You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Civil Liberties’ category.
I’ve just put up a short think piece about the events of the last few days at the University of California, but those events are worth describing in detail — particularly since they’re a long way from over. Here’s what happened yesterday:
The UC Regents, as expected, voted to impose huge fee increase on undergraduate and graduate students in the university. These new fees represent a tripling of undergraduate costs in the last decade, and a 50% jump since 2007.
After the vote students at UCLA surrounded Covel Hall, where the meeting had taken place, trapping the regents inside. When a group of regents tried to leave campus students surrounded their van, forcing them to retreat to a nearby building. It would be nearly three hours before they, and UC president Mark Yudof, were able to make their escape.
Even before the vote students had occupied two buildings in the UC system, and the afternoon saw two more takeovers.
Fifty-two students were arrested Thursday night at Mrak Hall, the UC Davis administration building, after they defied police orders to clear the building. One local media source said this morning that “dozens” of those arrested were held overnight.
Students at UC Santa Cruz had occupied Kresge Town Hall, an auditorium, on Wednesday evening, and on Thursday they expanded their action to include Kerr Hall, an administration building. Students in Kerr released a 35-point list of demands on Thursday night, and both occupations were apparently still ongoing as of early this morning.
At UCLA itself an occupation generated some controversy, as activists took over Campbell Hall, a building that houses tutoring facilities and services for students of color on campus, in the early morning hours before the regents’ vote. An article in the Daily Bruin suggested that the takeover was initiated primarily by non-UCLA students, and that local and non-local activists disagreed about the wisdom of occupying that building. The Campbell occupation ended peacefully last night with no arrests.
Afternoon update: The Campbell Hall occupiers have issued a response to their critics, and it’s well worth reading. You can find it here.
Yesterday’s events broke through into the national media in a way that student protests rarely do, gaining major coverage at CNN, the New York Times, and USA Today.
8:00 am | Several dozen students have apparently barricaded themselves inside Wheeler Hall in Berkeley, making that the fifth building occupation in the UC system in the last two days.
Note | This post is from Wednesday, November 18. For news of the events of the 19th, including the student takeover of a building on the UCLA campus, click here. For news on the November 20th occupation of a building on the Berkeley campus, click here.
A little before noon today, University of California Students Association president Victor Sanchez posted on Twitter that campus police had used Tasers and batons on student protesters at the UCLA meeting of the UC regents. Sanchez’s post was retweeted more than forty times over the course of the afternoon, but he provided no details then or later.
It wasn’t clear from Sanchez’s post whether he was an eyewitness to the events, and early media reports provided no corroboration. About an hour later, in fact, the UCLA Daily Bruin used Twitter to post a flat denial from Lynn Tierney, director of communications for the UC president, that any student had been Tasered at the protest. The Bruin soon expanded upon that denial in an article, saying Tierney had told them that “police [had] not used tear gas, Tasers or rubber bullets” on the crowd, and that there had been no injuries to student demonstrators.
Within a few hours, however, it had become clear that Tierney’s denial was false, and that Sanchez’s post was accurate.
In a mid-afternoon press release, UCLA admitted that two campus police officers had used tasers “in light stun mode” against student protesters, and that two students had been injured in the protests — though it claimed that those injuries had not been caused by tasers.
Sanchez’s claim that cops had used batons on protesters was confirmed more directly. In a video posted to YouTube this evening, a police officer angrily lashed students with a baton before being restrained by a colleague.
Photos posted at the Daily Bruin website also show campus cops’ aggressive stance on campus. One showed an officer pointing a pellet weapon at protesters, while another showed a different officer threatening a student with a Taser.
Police use of Tasers in non-emergency situations has become far too common in recent years, and such casual violence has at times had tragic results. The students of UCLA deserve an honest accounting of today’s events.
November 20 | A post at LAist notes that UCLA recently settled a lawsuit with a student who was wrongly Tasered on campus in 2006. They wound up paying the guy $220,000.
The blog also posts a photo of a UCLA protester being Tasered in the chest, and notes that just last month the Taser company warned customers that if you Taser someone in the chest, “a lawsuit likely will follow.”
Oops.
The three faculty members suspended from Southwestern College after a budget protest two weeks ago returned to their jobs on Thursday, but the situation is far from resolved.
