As I posted earlier, during the course of a march on the home of UC Berkeley’s chancellor last night, some of the marchers broke windows, lights, and planters at the residence. Some are also alleged to have thrown burning torches at the home and at police.
I’ve posted some general thoughts on the question of property damage and violence against individuals as protest tactics, but someone at Occupy California has put up a defense of last night’s rioting that I want to respond to directly.
Here’s the relevant passage:
The Chancellor, although not the sole contributor to the crisis we face now, was directly involved in the unjust arrests of Wheeler Hall in the morning and continues to threaten the futures of the stakeholders of the University of California, Berkeley. He is … a powerful and influential individual that refuses to accept both the project that Live Week attempted to create and the fact that he shares a part of the blame, no matter who he can point his finger at. … As the events unrolled during the evening, it was clear that many are aware of the lack of faith the Chancellor has for the students and many have become aware of the power that individuals have, due to promise that Live Week fulfilled, to create a space for people to come together.
Although some may attempt to paint the evening as a night of petty violence, this event reveals a refusal to accept the university’s actions and the physically violent police repression in passivity. The property damage incurred may seem ruthlessly aberrant and scarring on a university already suffering budget woes, but the damage incurred by the silencing of stakeholders Friday morning exceeds beyond any value the university can place on some broken glass and ceramics.
Two things.
First, throwing a planter at the window of someone’s home while there are people inside is not merely an act of vandalism. It is an act of assault. The person or people who attempted to break the chancellor’s windows could not have known whether the glass would hold or whether there was someone on the other side of the glass.
Attempting to smash the windows of someone’s home is not just “property damage.” It is not just “scarring on a university.” It is an attack on the people inside that home.
Second, the question of whether the chancellor “shares a part of the blame” for the arrests at Wheeler or the university’s budget crisis is not the issue here. He obviously does. The question is whether attacking his home with him and his wife inside it is an appropriate response to his misdeeds.
Again, this was not just a matter of some spray-paint or a few broken planters. The chancellor said this morning that he and his wife feared for their personal safety last night, and I believe him. He had reason to fear. There were people with torches outside his home, smashing things against it, trying to break in. That’s not just “some broken glass and ceramics.” That’s a violent attack, and it’s outrageous.
Update | In an earlier version of this post, quoted at Inside Higher Ed, I described the attack on the chancellor’s residence as the act of “a violent mob.” That characterization was based in large part on the account posted at Occupy California, but information has since come to light that calls that version of events into question. See this follow-up post for more.
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 12, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Mike
The outrage is the police committing this acts at the direction of people like the chancellor day in and day out all over the world. Turn about is fair play. When they stop threatening and actually damaging and taking our lives, livelihoods, and physical, emotional, and psychic safety then they can get to feel safe too.
December 12, 2009 at 6:02 pm
david
If some broken glass is an outrage, I’d be very curious to know what term you’d use to describe, say, college students having to drop out of public universities because they can’t afford tuition?
December 12, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Angus Johnston
I don’t consider broken glass an outrage, and I do consider college students dropping out of public universities because they can’t afford tuition an outrage.
If this had been just a matter of “some broken glass,” I probably wouldn’t have written about it, and I certainly wouldn’t have used the language I did.
December 12, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Angus Johnston
I just don’t buy that. I don’t buy the idea that the way to stop bureaucrats from behaving inhumanly is to terrorize them. I don’t think it’s moral, and I don’t think it works.
December 12, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Diane
I fully agree with you on this one. I went to Cal, and luckily graduated last semester, right before the recent fee hikes.
I cannot believe how extreme this has become and how embarrassing it is for me at this point to say I went to Cal, for even a remote chance of associating with some of the people involved in the riot. I don’t ever approve of property damage, but at least if it were an empty building I would possibly understand the anger. This is someone’s house. Yes, it’s on university property, but someone actually lives there and was physically living there at the time of the riot. If the students had succeeded, if they managed to light the house on fire or break in, the Chancellor could have died. I don’t see in any sense how this would help the protesters’ cause.
The economy is in an absolutely horrible state right now. Fee hikes are terrible and layoffs are some of the worst things that can happen to an employee. Do you know why the Chancellor is “okay” with this? Because he has to be. It’s his job to provide enough funding for the school to run after the state government slashed funding for education. What other option does he have? Where else do you get the money from?
Let’s put another point into perspective. When the tree protesters occupied the trees outside of the stadium, it cost the university $20 million to handle that situation (http://chronicle.com/article/Berkeley-Protesters-Descend/41580/). While there is no construction delay price attached to this protest, there will still be what is bound to be university money tied into this riot. The costs of now repairing the Chancellor’s home, the damage that was done surrounding campus, and the cost of the police to handle the situation are undoubtedly not helping the already stretched university budget.
If Chancellor Birgeneau actually does do something for the fees as a result of the protests, though I highly doubt he has the power to do anything about the lack of funds, every student better be damn grateful. Because if I had just felt like my life was in danger by the people who I was actually trying to help, I don’t think I’d want to do a single fucking thing.
