particular race, which is quite interesting, considering this is the closest DAAP has ever been to getting an executive seat.   Cruz also did not rally many votes in the senate race, though Yvette Felarca, who got a third as many votes in Cruz in her respective executive race, won a pending seat in the ASUC Senate.  These results beg the questions: was this a fluke, or is DAAP getting a larger progressive base?  And is this base defecting from the CalSERVE ranks?
 
The self-destruction of BEARS-United is also displayed here in all of its glory.  In both of its executive races, BU finished nowhere near first place.  Many people in and out of the party believe that running an incomplete slate hurt the party, and it will be interesting to see if BU survives to see next year, let alone run a full executive slate along with a larger group of senators.  There is some speculation that there will be some sort of agreement or alliance between BU and the Berkeley College Republicans, which would certainly help rally the vote of the conservative student.
 
ASUC Senate vote tabulations have not been released yet... thankfully.

Email This Post!

Regents finally decide not to delay a vote – "temporary" student fee increase extended
 
On Wednesday, July 14, a sub-committee of the UC Board of Regents approved a proposal to extend the terms of the UC Berkeley "life-safety fee" that was supposed to expire this year.  The $65 add-on to tuition, collected since 1992, will be extended through Spring 2005.  It is expected that further extensions will be requested of the Regents in the future.
 
While retrofitting is necessary for the older Berkeley buildings, and this proposal withstands a cursory glance, there are some major problems with the UCB Safety Fee.  Primarily, why is money for retrofitting not coming from county, state, and federal resources dedicated to making older buildings earthquake-resistant?  Students should not be shouldering the financial burden for these projects.
 
I would also be interested in seeing if any other campuses need to pay additional fees for emergency preparedness.  For example, I do not believe that UCLA and Cal State Northridge have ever paid additional fees just to bring their campus buildings up to code, and the Los Angeles area is just as prone to earthquakes as the Bay Area is.  Likewise, I do not think that UCSB students or Cal State – SLO students pay "life-safety fees", and they just had a pretty big damn earthquake.  UC Berkeley students are the only ones financially hindered by this policy.
 
However, the best part is yet to come.  The fee increases have raised $16 million in the last twelve years.  However, if only $16 million has been raised, then this only accounts for the fees from an average of ~20500 students per year who have paid the UCB Safety fee.  Approximately 33000 students, graduate and undergraduate, attend Berkeley.  Where is the other $9.75 million?  What most people don't realize is that a good amount of the funds raised by the Safety Fee is sent to financial aid programs.  This is blatantly inefficient.  It ultimately costs the students more money, and delays the repair timetables.  What would happen if there was an earthquake next semester, and students died in buildings without retrofitting because money from the Safety Fee went to financial aid? 
 
And, of the money from the fee going to financial aid, is all of it going back to Berkeley students?  If not, this would ultimately mean that Berkeley student fees are paying for other students on different campuses, and a scenario such as this is completely unacceptable.

When it comes down to it, the UC Berkeley Safety Fee is just another example of UC Berkeley students paying for the lapses in judgment of campus administrators and planners.
Email This Post!

Regents Postpone Raise in GPA Requirement

It looks like the proposal is coming under attack from the usual suspects. Here is the link from the SF Chronicle.

The biggest and it seems, only, complaint seems to be that the new GPA requirement would reduce the number of minority students eligible for UC admission. While this argument has statistical weight to it, it is fundamentally flawed on several counts.

1. Keeping admissions requirements low or as I would say "dumbing them down" is not a long term fix to the very real problem of below average educational opportunities that accrue to minority students. In essence it does nothing to address this problem, rather it puts of the date of doing something serious about public education in impoverished areas by artificially keeping standards lower than they should be.

I have long thought affirmative action in college admissions does the same thing; It puts of needed reform in favor of lower standards. I would argue that keeping GPA standards low hurts minority students in the long and even short run.

2. The UC's are meant to be much more selective than other state schools. We should not imperil the level of students that the University attracts in order to let in unqualified people. Granted this new GPA requirement would not affect Berkeley (or UCLA) much, but it could affect other UC's. It should not be to much to expect students to have at least a B- average.

3. Raising GPA standards affects the State's other minority groups (asian and white students) as well. Of course falling from a 6% eligibility rating to a 4% rating is a bigger fall in % terms than a 31% to 27% fall. But isn't the question that minority advocates should be looking at: "why do only 6% of African American high school students qualify for UC admission?" Rather than spending their time fighting a much needed rise in requirements, it would better serve them to spend their time figuring out what to do about high schools in inner city areas. I have a solution for them: vouchers... But politics has gotten in the way of this common sense idea already.Email This Post!

Judicial Council Hearing Called To Judge Constitutionality of EO 3

Judicial Council Chairman Mike Davis has called a hearing to discuss the legality of EO 3, which was announced earlier this week. EO 3 amends part of Article I of Title IV of the ASUC by-laws to allow for the Judicial Council to issue punishments of different degrees if need be (read: the DAAP situation).