Earlier this week college officials floated the possibility that the profs might face criminal charges as a result of their actions, though police at the scene of the protest made no arrests and the only detailed eyewitness report available indicates that the entire event was peaceful and uneventful.
And yesterday the local blog Save Our Southwestern College reported that formal letters of reprimand are to be placed in each suspended professor’s file.
As SOSC notes, SWC has yet to provide any coherent public account of its seemingly erratic actions in the wake of the protest.
Meanwhile SWC president Raj Chopra, who went on vacation just hours after the suspensions were handed down, remains absent and incommunicado.
East Georgia College has reinstated a professor it suspended in August, withdrawing charges of sexual harassment it had lodged against him. But it has reprimanded the prof for using “offensive language” in the workplace, and asked him to sign a letter of understanding that includes the statement that he is “expected to act in a professional manner at all times.”
Professor Thomas Thiebault’s suspension came after a faculty meeting about sexual harassment policy in which he described a recent a conversation with a female student. The student had, Thibeault said, complained about another professor’s habit of staring at her breasts, in response to which he told her that she had no right to complain because she was dressed provocatively. During the course of telling that story, he provided identifying details of, and gratuitously offensive comments about, the student’s appearance.
Update | It’s worth laying out what exactly Thibeault said, and how various news organizations and advocacy sites have characterized it.
Here’s Thibeault’s own account of his remarks:
Last week two students were talking to me in the hallway after class. One student said that she didn’t want to go to a professor’s office because he looked down her cleavage. The woman was wearing clothing that was specifically designed to draw attention to her cleavage. She even sported a tattoo on her chest, but I didn’t get close enough to read it. The cleavage was also decorated in some sort of sparkly material, glitter or dried barbecue sauce. I couldn’t tell. I told the student that she shouldn’t complain, if she drew such attention to herself. The other female student then said, and I hope you’re not offended by her actual words, ‘if you don’t want anyone looking at your titties, I’ll lend you a T-shirt. I have one in the truck.’ The first student then said, ‘No. I’m proud of the way I look.’ I left the conversation at that point.
The purpose of the anecdote is to ask the question “what provision is there in the Sexual Harassment policy to protect the accused against complaints which are malicious, or in this case ridiculous?”
Here’s how the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education characterized Thibeault’s comments:
Thibeault … related a story about another professor and asked, “What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the accused against complaints which are malicious or, in this case, ridiculous?”
Here’s the Chronicle of Higher Education’s take:
Mr. Thibeault said students’ complaints of sexual harassment could be frivolous, and as evidence he related an encounter he said he’d had with a young woman who he said was dressed provocatively, with her cleavage showing. Yet she complained to Mr. Thibeault that another professor always stared at her breasts, the instructor said.
Inside Higher Ed referred to Thibeault simply as
…an English professor who, ironically, had openly criticized the lack of protections for the falsely accused in its sexual harassment policy.
Conservative news site WorldNetDaily says Thibeault
…questioned the assertion – as he understood it – being presented by Mary Smith, the school’s vice president for legal affairs, that the feelings of the offended constituted proof of offensive behavior.
As I noted in my previous post on this case, I think the way that EGC treated Thibeault is reprehensible. But the nature of his public comments are relevant to the story, and it’s startling to me how far some have been willing to go to obfuscate them.
In late September the Student Government Association of the University of North Texas, under heavy pressure from UNT parents and alumni, voted down a bylaw amendment that would have allowed same-sex couples to run for homecoming king and queen.
Now the SGA is letting UNT’s students decide the issue for themselves.
In a 22-1 vote on October 21, the UNT student senate voted to call a student referendum on the bylaw change. Balloting will be conducted online from November 16th through the 20th.
The vote reportedly followed a protest at the SGA one week earlier, at which more than fifty students descended on a meeting chanting pro-equality slogans.
The original proposal to allow same-sex couples in the homecoming court deeply divided the student senate, who rejected it by a vote of 10-5 with 8 abstentions.
Update | Students rejected the proposal to allow same-sex homecoming couples by a margin of 58% to 42%. Thirteen percent of UNT students took part in the referendum.
studentactivism.net 
Recent Comments