UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau campus police deploy baton jabs on students. Campus UCPD report to chancellors and take direction from their chancellor. University of California campus chancellors vet their campus police protocols. Chancellors are knowledgeable that pepper spray and use of batons are included in their campus police protocols.

Chancellor Birgeneau’s campus police use baton jabs on his students. UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau and UC Davis Chancellor are in dereliction of their duties.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau and UC Davis Chancellor need to quit or be
fired for permitting the brutal outrages on students protesting tuition increases
and student debt

Opinions? Email the UC Board of Regents marsha.kelman@ucop.edu

University of California Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau hijack’s all our kids’ futures.
I love University of California (UC) having been a student & lecturer. Like so many I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failures of Birgeneau from holding the line on rising costs & tuition increases. On an all in cost, Birgeneau has molded Cal. into the most expensive public university.
Paying more is not a better education. Instate tuition consumes 14% of Calif. median family income! Faculty wages must reflect California’s ability to pay, not what others are paid.
Chancellor Birgeneau ($450,000 salary) dismissed many much needed cost-cutting options. He did not consider freezing vacant faculty positions, increasing class size, requiring faculty to teach more classes, doubling the time between sabbaticals, freezing pay & benefits, reforming pensions & health benefits.
Birgeneau said such faculty reforms “would not be healthy for Cal”. Exodus of faculty, administrators: who can afford them?
We agree it is far from the ideal situation. UC Berkeley cannot expect to do business as usual: raising tuition; granting pay raises & huge bonuses during a weak economy that has sapped state revenues & individual Californians’ income.
Birgeneau can bridge the trust gap with alumni, donors, politicians, and the public with reassurances that salaries & costs reflect California’s ability to pay.

Chancellor Birgeneau’s campus police deployed violent baton jabs on students protesting increases in tuition. The sky above UC will not fall when Chancellor Birgeneau ($450,000 salary) is ousted.

Opinions? Email the UC Board of Regents marsha.kelman@ucop.edu

Background on rising tuition and student debt: http://bit.ly/cost-of-college

There is a concerted effort continued from normal Daily Bruin operations to especially this issue to limit student knowledge of these crucial events apparent not only in the lukewarm, pseudo-neutral tone of this but also in the question of distribution of this article in particular.
The tone plays the role of seeming unbiased, thus excusing its under-emphasis and minimization of important stats and acts reported here; the attempt to seem unbiased also “excuses” selective data usage that omits very key points from the Occupied side, thus making a very one-sided issue (to extort, or not to extort) seem equal on both sides, without alerting readership to the media bias inherent in this reporting—especially inherent in this piece for “appearing” to be absent.
Furthermore, this article was only published online—The Bruin halted publication/distribution entirely for the Tuesday and the Wednesday after this especially newsworthy incident; the article (by this same author) published on these events in print (a medium of The Bruin that makes its way to many, many, many more students than these annexes of the online version) made the front page of The Daily Bruin—three days after the fact. Not only that, but it effectively redacted every single important event or act or issue raised in this protest, only some of which were even brought up in this article. It focused instead on how the Regents want to better communication with us students, though there was the definite notion amongst almost all present at the Regents’ P.R. move that it was just that (the title of that article showcases its bias clearly: “UC officials plan for more public input”; it then pretends to consider whether or not UC officials actually plan for more public input (with multiple quotations from the Regents and administrators, but only one from an Occupier or student).
Why is it that—after the most newsworthy event on campus regarding student events, individuals, interests, and futures (demonstrable by the unprecedented amount of press that came and stayed and then reported fully on this Monday’s protest—including major international media titans from The Wall Street Journal to CNN)—not only does The Daily Bruin delay publication/distribution for 3 days, but when it finally gives out its first paper after this event, it has cut every relevant element regarding the event that made it newsworthy and student-oriented to begin with?

