SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
university of california
Pro-Palestine Students, Faculty Sue UC Santa Cruz Over 'Unconstitutional' Ban
The lawsuit was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities," the text said.
Sep 09, 2024
Students and staff at the University of California, Santa Cruz launched a lawsuit against the school on Monday for barring them from campus without due process after they were arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest in the spring.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, and civil rights attorney Thomas Seabaugh, is demanding that the University "cease summarily banishing" people who exerciser their First Amendment rights as the new academic year beings.
"The bans were incredibly punitive and profoundly unfair," Rachel Lederman, senior counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, said in a statement. "They went into effect on the spot, instantly cutting students and faculty off from classes, jobs, and other school resources, such as meal plans and healthcare. On-campus residents were rendered homeless. Academic performance suffered."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship."
One impacted student was Elio Ellutzi, a plaintiff and undergraduate who was not only made homeless and cut off from their campus job, they were forced to the miss a pre-scheduled doctor's appointment and delay treatment until the fall.
"It was terrible to miss that appointment and be cut off from my home, the library, and my notes," Ellutzi said. "This all happened during final exams and, even though I had been on the honor roll for the last two quarters, I struggled to complete my coursework and my grades really suffered."
Fellow plaintiff and UCSC undergraduate Laaila Irshad also suffered academically.
"I was a resident assistant living and working in campus housing, so the ban was devastating," Laaila said. "I failed my school courses as I could not access my computer, attend classes, or complete assignments."
The bans were issued to more than 100 students and faculty members who were arrested on the night of May 30, when the university called in more than 100 police officers to clear the school's Palestine solidarity encampment.
Everyone arrested that night was banned from campus under section 626.4 of California's Penal Code, which allows a university to withdraw its consent for an individual's presence on campus for up to two weeks. However, in order for a university to make use of the code, it must first either hold a hearing or decide that an individual poses "a substantial and material threat." Neither criteria were met in the case of those arrested in May, in violation of both state and federal law.
Chessie Thacher, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said the bans were "unconstitutional and overbroad, depriving students and faculty of their due process rights."
The lawsuit explained further:
The campus police, acting under defendants' direction, handed out identical one-page Section 626.4 notices to arrestees. The officers handed out so many of these form notices en masse that they eventually ran out of paper and resorted to verbally informing students and faculty of the ban. Some people were also purportedly banned without getting either written or verbal notice. No hearing or opportunity to be heard was provided before any of these bans went into effect. No individualized findings were made about how, post-arrest, "the continued presence" on campus of each summarily banned person presented "a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property."
The notices were also handed out after an arrest experience that was harrowing in and of itself, according to first-hand testimony from plaintiffs.
Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies, said she had gone to the encampment on May 30 to support her students:
When I arrived, I saw a line of officers advancing in militarized formation, moving forward, then stopping, and waiting before continuing their slow march down to the base of campus until they were just two to three feet in front of the line of students. From that point forward, they repeatedly attacked us in waves of violence. The police used their batons to force us so tightly into each other that some protesters were dry heaving from the batons being thrust violently into their organs. When students tried to move the batons away from their stomachs, they were ordered to stay still and bear the pain. The person next to me was later hospitalized for their injuries. In what appeared to be their efforts to pluck off protesters for arrest, officers in full riot gear were unrestrained in their violence, including grabbing people by the neck. One person sustained injuries so severe that they suffered neurological damage and now walks using a cane.
Once arrested, both Hong and Irshad described spending time in police vans with their hands tightly zip-tied and no chance to access facilities.
Irshad recalled:
I was arrested at 6:00 am, while other protesters remained on-site into the morning, still without basic necessities. We were then handcuffed tightly with zip ties and loaded into vans, where static radio blared at deafening volumes. When we pleaded for relief, the volume was increased, and when I asked to use the restroom, I was met with scorn and laughter. It was a shock to be treated so cruelly simply for exercising my right to protest.
The lawsuit stated that it was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship," Seabaugh said in a statement. "Our clients did not engage in conduct that posed a threat of significant injury to anyone or anything. Banning them on the spot was not just heavy-handed, it was unconstitutional and a violation of basic democratic rights and academic freedoms. We're suing to ensure that in the coming school year, UCSC officials comply with the law and respect the constitutional limits on their power to ban students and faculty from campus."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Shows Climate Crisis Driving Increase in California Summer Wildfire Damage
The researchers also found that California "can expect as much as a 50% increase in burned area from 2031 to 2050 relative to the past few decades."
