Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Parking, Protest and Security on Science Hill
On December 21st, security guards at the Physical Sciences Building diligently watched over the parking lot on Science Hill where tree-sitters have been occupying Coast Redwoods since November 7th in protest of UCSC's Long Range Development Plan. Someone up in the cluster of trees dubbed "Tree 1" confirmed what Grrr reported in a comment on SC-IMC, that on December 20th, two carloads of cops accosted the Raging Grannies in the parking lot and then arrested a young woman who allegedly attempted to climb a tree. Despite UCSC's recent actions against perceived protesters, people continue to bring bags of supplies to either the base of the trees or directly to the sitters in the platform high above the ground.
The parking lot and trees are slated to be replaced by a highly-controversial Biomedical Sciences building, the first project under the University's plan to develop 120 acres of forest in order to accommodate 4,500 new students by 2020. The Biomedical Sciences building will have no allotted classroom space, despite ongoing complaints about overcrowded class sizes. However, it will have room for live animal experimentation, which includes practices such as food/air deprivation, infection, and non-anesthetized surgery, according to campus guidelines.
The parking lot and trees are slated to be replaced by a highly-controversial Biomedical Sciences building, the first project under the University's plan to develop 120 acres of forest in order to accommodate 4,500 new students by 2020. The Biomedical Sciences building will have no allotted classroom space, despite ongoing complaints about overcrowded class sizes. However, it will have room for live animal experimentation, which includes practices such as food/air deprivation, infection, and non-anesthetized surgery, according to campus guidelines.
UCSC students and community members are planning to be under the trees on the night of December 22nd in celebration of the winter solstice.
Ways to find out more information include going to Science Hill and checking Santa Cruz Indymedia.
Ways to find out more information include going to Science Hill and checking Santa Cruz Indymedia.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
He says he's "not quite sure what you meant by don't make her a target"?! He "doesn't mean to spread any ill will towards her"?
And , he's concerned that someone would interpret it as either of those possibilities. That's so touching that if it were Brad or my first time viewing this sight, I might have even believe him.
...but it's not my first time here, nor his. And we both know the routine here. And that's why I don't buy a word of his protestation of innocence.
-This site regularly posts pictures of people, along with their names and phone numbers, and invites people to harass them by flooding their email and phones. (One time, this sight even posted home addresses of campus administrators and invited people to contact them at home.
-People working at the science building have had their tires slashed and vandalized.
Now how hard is it to put one and one together and come up with the answer that, by posting her picture and indicating that she doesn't support the tree-sit, you've targeted her and invited the wacko element to harass her?
(And I say "wacko element" because I think we'd both agree that, whichever side of the issue you're on, the vast majority on either side don't support or resort to violence.)
Brad, you're playing a game when you act coy and pretend you don't understand that.
And , he's concerned that someone would interpret it as either of those possibilities. That's so touching that if it were Brad or my first time viewing this sight, I might have even believe him.
...but it's not my first time here, nor his. And we both know the routine here. And that's why I don't buy a word of his protestation of innocence.
-This site regularly posts pictures of people, along with their names and phone numbers, and invites people to harass them by flooding their email and phones. (One time, this sight even posted home addresses of campus administrators and invited people to contact them at home.
-People working at the science building have had their tires slashed and vandalized.
Now how hard is it to put one and one together and come up with the answer that, by posting her picture and indicating that she doesn't support the tree-sit, you've targeted her and invited the wacko element to harass her?
(And I say "wacko element" because I think we'd both agree that, whichever side of the issue you're on, the vast majority on either side don't support or resort to violence.)
Brad, you're playing a game when you act coy and pretend you don't understand that.
"-This site regularly posts pictures of people, along with their names and phone numbers, and invites people to harass them by flooding their email and phones. (One time, this sight even posted home addresses of campus administrators and invited people to contact them at home."
That's not true. This site does not post anything, people post. Encouraging people to contact a school administrator, for example, is not harassment, it is a democratic way of trying to have a meaningful voice in our public institution. I am not telling people to harass the woman in the photograph. According to another email I received from the same person, "She's just the chemistry department's secretary, and is no more responsible for making policy than you or me." In the same email, the person explained, "The university propagandists went into overdrive to try to convince everyone that the protest was putting them in mortal danger (hence the "lockdown" and the goofy security guards)."
