Yesterday I posted about SFSU’s move to charge eleven student activists more than $700 each for costs relating to a building occupation on campus. As I reported, this week also saw a PR blitz from the UC Berkeley administration, which claimed that this year’s protests there have cost them more than two hundred thousand dollars so far.
Today, the blog Occupy CA is reporting that UC Santa Cruz is demanding that an unspecified number of students who participated in November’s Kerr Hall occupation pay the university $944 each in restitution.
Much more detail over at Occupy CA, including the following claims:
- Those facing fines include three one of five student negotiators, who were “uninvolved in the actual demonstration.”
- Students have been given little or no information as to the substance of the charges against them.
- Those singled out for fines and disciplinary action include only “a small handful of students handpicked by the administration.”
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the punitive use of fines against activists is a coordinated statewide strategy by California’s public universities. If readers know of other campuses that have taken this approach, please pass word along.
Tuesday update | The Santa Cruz Sentinel has the story, including substantial new details. UCSC officials have confirmed that 36 students are facing fines of $944 each, and that seven of the 36 are facing suspension, expulsion, or disciplinary probation as well. Payment is due by June 30, after which outstanding fines may prevent students from graduating or registering for classes.
The university claims that occupiers “overturned a refrigerator to use as a barricade, damaged communications equipment and left pounds of garbage,” but officials made no effort to assign blame for specific acts of damage in assessing the fines.
The Sentinel quotes UCSC professor Bettina Apetheker as calling the university’s treatment of the demonstrators “reckless, inaccurate, inadequately supported and unjustified.” Administrators, she says, have shown an “incompetent disregard for students’ futures.”
studentactivism.net 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 10, 2010 at 11:50 am
*
correction: 3/5 negotiators summoned, but only 1/5 negotiators found guilty
April 13, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Anon
It’s worth pointing out that the article over at OccupyCA, as is there want, has no actual details of the majority of the ‘long list of charges’, and despite requests from many students, said list has not been forthcoming from either the accused or the administration.
While I’m not trying to say that OccupyCA is wrong, or imply that generally they have less accurate information than a Glen Beck rant, it would be nice if we could get some actual detail filled in, rather than just a lot of jingoistic rhetoric.
April 13, 2010 at 6:21 pm
dettman
Anon, not to nitpick, but it would be nice if you understood what jingoistic meant before throwing the adjective around. I don’t speak for OccupyCA, but typically SJA charges include the stipulation that students not speak about the charges. It’s a gag order of sorts, enforceable by escalation of charges or increased sanctions. This might account for the lack of concrete info.
April 14, 2010 at 12:36 pm
**
Perhaps the pro-protest crowd can explain who IS supposed to pay the costs of cleaning up after these demonstrations. Would that be the general public? Or perhaps only the student body of the affected institution? Does our cherished right to protest absolve one of any responsibility for the mess left behind?
The general tenor of the conversation here and at Occupy CA has been that the universities have inflated the price tags of these demonstrations by including the costs of responding university personnel. Why would anyone dispute this? It’s a zero-sum game: that university locksmith or carpenter working on the aftermath of an occupation is NOT working on something else.
Those who protest gain credibility when they stand up and accept full responsibility for their actions. They diminish their moral superiority when they whine about being held accountable. Take off the bandanas and man up.
April 21, 2010 at 1:43 am
GK
The whole point is that the students being accused are NOT the ones who did this damage. They are simply held responsible for charges because they were identified as having been in the building when damages are alleged to have occurred. Many of these identifications were false and at least one student journalist was charged.
For the full and unbiased view from the UCSC student paper:
http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2010/04/15/zuidema-issues-resolutions-35-to-pay/
and an editorial from the paper that shows how students right to due process in these disciplinary proceedings are being violated:
http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2010/04/15/let-there-be-light/tci
April 22, 2010 at 10:40 am
anonymous
‘They are simply held responsible for charges because they were identified as having been in the building when damages are alleged to have occurred.’
i didnt even go IN the building, but am facing these fines right now!