As an addendum to the prior post: this loophole-oriented reporting with a clear effort to deprive students of news, coupled with a bias in both this article and the one published in The Daily Bruin in favor of administrator rather than student stances, clearly constitutes intentional and discriminatory de facto censorship.
A few other factors to consider (that this article noticeably omits):
The Regents not only unanimously passed this vote, they anonymously passed it, clearly violating the Bagley-Keene open voting law by voting on it in a secret, undisclosed location, not open to public view. This renders the vote moot by California state law, and so their budget has not, in fact, passed (legally—the same issue is now ongoing between the lieutenant governor and the other CSU Trustees, and a lawsuit against said Trustees is pending, as we hope and expect one against the Regents for this soon will be).
The Regents neglected to respond to any comments made by the public in public comment—even direct questions, and requests as simple and immediately grantable as “Sign the ReFund CA pledge,” a pledge they have said that they support in lukewarm, evasive terms, but have openly refused to sign or even to acknowledge signing it as a possibility to consider and thoughtfully reject for open reasons. This renders public comment’s function effectively moot (leading one to wonder why this article, along with “UC officials plan for more public input,” view extended public comment as a good thing, when it only further falsely perpetuates the notion of any accountability, input, or democracy in this plutocratic oligarchy known as the Regents).
Regardless of State budget issues, there is a serious cause for alarm in corruption and embezzlement of the funds the Regents receive, since 6 billion dollars have disappeared into “miscellaneous funds” for Mark Yudof’s office over the past 5 years that said office refuses to further clarify to an audit of this summer. This issue must be addressed in any discussion of UC Regents demanding funds from the state or its students, or in any discussion of UC Regents saying there is a dearth of funds for them, or in any discussion of UC Regents deciding on expenditures for the UC system (all of which occurred in this article, but without addressing these and other rampant issues of corruption). This is merely one example of their inefficiencies and greed—one could also look at their other jobs, their lack of any background in higher education, their exorbitant pay and low contribution to the UC system, and more—and those would still only be a few examples of their inherently questionable interests in deciding issues like funding and budget for the UC system, issues which should demand their explanations or resignations immediately (issues which The Daily Bruin should be leading the charge to enforce upon them, but which it is currently neglecting to do).
MOST IMPORTANTLY: the budget they passed will all but necessitate an 81% fee increase for all UC students over the next four years in order to balance; the Regents have already planned to vote on this fee increase for this amount this February, and yet where is the outcry against the passation of this budget as a de facto fee increase? Where is the outcry against these fee increases for being effectively regressive taxation without representation? Where is The Daily Bruin’s stance on any of this, it’s defense of student interests in the slightest? Where even is the info in this article that this exorbitant and extortive fee increase is happening as a result of this meeting and plan? This is news! What is The Daily Bruin too busy reporting to bring this up?
There are many, many other issues to bring up—police presences on our campuses increasing for the mercantile enforcement of private policy and privatized interest; the refusal of the Regents to stand up for their constituents against the state and others who would privatize our education (while the Regents themselves further privatize it), the apocalyptic rates of increase in tuition (it tripled since 2000, and almost doubled since 2008), the anti-democratic fascism of the University of California as a governmental body oppressing its students while robbing them, and more—but this is the job of The Daily Bruin.
Their failure to raise these issues and questions on behalf of the students they supposedly represent, the students they have the duty to inform—if not for moral reasons, then because they have the “benefit” of being a state-sponsored monopoly, and have nothing else interesting or worthwhile to do—constitutes censorship of the press, and repression of student politics in retrospect, as well as repression of student thought and discourse on campus in the future. This newspaper must change to be a true student paper (in substance as well as process, in interests as well as events), or it must be replaced, for it is no longer a student newspaper.
If this state-sponsored propaganda machine seeks to silence our actions of the past and thoughts of the future, then we must silence it as a moral imperative to allow a free press to emerge from the ashes of The Daily Bruin for current and future UCLA students to benefit from.

Every qualified California student must get a place in public University of California (UC). That’s a desirable goal for UC. However, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau displaces Californians qualified for education at Cal. with foreigners paying $50,600 tuition.
Paying more is not a better education. UC tuition increases exceed the national average rate of increase. Birgeneau has doubled instate tuition/fees. Birgeneau jeopardizes access to Cal by making it the most expensive public university.
UC President Mark Yudof uses tuition increases to pay for faculty & administrator salary increases. Payoffs like these point to higher operating costs and still higher tuition and taxes. Instate tuition consumes 14% of Cal. Median Family Income. President Yudof is hijacking our families’ and kids’ futures: student debt.
I agree that Yudof and Birgeneau should consider the students’ welfare & put it high on their values. Deeds unfortunately do not bear out the students’ welfare values of Birgeneau, Regent Chairwoman Lansing and President Yudof.
We must act. Birgeneau’s campus police deployed violent baton jabs on students protesting Birgeneau’s tuition increases. The sky will not fall when Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau ($450,000 salary) ‘honorably’ retires.
Opinions to UC Board of Regents, email marsha.kelman@ucop.edu