I do not recall seeing home addresses of campus administrators posted to SC-IMC. Can you please provide a URL for that?
"-People working at the science building have had their tires slashed and vandalized."
If this is accurate, then I am sorry to hear about this. Have these incidents been reported on in the Sentinel, or elsewhere?
"(And I say "wacko element" because I think we'd both agree that, whichever side of the issue you're on, the vast majority on either side don't support or resort to violence.)"
I disagree. I have been pepper sprayed in my eyes while taking photographs at UCSC. Actually, I have been pepper sprayed twice at UCSC by UC police officers while I was taking photographs. I was not pepper sprayed by mistake. The use of violence by the UCPD is an accepted practice by the UC administration. If the vast majority of the UC administration does not support violence, then why is Brian Hughes at almost every protest?
cop watch: Brian Hughes at LRDP Protest
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/08/18459337.php
Let's not get too off topic here... but it is "wacko" to suggest that the vast majority of UC's administration do not support violence. Please re-think what you wrote. Here is one of many examples to remind you that police violence against students is absolutely supported by the UC.
Victims of Violence: When UC Police Attack
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/22/18322461.php
That's not true. This site does not post anything, people post. Encouraging people to contact a school administrator, for example, is not harassment, it is a democratic way of trying to have a meaningful voice in our public institution. I am not telling people to harass the woman in the photograph. According to another email I received from the same person, "She's just the chemistry department's secretary, and is no more responsible for making policy than you or me." In the same email, the person explained, "The university propagandists went into overdrive to try to convince everyone that the protest was putting them in mortal danger (hence the "lockdown" and the goofy security guards)."
I do not recall seeing home addresses of campus administrators posted to SC-IMC. Can you please provide a URL for that?
"-People working at the science building have had their tires slashed and vandalized."
If this is accurate, then I am sorry to hear about this. Have these incidents been reported on in the Sentinel, or elsewhere?
"(And I say "wacko element" because I think we'd both agree that, whichever side of the issue you're on, the vast majority on either side don't support or resort to violence.)"
I disagree. I have been pepper sprayed in my eyes while taking photographs at UCSC. Actually, I have been pepper sprayed twice at UCSC by UC police officers while I was taking photographs. I was not pepper sprayed by mistake. The use of violence by the UCPD is an accepted practice by the UC administration. If the vast majority of the UC administration does not support violence, then why is Brian Hughes at almost every protest?
cop watch: Brian Hughes at LRDP Protest
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/08/18459337.php
Let's not get too off topic here... but it is "wacko" to suggest that the vast majority of UC's administration do not support violence. Please re-think what you wrote. Here is one of many examples to remind you that police violence against students is absolutely supported by the UC.
Victims of Violence: When UC Police Attack
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/22/18322461.php
....you were sprayed by his mace.
Brad, your contention that this site doesn't post peoples names and numbers, but rather others do, is hair-splitting. Right up there with guns don't kill people; people do it.
And no, I can't post the url to the time (during tent university) when this site displayed a post by a person who posted the home names and addresses of campus personnel. That page got erased. (As this one likely will. Indy-B doesn't let dissenting opinions stay online very long. We both know that.)
But the incidences of vandalized cars, and generous applications of graffiti on the campus, have been well documented in City on A Hill, the Sentinel, and on this website itself.
The article on INdy-B was headlined that police were syping on the protesters. It claimed to have spotted a car surreptitiously parking, and a young undercover officer getting out. A reply post soon was put up by a student claiming that it was his decommissioned cop car and that it was vandalized by the protesters. That article appears to have also now been scrubbed from Indy-B
Brad, your contention that this site doesn't post peoples names and numbers, but rather others do, is hair-splitting. Right up there with guns don't kill people; people do it.
And no, I can't post the url to the time (during tent university) when this site displayed a post by a person who posted the home names and addresses of campus personnel. That page got erased. (As this one likely will. Indy-B doesn't let dissenting opinions stay online very long. We both know that.)