Jun 13, 2023
Nearly all the recent increase in land area engulfed by California summer wildfires is attributable to human-caused climate change, a study published Monday revealed.
The study—published in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), multiple University of California campuses, and three Spanish universities—quantified the influence of anthropogenic climate change on recent summer forest burned area in the nation's most populous state.
"The 10 largest fires in California history have all occurred in the past two decades, and five of those have happened since 2020," noted University of California, Irvine professor of civil and environmental engineering and study co-author Amir AghaKouchak.
"The results show the role of human-caused climate change in driving fire activity and highlight the need for protective adaptations against summer wildfire seasons."
LLNL scientist and study co-author Don Lucas said that "we show that nearly all of the observed increase in burned area in California over the past half-century is attributable to human-caused climate change."
"The results show the role of human-caused climate change in driving fire activity and highlight the need for protective adaptations against summer wildfire seasons," Lucas added.
According to the study's abstract:
Record-breaking summer forest fires have become a regular occurrence in California. Observations indicate a fivefold increase in summer burned area (BA) in forests in northern and central California during 1996 to 2021 relative to 1971 to 1995. While the higher temperature and increased dryness have been suggested to be the leading causes of increased BA, the extent to which BA changes are due to natural variability or anthropogenic climate change remains unresolved... Our results indicate that nearly all the observed increase in BA is due to anthropogenic climate change... We detect the signal of combined historical forcing on the observed BA emerging in 2001 with no detectable influence of the natural forcing alone.
"These findings strongly indicate that the observed increase in BA was primarily due to increased fuel aridity and not due to simultaneous variations in nonclimate factors such as human effects on ignitions, fire suppression, or by altering land cover," the study states.
In 2020, the CEO of PG&E, California's largest utility, pleaded guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the 2018 Camp fire, which was caused by the company's faulty equipment and incinerated the town of Paradise. The utility has also been implicated in numerous other California wildfires.
The study's researchers used climate models to forecast BA spread in California's future.
"Our paper makes it clear that the problem is ours to fix and that we can take steps to help solve it."
"We found that we can expect as much as a 50% increase in burned area from 2031 to 2050 relative to the past few decades," AghaKouchak said.
"Our paper makes it clear that the problem is ours to fix and that we can take steps to help solve it," he added. "By acting now to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions and pursue more sustainable transportation, energy production, and agricultural practices, we can reduce the adverse effects of global climate change."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cal Grad Student Worker Strike Ends With Deal Panned by Many Rank-and-File Union Members
One dissenting student negotiator said the tentative agreement "does not come close to our initial demands and it leaves a lot of our co-workers still rent burdened, still impoverished."
Dec 24, 2022
While many University of California graduate student workers welcomed Friday's strike-ending ratification of a new labor agreement that delivers increased pay and benefits, other rank-and-file union members expressed anger and disappointment that the deal does not deliver enough.
The Los Angeles Times reports two bargaining units of United Auto Workers—which represent the 48,000 student workers—approved tentative agreements on contracts that will take effect immediately and run through the end of May 2025. The six-week strike—the largest academic employee walkout in U.S. history—will end, and most U.C. graduate workers will return to their jobs after winter break.
"It is disappointing and upsetting that we have enshrined systemic inequity in a union contract."
More than two-thirds (68%) of Student Researchers United (SRU)-UAW members approved the tentative agreement, while about 62% of UAW-2865 members backed the proposal. Support among SRU-UAW voters ranged from 19% at U.C. Santa Cruz to 86% at U.C. Berkeley Lab. For UAW-2865, U.C. San Diego (73%) showed the strongest support for the agreement, while just one in five U.C. Santa Cruz voters approved the deal.
The agreement sets minimum salary scales for student workers, raising base pay from around $23,250 to $34,564.50 for 50% time work by October 1, 2024. U.C. Berkeley, U.C. San Francisco, and UCLA workers will get at least $36,500 due to the higher cost of living in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Childcare reimbursements, non-residential supplemental tuition, and other benefits are included in the package.
"The dramatic improvements to our salaries and working conditions are the result of tens of thousands of workers striking together in unity," UAW 2865 president Rafael Jaime said in a statement. "These agreements redefine what is possible in terms of how universities support their workers, who are the backbone of their research and education enterprise. They include especially significant improvements for parents and marginalized workers, and will improve the quality of life for every single academic employee at the University of California."
Nick Geiser, one of the student negotiators, said that "I think this represents one of the most successful collective bargaining agreements in academic history and certainly in modern American labor history."