December 12, 2009 at 7:07 pm
anonymoose
i will repost part of my comment from your “tactics” post here:
why don’t you write a direct response like this to every cop who explains why they shot an unarmed, innocent person? why don’t you write a direct response like this to military commanders every time they unapologetically describe the necessity of the collateral damage in the latest missile attack? now, in writing articles like these, or your other one on tactics, you align yourself with the police.
i know that what concerns you is the development of a movement and so you become a ‘movement-cop’, a handler, whose justification for articles like these is that you just want to make sure the movement grows. you think that violence and destruction have no place in a ‘movement’ as though movements can only be nonviolent. well, ghandi ain’t my dogma and i wasn’t there when all the liberals voted to universalize nonviolence.
in your tactics article you semi-justified the actions of greek rioters because they are part of an already large movement. well, you are wrong about contextualizing the destruction of banks and rioting in greece as somewhat justified because of their positions in a large movement. it isn’t as though a ‘large movement’ was meticulously crafted and looked out for the entire way of development, with ‘handlers’ like yourself making sure no one over-stepped boundaries for the sake of the ‘movement’ – no, that isn’t what happened. in greece, as well as france, what occurs is a mutual alignment of students and workers AGAINST police and administrators. so even when there is a 10,000 person march in athens and only 100 or so engage in street fighting/rioting, NO ONE CONDEMNS their actions EXCEPT the police mouth-piece: the mass media. there are no condemnations internal to the ‘movement’ because everyone jumps in to the vortex together AGAINST the police and administration. with comments like these you give legitimacy to the cops when the next round of arrests come – what are you going to say when they severely beat the next protesters and justify the beatings by saying “as we have seen with the berkeley ‘riot’, the protesters are becoming increasingly dangerous and must be dealt with preemptively and with greater force.” – are you going to say they were justified? we can’t configure every little bit and get every single person to uphold the same virtuous laws of non-violence, ok? we can only affirm each other against our enemies.
you stand in solidarity or you don’t! do you think a movement builds without forcing people to overstep their bounds of comfort? of course not – a revolution isn’t your fucking living room!
December 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Patrick Sweeney
I really don’t think its correct to call Angus a “handler.” As far as I’ve seen, he has done nothing but encourage the student movement and I believe his comments about violence and property damage were meant to be constructive, and further the reach of the movement, not limit it.
While I disagree with the idea that property damage is immoral, I think it needs to be very carefully considered in a case-by-case basis, and I think this particular incident was absolutely unjustified. Smashing banks and police cars is one thing, but damaging a university owned building is quite another. Where is our sense of solidarity with the workers who now have to clean up our mess? Why would we want to damage the very buildings we want to use? We must be specific and thoughtful in our actions, or else we will not only be seen as reckless hooligans, but we will become the coercive and violent forces we wish to abolish.
December 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Angus Johnston
To be absolutely clear, I don’t believe that property damage is by definition immoral, and I do recognize that police and administrators often gin up fake indignation over minor property issues in an effort to discredit legitimate protest. It’s not in any way my intention to give support to that kind of manipulation.
December 12, 2009 at 11:55 pm
john
I think you should also note that the UCPD and Chancellor Birgenaeu have repeatedly lied and mis-characterized various actions by students at Berkeley in order to capture the ‘moral highground’. It’s hard to imagine that you of all commentators would take Birgenaeu’s account at face value after everything you’ve written about him in the past.
Of course I understand how easy it is to do when folks do stupid things, but it is inherently unprincipled to do so. Now, lets move on and not let this trip us up.
December 13, 2009 at 12:43 am
Angus Johnston
These are good points.
I was initially highly skeptical about the administration’s accounts of the events of last night, and I held off posting anything on the subject until I saw photos of the damage. I’ve tried to be careful in not going beyond the known facts of the situation, and where I’ve gotten out in front of them I’ve gone back and edited my posts to reflect that.
I do believe that Birgeneau was telling the truth when he said he feared for his safety, in spite of the fact that — as you say — he and his administration have established a record of misrepresentation. I believe him because he had good reason to be afraid. But yeah, that might not have been the best way of expressing that sentiment.
And yes, I agree. I’ve said my piece on this, and it’s time to move on.
December 13, 2009 at 6:15 pm
likelostchildren
HEAR, HEAR!
grow a backbone and pick a side. if you are in solidarity with the struggle of students against capitalism, bureaucracy, and the police state, don’t spend hours lecturing people on why their tactics are wrong. if you have to critique, make it from a practical rather than a patronizingly moralistic standpoint, and make your assumptions explicit.
on a practical note, i really doubt anyone was trying to physically harm the chancellor. not that i don’t think he deserves it. i just don’t buy that this was seriously on the agenda. people committed some minor vandalism and scattered. your typical neighborhood hooligans do worse on halloween every year. and speaking of which, if birgeneau is afraid of his students he should try treating them a little better. or, he could try teaching public high school in oakland and find out what that really means. he could try putting himself in the shoes of the millions of young people in california and around the world who are watching the hope of a secure future disappear before their very eyes. i for one am not going to lend a sympathetic ear to all the whining and hysterical hyperbole, like the governator who described this incident as “terrorism”.
on another practical note, the argument about the tree sit is kind of silly, because it’s not like they really needed to build that building – that was the whole point of the tree sit, or weren’t you paying attention? the $20 million could have come out of its budget and thered still have been $100 million left that could have gone to financial aid, janitors’ paychecks, etc.
anyway – and if instead you are in solidarity with capitalism, bureaucracy and the police state, and not with the multiplicity of forms of resistance to them, then fuck you.