The conflict comes between Article II, Section C of the ASUC Constitution, which dictates the terms by which an Executive Order is made, and Article X, Section 2, which states that amendments to the by-laws must be made by the ASUC Senate.

In an interview with CalStuff, ASUC President Misha Leybovich said that he felt EO 3 was "on very solid ground." "What could be more urgent and necessary than this? If I don’t do this, the Senate can't meet," he continued.

The Judicial Council hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, July 14 at 8 PM.
Email This Post!

Campus Groups Mobilizing to Prevent Rising UC Eligibility Standards
I recently received an e-mail that was forwarded to me discussing plans to mobilize against efforts by the Regents to raise the eligibility requirements for UC schools. Here is the main point of the e-mail: [all typos in quoted material left there for comedic effect]

If you have not heard the UC Board of Regents will vote on a proposal WED. JULY 14th which would change the eligibility requirements. The major one of them being to change the requirements from a 2.8 to a 3.1, in a 4.0 scale. Ofcourse we and they know which communities this will affect. WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN.

We are trying to organize a good number of students, alumni and staff to go to the meeting on Wednesday, we are asking to pospone teh vote until September, so students can mobilize and have their voices heard.

The e-mail also contains an example of a form letter that people are asked to modify and then pass on to the Regents. To download a copy of the form letter, click here. To see the report by the Regents that contains the recommendation to increase the GPA eligibility requirement, click here (warning, PDF).

The original author of this e-mail appears to be from the "Students for Access to Education," which does not have a website. The e-mail also mentions "The place where I work GREENLINING INSTITUTE will provide trasportation aswell as the External VP office of the ASUC."

My thoughts on this:
1. This move by the Regents gives credence to an idea already discussed on Calstuff; creating a three-tiered system within the UC with different admission standards for each UC.

2. There should be some room to allow for people whose success in school is not entirely reflected in their GPA or who have other circumstances in their life. Someone who ended up with a 3.0 GPA (a B) due to the time they spent caring for younger siblings or some other hardship, but who still managed to receive high SAT scores (let's say above a 1400) as well as a wrote a great admission essay should not be denied entrance to UC Riverside or UC Merced without even being considered based on their 3.0 GPA.

3. Finally, I think there should be major efforts to raise the reputation and educational opportunities at CSU schools. By increasing funding at these schools they would become more desirable universities to attend, and that might allow there to be more rigorous standards at the UC's if there were still good alternatives for people to attend who did not get into a UC. Email This Post!

Berkeley Alumnus Killed in Russia

Newspapers are reporting that Berkeley graduate Paul Klebnikov was recently killed in a drive by shooting. See here for the Associated Press article.

Klebnikov was the "American editor of Forbes Magazine's Russian edition." The Moscow police did not name any suspects in the crime, and it is unclear if any of Klebnikov's reporting might have angered someone enough to lead them to murder him.

Klebnikov also attended the London School of Economics.Email This Post!

EO 3 issued

Executive Order 3 for the 2004-05 term was announced to ASUC officials late on July 6. EO 3, much lengthier than its predecessors, amends Title IV by adding a third section to Article I, the "Purpose and Intent" section of Title IV.

The new Title IV, Article I, Section 3:

"Equitable Remedy

Remedies in addition to those described in Article XIII may be imposed at the discretion of the Judicial Council. Such remedies shall be integer censures or disqualifications."

This amendment is obviously the means that the Judicial Council will use to negotiate some sort of settlement with DAAP without having to resort to big peoples' court. Speaking of which, no hearings on the federal case appear to have been scheduled yet. If this is going to be settled before the beginning of the fall semester, it is going to have to be done at the negotiating table.

While it may seem very undemocratic to change the ASUC by-laws via Executive Order, it is important to note that all business conducted by EO expires after three meetings of the ASUC Senate. The Senate can also override the EO with a majority vote. (ASUC Constitution, Article II, Section 2C)

And while the legality of the amendment is not really questionable, there are some significant long-term problems with the amendment. First, defining the remedies the Judicial Council can use is somewhat binding, and does not allow for future leeway. In addition, this amendment opens the door for more charades like this one, where disgruntled candidates and parties can hold out until more lenient punishments can be issued. I imagine that this amendment will be altered before it is made permanent by the ASUC Senate.

For those of you interested in getting a copy of the EO, please email me.
Email This Post!

Lawsuit Over Northwest Village/Albany Housing

Stuart Flashman, an attorney for the "Committee for Affordable Student Family
Housing" sent notice to the University on Friday, July 2nd that if they move forward with the plan to tear down some of the University housing and rebuild it, then he would file a lawsuit to prevent this from happening.


