Cruz's UCSC Hearing

This is ridiculous! The UC is targeting people who are not even involved with the sit in order to make a political point that advocates of political dissent will be shut down.

And the UC is suing him on top of this! I think there is another student in the same position as Cruz also.

bring drums, make noise.
use your voice!

EVC Klieger just spammed all of us about some initiative that "will engage individuals and groups in continuing dialogue about the issues that have recently divided us." Well, apparently there's some miscommunication here. The director of Student Judicial Affairs, Doug Zuidema, wants to avoid dialogue so much that he's denied a student who's set up to take the fall for the tree-sit, Cruz Molina, his request to be represented by an attorney or to have the case decided by his peers. In fact, Zuidema is apparently so afraid of dialogue that the hearing's going to be held off campus behind closed doors.

So Cruz didn't help with the treesit resupply? I thought that was what he was accused of? This post seems to imply that he wasn't involved at all. Is that true? Just want to get all the facts...

what part of this post implies that he wasn't involved at all? some random person's comment?
does it matter if he was involved? does that mean he should be held responsible for the actions of everyone?
if he was in the parking lot, does that mean he deserves what he gets?

"what part of this post implies that he wasn't involved at all? some random person's comment?
does it matter if he was involved? does that mean he should be held responsible for the actions of everyone?
if he was in the parking lot, does that mean he deserves what he gets?"

-Sorry for being unclear, I was responding to the first comment which implied that Cruz was not involved at all. The original post does not make that claim.

No, he should not be held responsible for the actions of everyone. However, I have seen no indication that he is being held responsible for "everybody's" actions. The only claim of that is here on this site. If it was all on him, there wouldn't be 7 people on the injunction. If he is the only one of the seven going through administrative review, then that seems unfair to me. But where is the evidence of that? Are the other 7 going through similar reviews?

Also, much of the "secrecy" the UC is conducting this under is probably to protect the student's privacy rights. And since I'm assuming that this is an administrative action only relating to his status as a student and not related to criminal proceedings, I'm not sure that he has right to counsel. Don't get me wrong, while I'm not a fan of the treesit, I want the UC (which I am ALSO not a huge fan of) to go by the book. If he DOES have the legal right to counsel during these kinds of proceedings and the UC is denying it, then, yes, he would have a constitutional point. However, someone would have to point out where in the UC Code on discipline it allows for legal representation. If he does have that right by their code and is being denied it, then, he has a SERIOUS potential for a civil rights lawsuit.

If he was just in the parking lot watching the arrests happen, then that is ridiculous that he was charged. If he was supplying the treesit, then he was involved and should be treated the same as anyone else facing charges for illegal behavior.

It has been reported that Cruz was cited by UCSC on the first day of the tree sit. He was warned by the academic review board (or what ever it is called) to stay away from the tree sit. He went back 3 times and assisted in supplying the tree sitters.

Hey, I just thought I could clarify the point about Cruz being held responsible for the entire tree-sit. The important distinction here is between an actual court of law (such as that which the injunction is happening) and the UC student judicial system.

You are right, there are other people named in the injunction. In that case Cruz is not said to be fully responsible. In the UC judicial system, however, he is responsible for the entire tree-sit.

The responsibility comes from, as Alma Sifuentes explained to me today, an extension of the UC's "guest policy". Since Cruz was at the tree-sit and was ID'd by a cop, the rest of the protestors were considered his "guests" and that makes him responsible for all of their actions. No joke.

The worst part is that, by the UC's book, this is pretty standard stuff. Looking at it from outside that framework, though, and the accusations seem absolutely preposterous.

Does that clarify things? There is probably a breakdown of the guest policy on the UCSC website.

This is something I am seeing in yong people all over. A bunch of people are doing something out of line and only one gets caught or identified and the cry is they are picking on the one who goy caught. Sorry just because no one else got caught doesn't mean you are being picked on. It means you were unlucky or stupid.
There is an old story about a guy who went to court to fight a speeding ticket. His argument was that there was a line of at least 15 cars all going the same speed and the officer was singling him out. When the judge asked why he had pulled over this particular driver the officer replied "He was the only one who pulled over."

"He went back 3 times and assisted in supplying the tree sitters."

Dragon Lover, where the hell do you get your information from?

I was there each time Cruz came back.
He wasn't doing anything except enjoying the space.

The only reason it's known that he went back 3 times
is because doug z and another student judicial affairs staff
came around and saw him...DOING NOTHING except being present
in the parking lot.


Also, just because he was present the first day
of the tree sit and ID'd doesn't mean he was doing anything.

Maybe if you had checked out the student support teach-in
you would've had the chance to talk and hear from cruz and david themselves
that they weren't doing ANYTHING except being present and checking out the tree sit.