However, many rank-and-file UAW members opposed the agreement. Fifteen of the 40 student negotiators voted against the deal, arguing that "the proposal is inadequate and that a stronger contract is within reach."
"One of the main issues I have is that the major salary increase will not come to fruition until 2024," Samia Errazzouki, a doctoral candidate in history at U.C. Davis, told The New York Times. "When I signed up and voted to authorize the strike, my understanding was that we were negotiating to see the fruits immediately."
Janna Haider, a U.C. Santa Barbara history Ph.D. student and bargaining team member, told the San Francisco Examiner that the contract "does not come close to our initial demands and it leaves a lot of our co-workers still rent burdened, still impoverished, but also now in this weird position where they make slightly too much to qualify for certain public assistance programs."
Speaking to the Los Angeles Times and lamenting the exclusion of accessibility and police defunding provisions from the deal, Haider said that "it is disappointing and upsetting that we have enshrined systemic inequity in a union contract."
"But we will respect the results provided the ballots were counted honestly, and rank-and-file workers will continue to fight for a real cost of living adjustment, for an end to police violence, and a more just U.C. and UAW," she said.
Enrique Olivares Pesante, a UCLA PhD student in English and teaching assistant, told the paper that he voted for the agreement even though he believes it is insufficient.
"Getting this contract wasn't the end of it," he said. "It's just the beginning and the continuation of a very long struggle."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UC Davis Spent $175,000 in an Attempt to Scrub This Story from the Internet
Documents reveal university contracted with firm to "clean up" the school's online reputation after November 2011 pepper-spraying of students
Apr 14, 2016
University of California, Davis, officials spent $175,000 to "clean up" the school's online reputation after the November 2011 pepper-spraying of students resulted in a barrage of negative attention.
The Sacramento Bee reported the news on Wednesday, citing documents revealed in response to requests filed last month under the California Public Records Act.
The records show that the UC Davis hired two separate firms to help improve the reputations of both the university and embattled Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi.
According to the Bee:
The documents reflect an aggressive effort to counteract an avalanche of negative publicity that arose after the Nov. 18, 2011, pepper-spraying of student protesters by campus police. Fallout from that incident continued for more than a year, as investigations and lawsuits played out and spawned criticism of UC Davis and demands that Katehi resign.
In January 2013, UC Davis signed on with a Maryland company called Nevins & Associates for a six-month contract that paid $15,000 a month.
[...] The objectives Nevins outlined for the contract included "eradication of references to the pepper spray incident in search results on Google for the university and the Chancellor."
That objective was to be achieved by advising UC Davis officials on the use of Google platforms as part of "an aggressive and comprehensive online campaign to eliminate the negative search results for UC Davis and the Chancellor."
Footage of the interaction between student protesters and campus police can be seen below:
As Common Dreams reported at the time, a 190-page task force report released in 2012 said the use of pepper spray was "not supported by objective evidence and not authorized by policy."
The Bee further notes:
The release of the documents comes as Katehi is once again under fire, this time for her acceptance of seats on private corporate boards, including a textbook publisher and a for-profit university that was under scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission. First revealed in The Bee, her outside board positions have sparked calls for her resignation as well as student protests.
Students have occupied the reception office outside Katehi's office for more than a month in a sit-in that they say will last until Katehi resigns.
In an open letter sent Tuesday to UC system president Janet Napolitano, marking the 32nd day of the occupation, the students wrote that their protest "is about more than just seeing Linda Katehi removed from office. This is a demand for larger structural changes that democratize decision-making processes and re-center the well-being of the students and workers of the UC Davis community as the top priority for campus administrators."
Of the university's attempt to scrub its image, meanwhile, Boing Boing declares, "Looks like the geniuses who run UC Davis never Googled the words 'Streisand Effect.'"
The Streisand Effect--named after an incident involving Barbra Streisand, the California Coastal Records Project, and real estate photos--is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the exact opposite effect, pushing said information into the spotlight.
Indeed, Gizmodo writes: "In UC Davis's case, all that money has gone... well, not far. Googling 'UC Davis pepper spray' yields 117,000 results, and many of them aren't flattering."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Universities Face Another Push to Criminalize Speech Criticizing Israel
Students say they should be allowed to engage in human rights advocacy in defense of Palestinians
Oct 27, 2015
A revived effort at the University of California system to criminalize speech critical of the state of Israel by deeming it "anti-Semitic" is being met with considerable push-back from students and social justice campaigners, who say there is nothing intolerant about human rights advocacy.