December 13, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Kyle Morton
The movement will fail because of shit like this.
Half of the protesters don’t even know what they’re protesting. Is it the fee hikes? Budget cuts? Capitalism in general? And what a fucking joke that last one is. Ask five protesters why they’re doing it, you’ll get six different answers.
While I’m sure some of those involved really do want to make a difference, so many others are there just to shout out loud and scrawl graffiti on the walls. Others just want to start breaking things and see what happens next. And how fitting it is that they target their own school! You’re actively destroying your own base and target demographic!
Until the movement sets an actual goal other then mindless mob mentality, they won’t be taken seriously. Right now, they’re just “Those stupid angry college students.” You can change that…but I doubt you will.
December 13, 2009 at 8:54 pm
john
If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. That doesn’t mean that the student movement will not be successful.
If you look to other movements in history, never once (except perhaps for fascism or statist communism) has there been unity of message, tactics, or goals. Most often, movements are diverse in terms of goals, purpose and even tactics. Those that succeed are the ones that don’t tear themselves apart based on these differences. Those in power will always try to take advantage of these differences and pit different groups against each other. (Perhaps, that’s whats most telling of the administration’s recent press releases)
Was a torch-lit march to Birgenaeu’s mansion tactically not the smartest thing to do? probably not. Will the movement continue to grow? Of course it will. What’s at stake is much more important to fight against than petty squabbles.
And to answer snide comment about fighting capitalism: Sure, it is a fight against capitalism or more succinctly, the corporatization/privatization of public education. If you don’t get that, I don’t really know how you could comment.
December 13, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Kyle Morton
Your last paragraph is what makes it hilarious, because I’d bet money – that I barely have – that if I were to ask protesters, at least half would vehemently disagree with you.
You’re so sure that the entire protest agrees with you. And it doesn’t.
You say your movement will continue to grow, but it’s already splintering apart. It’s not “those that are in power” that’s splitting you apart, it’s you. Yes, YOU, John.
You can keep saying “Oh you just don’t get it,” but the problem is, you don’t have the popular support. Most of your fellow students disagree strongly with you.
Enjoy your media stunts, I suppose.
December 14, 2009 at 8:28 pm
john
Angus,
This may also put things into perspective: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=242626894697&id=13300702&ref=nf Let me know if you can’t access it.
December 14, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Angus Johnston
Nope, it’s showing as private — just takes me to my FB homepage.
December 14, 2009 at 8:49 pm
john
Sorry, I can’t publish it publicly because I don’t have permission. If you join the Transform Public Education facebook group you can see the well-written letter from a prof. that witnessed the incident.
December 14, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Angus Johnston
Thank you. That’s an important document, and I’m glad you brought it to my attention.
More soon.
December 15, 2009 at 10:43 pm
A
So I’m a little disappointed to hear this, but I think it just comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on here. It’s becoming less and less about ‘political’ actions that fit into a ‘social justice’ framework. Instead, these struggles have become more about affirmation in the face of growing alienation and repression. We worry about alienting folks, but the average sports tailgating session or even college party is way more out of control. A friend testified that during the mass student strikes a few years ago in Quebec, it was the apolitical students that turned over cars and fought cops; the ‘movement’ kids and even the anarchists had built up too many internal psychological barriers to doing so.
Think about it this way: if a creepy old guy got a gang of toughs to rough up a bunch of your friends, what would you do? Some folks might call the police, some folks might take action into their own hands. The former is impossible in this situation, because for us, the police effectively do not exist. Folks go to protests and get harassed on the way home. Sometimes their house gets raided. Sometimes Folks go to work as head of a large university and get harassed on the way home. Sometimes their house gets raided.
You keep acting as if this is an act of political protest. It isn’t. It’s pure poetry.
December 16, 2009 at 12:04 am
Angus Johnston
I was with you (mostly) until “poetry.”
I agree that affirmation in the face of growing alienation and repression — nice phrase, by the way — is an important part of what’s going on in this current wave of activism. I agree that there’s often a double-standard when judging activists’ rowdiness against others’. I even agree with the “shit happens” assessment in your second paragraph.
But my criticism of physical acting out — here and in my other post — was a criticism of such acts as political acts. My other post was a criticism of vandalism and interpersonal violence as political tactics, and this post was a criticism of a claim that such acts were politically legitimate. If you want to have a conversation about the circumstances in which that kind of acting out might be understandable, I’m happy to have that conversation. But it’s a very different question than whether such acting out is justifiable, or wise.