But the incidences of vandalized cars, and generous applications of graffiti on the campus, have been well documented in City on A Hill, the Sentinel, and on this website itself.
The article on INdy-B was headlined that police were syping on the protesters. It claimed to have spotted a car surreptitiously parking, and a young undercover officer getting out. A reply post soon was put up by a student claiming that it was his decommissioned cop car and that it was vandalized by the protesters. That article appears to have also now been scrubbed from Indy-B
I see that new levels of highly questionable behavior have been reached regarding the posting of photographs of employees going about their own business. Why do you feel like you need to cross the line into threatening/stalker like behavior? This only confirms what the majority of us who do not support the protesters believe, that we are dealing with a bunch of juvenile anarchists whose ultimate goal is unknown. I for one am appalled by this new low that you have reached.
"posting of photographs of employees going about their own business."
You were not there, cowboy. She was not simply going about her own business. Was it her business to ask me what I was doing? I replied that I was taking photographs of the security guards to publish on the Santa Cruz Independent Media Center. So you see, she asked me what I was doing and I explained my purpose. I then asked her how she felt about the tree-sit. She is part of the December 21, 2007 report from the tree-sit.
"I for one am appalled by this new low that you have reached."
Cowboy, I do not think that "a new low" has been reached here. This is not the first time I've included a photo of a staff member along with other photos. You can see photos of other employees here:
One Arrested, as Activists Occupy Trees to Oppose UCSC Expansion
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/07/18458717.php
Long Range Resistance Press Conference
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/09/18459512.php
I can't speak for the protesters, but I can offer you a link so you can download the Long Range Resistance newsletter:
http://www.lrdpresistance.org/media/lrr-issue1.pdf
You will see that you are not "dealing with a bunch of juvenile anarchists"
You were not there, cowboy. She was not simply going about her own business. Was it her business to ask me what I was doing? I replied that I was taking photographs of the security guards to publish on the Santa Cruz Independent Media Center. So you see, she asked me what I was doing and I explained my purpose. I then asked her how she felt about the tree-sit. She is part of the December 21, 2007 report from the tree-sit.
"I for one am appalled by this new low that you have reached."
Cowboy, I do not think that "a new low" has been reached here. This is not the first time I've included a photo of a staff member along with other photos. You can see photos of other employees here:
One Arrested, as Activists Occupy Trees to Oppose UCSC Expansion
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/07/18458717.php
Long Range Resistance Press Conference
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/09/18459512.php
I can't speak for the protesters, but I can offer you a link so you can download the Long Range Resistance newsletter:
http://www.lrdpresistance.org/media/lrr-issue1.pdf
You will see that you are not "dealing with a bunch of juvenile anarchists"
O.K. I've had enough of this disingenious c*ap. I'm staff at UCSC. No, not "Administration". Just lowly paid staff. I send my days helping students, doing my damdest to ensure that their educational experience at UCSC is enriching, enlightening, empowering (I'm on an alliteration spree here, huh?), and that they get their money's worth -- even though I don't make enough to own a home in Santa Cruz. Why, I even helped Bradley do the same, some years ago. I do it because I love what I do, and I'm willing to sacrifice a big salary and a nice comfy home-- which I could find elsewhere or by doing some other form of work.
I have lots of misgivings about the LRDP, and I support the city of Santa Cruz in their law suits against UCSC, but I will never support anyone who posts pictures of my hard working and dedicated colleagues (like the Chemistry Department Manager posted here) and then pretends that it was just an innocent post.
I read these posts. I keep informed. I see the posts disagreeing with the tactics, the strategy, the goals (?) pf the tree sitters, all disappear off of this discussion forum. I'm aware of the vandalism that occurred at Willams Tree Service after pictures (and their phone number) of their trucks were posted here, and I've observed posts referring to that vandalism disappear off of this forum shortly afterward.
It has become increasingly clear to me (and to many others I've talked to) that those involved in this "protest" want nothing more than some kind of confrontation, and they're seeking it anywhere they can.
