By now, many have seen the video (embedded below) of police beating UC Berkeley students on campus Wednesday night. Some of the students were linking arms and had refused commands to move. Instead of arresting them, police in riot gear began beating them with batons. The video -- in which the students' shock is palpable -- is hard to watch. Unfortunately, the response of the UC Berkeley administration has been equally disturbing.
On Thursday afternoon, UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau offered the following justification for the officers' violence:
It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience. By contrast, some of the protesters chose to be arrested peacefully; they were told to leave their tents, informed that they would be arrested if they did not, and indicated their intention to be arrested. They did not resist arrest or try physically to obstruct the police officers' efforts to remove the tent. These protesters were acting in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience, and we honor them. We regret that, given the instruction to take down tents and prevent encampment, the police were forced to use their batons to enforce the policy. We regret all injuries, to protesters and police, that resulted from this effort.
Bizarrely, the Chancellor suggests that the difference between protestors engaging in a) honorable civil disobedience and b) police obstruction justifying violence is whether the protestors are linking arms with each other. Since when is linking arms and standing ground not non-violent civil disobedience? Would the beating have been necessary if the students had gone limp, or would that somehow have been more "honorable" than linking arms? Do students protesting on campus need to tell police officers they are willing to submit to arrest in order to avoid being beaten?
The chancellor wrote Thursday that the UC Berkeley Police Review Board will "ultimately determine whether police used excessive force under the circumstances." We know what the chancellor thinks. He thinks the students in the video below were violent (or, in his words, "not non-violent"). For this reason, it was necessary for the police to beat them. In fact, he wrote that the police were "forced" to use their batons.
The chancellor's letter was also signed by UC Berkeley's provost and vice chancellor for student affairs. I trust that the Police Review Board will not be deterred from conducting an independent review, despite the very public backing of the police action by Berkeley's top officials. Whether these officials will learn from whatever conclusions the Police Review Board draws, however, is an open question. Recent experience leaves me skeptical.
In response to November 2009 violence between police and protestors at UC Berkeley's Wheeler Hall, the Police Review Board issued a thorough, comprehensive report recommending all sorts of improvements to the way it handles exactly the kind of demonstration that occurred again on campus this week. Among the Board's many recommendations was that the police use something like the following script when communicating with occupying protestors:
For the reasons we have explained, we are now ordering you to [move back behind X line]. We will give you three minutes to comply voluntarily. If you do not comply voluntarily you will be committing a criminal offense, as well as a violation of campus rules that could affect your academic standing. By refusing to comply, you will force us to use physical means to move you. We don't want to have to do that, but if we must, we will. We will use only such physical means as your conduct makes necessary. If you do not resist physically, you will not be injured.
Watch the video below, and see for yourself whether it looks like U.C. has learned any lessons from the November 2009 demonstrations:
UPDATE: On Monday, the chancellor sent another message to the U.C. Berkeley community, which seems to (but does not actually) walk back some of his earlier comments. In his new message, the chancellor reveals that he had not actually viewed the videos of the police action on campus before stating in a campus-wide email that the police "were forced" to use their batons on students. Releasing his statement without watching the videos was inexcusably irresponsible, in my view. Moreover, the chancellor, referring to the videos he has now seen, says, "[s]adly, they point to the dilemma that we face in trying to prevent encampments." The dilemma is whether to arrest students to prevent an encampment, about which there can be legitimate debate. There is no dilemma when it comes to whether campus police need to beat peacefully protesting students. It's actually pretty simple: they don't.
I hope Yudoff replaces both of them.
We live in a world which pretends that peaceful protest is the only thing which changes the fundamental paradigms of society while nothing could be farther from the truth. Feudalism didn't simply die out because Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Vittenberg Cathedral and Worker's Rights did not see the light of day because Capitalism chose to "become enlightened" one day.
Each of these changes was brought about by common men and women who became fed up with the status of mere chattel and came to understand that the only thing understood by those who act with force is force. Until a clear message is sent to Washington and other organizations (such as Berkeley) that Americans are not just cattle to be rounded up with prods, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and batons - this sort of police behavior will continue.
What are they risking after all? A sprained wrist from swinging a baton in someone's face?
I know from multiple past attempts to solicit donations from me on the part of UCB that you need my money, and continue to actively pursue it, both on an institutional and departmental basis. But as long as your policies in regards to student protest continue in this manner, including your odd assertions about who actually perpetrated violence (I suggest you might ask the three English department professors who were assaulted that day for an opinion), you can expect nothing in the way of support from me, or any of my fellow alumni I remain in contact with. You'll have an easier time getting Governor Brown to give back the $1B taken away systemwide in the last few years than getting anything out of me. PR nightmare? Exactly.
(a) the "law" used to not allow women to vote - they had to protest (think of your mom's vote)!
(b) the "law" used to not allow black people civil rights - they had to protest (and got brutally beaten) .
Or should i say "please! RE-consider"
I think the police have got to stop using violence on peaceful protests. There will be civil suits I'm sure and the city of Berkely or the school will have to pay out claims.
Protesting is free speech and violence by the police is just brutal force.
We'd like to think we learned from the past.
Also several of the people beaten where also professors.
They lie and say they had to break through to get the tent, but they bypassed the protestors who were in front of the tent. Photos show no more chain just people including our 70 year old Poet Laureate. They still surrounded us from several directions and in different formations with no announcement. Finally an employee inside Sproul Hall said we all must leave the area, though the Chancellor emailed that we could be there 24/7 minus tents and sleeping bags. The few had been confiscated. The police bullied everyone and dangerously challenged and power played the audience that swelled from the calls for help.
This was an unbelievable event and the officers are still just as cocky so get ready to see some action tomorrow at Cal.
Get real.
Otherwise, why the acid tone? Do you really feel like this person's decision to narrate her experience is worth the few minutes you spent coming up with such a bitter, ugly response? Why not just say what you really meant, in that case? Something like, "You got what you deserved", or "Shut up, crybaby" (or "stupid hippie" if that's where you live).
Even if I disagreed with this person's actions, I would still give her credit for putting herself at risk in an attempt at change, rather than sitting behind an anonymous screen and taking cheap potshots. One of these things takes courage, the other requires none.
The article above shares a letter from Birgeneau that commends the planned rally thusly:
-An impressive, peaceful noontime rally on Sproul
-We compliment the organizers and speakers for setting an example of peaceful protest and mobilization
-We understand and share the concern of the Occupy movement about the extreme concentration of wealth in US society and the steady disinvestment in public higher education by California and other States
-We want to thank our student leaders, faculty, and community members who worked hard to maintain a peaceful context last night.
-We have been in discussions with the ASUC, Graduate Assembly, and other student leaders
-Our offering protesters the opportunity to use Sproul Plaza 24/7 for one week, as a venue for gathering and discussing the issues
-These protesters were acting in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience, and we honor them
-We regret all injuries, to protesters and police, that resulted from this effort.
Additionally, I am an older student and parent of a UC Berkeley student. I observed the incident and am very proud of our youth and our professors who also observed and came forward to speak out.