I stand corrected. But he went back when the University officials told him to stay away or face the consequences. He violated that order which is a violation of the code of student conduct. Or do you think everyone should be allowed to do what ever they damn well please?

Right. He was defiant. But defiant to speak out and be supportive of the tree-sit.
(Without treesitting, supplying the trees, or feeding them)
To protest what he believes is a poorly thought out and unjust plan. (Whether you agree with him or the treesitters or not is a whole 'nother topic)


Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it. ~Albert Einstein

Every actual state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

When Cruz Molina became a student at UCSC he signed a contract that he would obey a standard of conduct. When he, knowingly, violated that contract he became subject to disciplinary action. He was told to stay away from the area after the "riot" (don't think it went that far but it did break a whole slew of UCSC rules). He chose to ignore it and now he faces the consequences of his actions. If he feels strongly in his actions he should take whatever comes his way with dignity and conviction. If he is a whiny why you picking on me punk like so many kids I see at campus lately then the cause doesn't need him.

What Cruz and David are contesting is what happened the first day of the tree-sit
and how they're being blamed for it's entirety just for being there doing absolutely NOTHING.

I don't believe Cruz denies that he was defiant and disobeyed a directive from Doug Z.
It's more a matter of disagreeing with the "law" or a command and violating it consciously.
Civil disobedience.
You know you're breaking a law or command. It's not out of ignorance but out of believing
that the law or command is unjust.

Your right, he did disobey.
I believe the directive was ridiculous and unjust (there were plenty of students who were within 100 feet
of the tree-sit area and none of them are in trouble).
What is your opinion of the directive? Forget the absolutism of it, do you personally feel
it is just or unjust concerning the circumstances?

I hear it from young people all the time when they get caught. Evryone else was doing it why are you singling me out? You get singled out for added scruntiny when you get caught once. Cruz is a sttudent and his job is to go to class and graduate. The universities job is to facilitate that. The tree sit interfers with that job and it is the universities job to minmize its impact. One way is to tell students they will get in trouble if they facilitate the tree sit. That said I think the university has done a really poor job of responding to the tree sit from day one. I feel it is od that only Cruz is getting run through the wringer, I think they should have done more to shut it down earlier, and I think they have done a very poor job of countering the propoganda of the tree sitters.

I wouldn't even respond, Dragon lover is just going to tell you that you're an idealistic dreamer!

:)

But you're not the only one!
In solidarity, me

Guys I was an idealistic dreamer long before any of you were born. You will note I felt the university did a poor job of dealing with all of this from day one. Either arrest everyone or leave everyone alone. You can't just arrest one or two people and prosecute only them. But I also feel if you do get arrested you need to be ready to make your case and take your lumps as dished out. Personally I feel if Cruz was denied counsel then perhaps he or his parents should have filed a suit saying his due process was denied.
Now as to the protest itself. Whoever is behind it has done avery poor job of keeping people on message and not letting their message get horribly diluted, as well as establishing and maintaining credibility. Look at the pictures of the camp. There are messages from save the trees to save the trailer park, with down with the regents and save the rats thrown in. The recent war protest had a toxic waste protest thrown in. What doe sthat have to do with war? Also the "facts" that are coming out of the tree sitters often are misrepresented or plain wrong. There are reasons that politicians and major coporations have one public face. That way the mesasage stays the same. I realize everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame but often it hurts your cause.

Maybe there was one group of people who organized the date and time for the rally.
Maybe there was another group who organized the tree sit.
And then maybe there were all sorts of frustrated, angry, passionate students
who had their own particular issues to express and make signs about.

Maybe students feel there is so much that needs to be changed in the UC and the world
that some try to do SOMETHING while many feel hopeless and don't do anything.
They continue their short term in Santa Cruz and leave.

Maybe at this point, students don't care about credibility or "preaching" to the masses
because they feel too frustrated and hopeless.
Or maybe they have classes, careers, and studying to worry about.

And maybe, Dragon Lover, you should organize the next direct action or protest.
Show us a more effective way to take action.

Maybe...
Just maybe...

haha

step 1: dragonlover brings up legitimate point, that tree-sit and indybay misinformation is beyond ridiculous

step 2: gl responds with flowery prose, doesnt address point, tells dragon lover "if he's SO great why doesn't HE organize something!?!?!"

step 3: gl and indybay continue protesting with their hands over their ears, and all remains right in the world of half-hearted, self-centered activism

O Hai Thanks. GL it is horribly easy to be on the outside looking in and se where folks are spiraling out of control. I have no desire to organize a protest because, for one, I do not believe in the causes being put forth and the methods used. Does that mean they are with out merit? That isn't for me to say. All I can say is if someone says one thing and the record shows something different then you best be ready to be called on it. You can not have it both ways.