This is NOT the way to garner support from those who might otherwise support you, but it sure is the way to alienate those who might agree with you about the questionable outcomes of the current LRDP.
Having seen the tactics here, and on the ground - so to speak -- you've lost all support from me, and from many others I've spoken with.
Intimidation is not the way to promote dialogue. I'm not using my UCSC email address in this post, because I don't want to risk intimidation coming my way.
That sucks.
I have lots of misgivings about the LRDP, and I support the city of Santa Cruz in their law suits against UCSC, but I will never support anyone who posts pictures of my hard working and dedicated colleagues (like the Chemistry Department Manager posted here) and then pretends that it was just an innocent post.
I read these posts. I keep informed. I see the posts disagreeing with the tactics, the strategy, the goals (?) pf the tree sitters, all disappear off of this discussion forum. I'm aware of the vandalism that occurred at Willams Tree Service after pictures (and their phone number) of their trucks were posted here, and I've observed posts referring to that vandalism disappear off of this forum shortly afterward.
It has become increasingly clear to me (and to many others I've talked to) that those involved in this "protest" want nothing more than some kind of confrontation, and they're seeking it anywhere they can.
This is NOT the way to garner support from those who might otherwise support you, but it sure is the way to alienate those who might agree with you about the questionable outcomes of the current LRDP.
Having seen the tactics here, and on the ground - so to speak -- you've lost all support from me, and from many others I've spoken with.
Intimidation is not the way to promote dialogue. I'm not using my UCSC email address in this post, because I don't want to risk intimidation coming my way.
That sucks.
There's a difference between intimidation and accountability.
When the TV and newspaper broadcasts images of protesters engaged in controversial behavior, many are quick to call them punks, discredit them, and, in some circumstances (like the Michelle Malkin fiasco), harass and threaten those involved.
Yet when cops or administrators use violence against activists (including batons, pepper-spray, questionable arrests, etc.), and someone posts images of the police, then all of a sudden some line is crossed?
Police and UC administrators are public officials. When they engage in controversial behavior, their actions should be scrutinized like any others that claim to represent the 'public interest' and/or are employed by taxpayers.
Especially in such a large bureaucracy as the UC system, it's important to know who is responsible for various actions. In this case, it doesn't sound like the this woman from the Chemistry Department is the one responsible for overseeing the tree sit (but rather, the Chancellor or EVC David Kliger, and who knows else...).. but isn't it a valuable discussion to talk about who in the university is responsible for countering the tree-sit?
As for the commentator who said s/he would no longer support the tree-sit because of Bradley posting a photo of this staffer, I think you're getting ahead of yourself. Does Bradley posting one image somehow make UCSC's Expansion more valid? Does this one image make Santa Cruz residents' concerns about expansion not valid? Does this one image discredit all the protesters, even though they weren't involved in its posting? What kind of person changes their moral compass based on one insignificant event?
When the TV and newspaper broadcasts images of protesters engaged in controversial behavior, many are quick to call them punks, discredit them, and, in some circumstances (like the Michelle Malkin fiasco), harass and threaten those involved.
Yet when cops or administrators use violence against activists (including batons, pepper-spray, questionable arrests, etc.), and someone posts images of the police, then all of a sudden some line is crossed?
Police and UC administrators are public officials. When they engage in controversial behavior, their actions should be scrutinized like any others that claim to represent the 'public interest' and/or are employed by taxpayers.
Especially in such a large bureaucracy as the UC system, it's important to know who is responsible for various actions. In this case, it doesn't sound like the this woman from the Chemistry Department is the one responsible for overseeing the tree sit (but rather, the Chancellor or EVC David Kliger, and who knows else...).. but isn't it a valuable discussion to talk about who in the university is responsible for countering the tree-sit?
As for the commentator who said s/he would no longer support the tree-sit because of Bradley posting a photo of this staffer, I think you're getting ahead of yourself. Does Bradley posting one image somehow make UCSC's Expansion more valid? Does this one image make Santa Cruz residents' concerns about expansion not valid? Does this one image discredit all the protesters, even though they weren't involved in its posting? What kind of person changes their moral compass based on one insignificant event?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network