So far, I have had the chance to speak with Flashman about this matter, but I won't be able to reach anyone at the University until probably mid-day Tuesday at the earliest. First, a brief summary of what is happening, based on information from Flashman, as well as a resident of the University Village.
*Currently about 600 students in University Village are living in old buildings (former army barracks I was told) that the University would like to tear down and rebuild.
*According to Flashman, rent would increase for these people from around 700-900 dollars to 1,500-1,700 dollars.
*Final approval for this project has been granted, along with the completion of an Environmental Impact Report, and Flashman claims that the University has been unwilling to work on a negotiated settlement, which is why he is readying the lawsuit.

According to Flashman, the increase in rent will drive some current residents from the housing. He also claims that in the Environmental Report, the University assumed that automobile use would remain the same and therefore there would be no increase in pollution. He claims that people who could afford the more expensive apartments would be likely to drive more and cause more pollution.

According to Flashman, one simple solution would be to allow for a revolving loan fund so residents of the University housing could pay back any loans they needed after they graduated and got a job.

More on this soon, including comments from the University and a copy of the notice sent to the administration about the lawsuit Flashman would file sometime in July...

Click here to see the notice by Stuart Flashman of his intent to file suitEmail This Post!

Governor names new UC regents

Governor Schwarzenegger has named two new people to the UC Board of Regents. The first, Republican businessman Fred Ruiz, owns a business that is the top employer in Tulare County, and has been active in the creation process of the new UC campus in Merced. The other new Regent, Paul Wachter, is an investment banker from Los Angeles. He worked with Governor Schwarzenegger on various after-school programs before his candidacy, though his experience with higher education appears to be very limited. It will be interesting to see how these business-oriented minds influence the UC regents board, especially with the current UC budget crisis.

A Boalt grad, Jeffrey Bleich, was named to the CSU Board of Regents as well. Bleich, a SF lawyer, was one of eight new appointees to the CSU Board.
Email This Post!

Bay Area Fireworks

For those of you looking for fireworks displays to watch in the East Bay, Berkeley Marina usually has a pretty decent show, which this year starts at 9:30 PM. However, they are expecting 40,000 people to attend, and parking will be, at minimum, a significant pain in the ass. Anyone who is looking for a viable alternative can go to Jack London Square in Oakland, where there should be a decent show as well. Their show starts at 9:25 PM.

A directory for fireworks shows in other Easy Bay cities can be found here. Many shows on this list are in the suburbs, and will be less crowded than the major thoroughfares.

If you have access to a car, and are looking for something with less people or more privacy, your best bet is to drive up into the hills and find a perch overlooking the Bay. Anyone with access to an apartment with a bay view should be treated to a great show, as well as anyone with access to the top floors of the Residential Units (particularly U1 and U2).

And don't forget, fireworks are illegal for private use in the East Bay. As if that is going to stop anybody from using them.
Email This Post!

Berkeley Faculty Approves Raise In Admissions Standards

The Associated Press is reporting that Berkeley's faculty has approved a recommendation to the UC Board of Regents to raise graduation requirements. The issue will be now discussed and voted on by the Board. Proponents of the plan are aiming for a three-year process by which the GPA formula will be altered and the minimum GPA for admission will be raised.

However, unless a radical change is implemented, and the number of eligible students is cut in half, then this reform will be like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.

From the AP article (republished in the Contra Costa Times):

"Historically, UC has designed admissions criteria to capture the top 12.5 percent of in-state high school graduates. However, a study released in May found that 14.4 percent of graduates are qualifying... UC has revised admissions criteria several times, but the group of high school graduates who eventually enroll has remained constant at about 8 percent. That is largely because UC students typically come in with qualifications well above minimum standards."

Another interesting point from the article: the current minimum UC GPA is 2.8. That seems just a tad bit low, doesn't it? And this is calculated off of your best eight courses. A change like this is a long time coming, even while taking into consideration the fact that these minimum requirements service lower UC schools as well, like UC Riverside.

One alternative I have heard to this plan is to break the UC system into three tiers: Tier I (UCLA & UC Berkeley), Tier II (UCSB, UCI, UCSD), and Tier III (UC Davis, UCSC, UCR, UC Merced), each with its own minimal requirements. It would allow for more realistic and more equitable minimal admission requirements for each school. Its biggest drawback, though, is that it would make affirmative action or wholistic review much more difficult to apply in Tier I schools, and minority/lower class students much more likely to land in Tier II and III schools. It would, however, open the door to more out-of-state and international students.

Another concept I have been introduced to, regarding GPA calculation, is to use an averaged GPA (grades 10-12) of both weighted and unweighted GPAs. This way, students are still rewarded for taking AP classes, but the GPA inflation we are seeing now in high schools is reduced, and high schools without large AP programs are not penalized as much.Email This Post!

More Delays in Chancellor Decision Process

The Contra Costa Times is reporting that the chancellor selection process is being held up by the death of UC President Dynes' father. Dynes is expected to return to campus on Monday, and the search is to continue then.

I'm speculating here, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear an announcement late next week about a final decision. Many reports have stated that the university administration has already made its decision, and is firming up details and waiting for the right time to announce. With Dynes back in town, and the Birgeneau press dying down, it would be a near-perfect opportunity to do so.Email This Post!