The state system framed a Monday night forum at the University of California, Los Angeles campus as a public hearing on an initiative to redraft a statement of principles against intolerance. The initiative was undertaken by an eight-member working group of university regents, faculty, and administrators.
But the hearing itself was denounced as the product of efforts by Israeli advocates to press the system to brand criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic" and "intolerant."
"The controversy is not about intolerance. That is a canard," Liz Jackson, a staff attorney for Palestine Legal and a Jewish University of California alum, told Common Dreams. "There are some people who want to engage in critical discussion of Israeli policy, and there are others that want to suppress it."
"What we should be talking about is the experience of Palestinian and Arab students at UC who see their own tuition dollars invested in state violence against their families," Jackson continued. "And then they experience intimidation and suppression when they engage in protest."
"We are struggling to live and to be Palestinian, and when we are denied the basic freedoms that are so-called enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the universal values of the University, such as the right to think, to words, and to speak," Loubna Qutami, a Palestinian graduate student at UC Riverside, told Common Dreams. "We are denied our history, peoplehood, sense of self, commitment to social justice, and position as an equal on UC campuses."
Palestine Legal reported Tuesday that, over the past few weeks alone, the organization has responded to "a spate of incidents including a physical assault and death threats against students expressing support for Palestinian rights." This included at least one incident at the University of California Santa Barbara last week when a member of Students for Justice in Palestine was physically attacked at a protest against ongoing Israeli violence.
But these incidents were not the focus of the discussion Monday night when Israel advocacy organizations pressed the university to adopt the U.S. State Department's definition of anti-Semitism, which has been widely criticized for muddying the distinction between real anti-Semitism and criticism of a nation-state.
"This shuts down one side of an important debate," said Jackson. "Applying the definition to restrict speech would violate the First Amendment, but even adopting the definition as a reference tool silences those who wish to criticize Israel's well-documented human rights violations by making it taboo."
What's more, Israel advocates are referencing real anti-Semitic acts--including the January vandalism of a UC Davis fraternity with swastikas--to build the case for the crackdown on speech. However, according to Jackson, these incidents "have been condemned by all activists, including Palestine solidarity activists, and there is no evidence of a connection between principled human rights activism and anti-Semitism."
Leore Ben David, a campus coordinator for the Zionist Organization of America, charged at Monday's hearing that "Jewish students are fearful to show their support for Israel."
But Mandy Cohen, a graduate student at UC Berkeley, declared: "I am part of a community of Jews and scholars who are critical of Israel. They are seeking to silence me."
"It's a shame that one of the most prestigious university systems in the world would seriously have a debate about whether or not it should ban criticism of a nation-state to shield it from charges of human rights abuses and colonization in the illegally occupied territories of Palestine," said Robert Gardner, a UCLA undergraduate, on Monday.
The latest push to adopt and enforce the State Department's definition stems from years-long campaigns against Palestine solidarity activism at the University of California system. These efforts included a "campus climate" process in 2012 and unsuccessful Title VI claims in 2013. Each effort has been met with widespread opposition.
The UC crackdown reflects a broader trend nationwide. A report released last month by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Palestine Legal revealed that, in 2014 alone, the latter organization responded to 152 incidents of "censorship, punishment, or other burdening of advocacy for Palestinian rights and received 68 additional requests for legal assistance in anticipation of such actions." Just halfway through 2015, the organization had responded to 140 such incidents, marking a considerable increase.
Another report released by Jewish Voice for Peace last month found that Israel advocates are conflating anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel, and equating all Jews with the Israeli state, in an effort to shut down debate on universities and campuses across the United States. This often takes the form of bullying within Jewish communities, the report states, as well as claims that the emotional discomfort of Israeli supporters amounts to targeted harassment.
But the new push for strict "anti-Semitism" standards has powerful supporters. One of the regents strongly advocating for the "speech code" is Richard Blum, a wealthy defense contractor and husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Last month, Blum threatened that his wife would unleash political consequences if the UC system failed to adopt the strict standards. UC President Janet Napolitano advocated in May for adopting the State Department definition.
It is not immediately clear what next steps will emerge from Monday's meeting. The working group told the Associated Press that it will meet with "experts on tolerance and anti-Semitism to draft a new policy to present to the board of regents in March.
Qutami emphasized: "While the UC regents have heard many reasons why the intolerance statement must not infringe on free speech, academic freedom, the rights of students to engage in activism, and so much more, we as Palestinians also say that equating any critique of Israel with anti-Semitism is as much a part of the settler colonial project working to erase us as the military occupation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy