The SFSU administration called in a “critical response squad” of CSU police officers from campuses across the state. Students inside the building were not made aware of a demand to exit the building from the police and it remains unclear as to whether an official demand was issued. Instead, police broke a window and entered the occupied room with their guns drawn and aimed at the students.

The Disciplinary Process
The occupiers and administration met at a later date to discuss the ramifications of the students’ actions. Some students were given two options: they could sign a statement agreeing to pay fines or they could take a formal hearing. Others were told that if they took the hearing, they would be suspended on the spot. The administration verbally acknowledged that as the occupiers committed no significant or intentional property damage the fines would be somewhere in the range of $50 to cover “scuffs” on the floor and “chipped paint.” Administration representatives warned that if they chose to have a hearing the punishment could be more severe. Ten of the eleven involved students signed the statement upon a verbal agreement with the administration that fines would be around the amount of $50 and would cover only the damage that the occupiers themselves committed.

On March 5th, ironically the day after the state-wide day of action against the budget cuts, the 11 students were issued fines of $744 each and one month to pay or grades and future registration dates would be withheld. Assistant Dean of Students, Will Flowers, and University Coordinator of Student Affairs, Donna Cunningham, denied the aforementioned verbal agreement and after much resistance from the administration, the occupiers were told that their fines entailed overnight lodging for the out-of-town critical response squad, the repair of the window broken by police, and hired outside cleaning services.

The eleventh student who did not sign the statement was out of the country during this time. Upon his return and after seeing that the terms of the agreement had changed after students gave their signature, he chose to exercise his right to a formal hearing. It is important to note that he was denied legal representation at the hearing. As a result, administration officials unilaterally decided that in addition to the $744 fine, he will be suspended for a year and must reapply to be readmitted (which is unlikely due limited space because of budget cuts and the disciplinary stain on his otherwise clean transcript).

On April 24th, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a statement released by the university in which “Assistant Dean of Students Will Flowers apologized to the students and admitted he now remembered that he had discussed such a deal with them after all. (Chronicle)” The university release said, “Contrary to prior statements, (Flowers) now recalls discussing a minimal damage sanction – ‘something like $50′ – with two students,” yet the administration refuses to uphold the initial agreement and retract the $744 fines.

Click here for more information about the charges surrounding the business building.

If you have any information about any ongoing cases, judicial or criminal, please email us at californiasolidarity@gmail.com

http://citizenspeak.org/node/1963

Faculty Petition Calling for Immediate Cessation of Proceedings:

Student Conduct Forum, February 17th, Full Transcript

Raza Community in Support of Student Protesters

Berkeley Faculty Association on Student Judicial Process

Stephen Rosenbaum (Angela Miller’s Attorney): Letters to UC Berkeley’s Life and Leadership

UC Strike Petition Against the Prosecution of Student Protesters

Berkeley Law Student Statement of Public Education, Struggle and Silencing Dissent

Annie McClanahan: From In Loco Parentis to the State of Exception

SPROUL PLAZA
MAY 5th 1:30PM

More info:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=114553935242769&index=1

Reports say that the FBI is being brought in to investiagte the party and figure out who is responsible.

Two arrests have been made so far. Jimi Hayes, 24, was arrested on suspicion of felony vandalism and parole violation, and Thomas Williams, 41, was arrested on suspicion of public intoxication and obstruction of a public officer.

A local anachist social space has come under attack by a conservative group in Santa Cruz for its alleged involvement in planning the event.

IF YOU ARE APPROACHED BY ANYONE ABOUT THE EVENTS, DO NOT SPEAK TO THEM THEY MAY BE COPS. DO NOT SPEAK TO THE POLICE UNLESS YOU’VE SPOKEN TO A LAWYER.

BRUSH UP ON YOUR RIGHTS HERE:

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/know-your-rights-bustcard

More information to come soon. Including court dates.

As many of you know, over the past several months I have been engaged in the contested and ongoing conversations about the future of public education in California. As a lecturer in the art department at U.C. Riverside, I can see very clearly and directly the impact of misguided budget decisions and unfair fee hikes. Since September I have taken part in numerous activities related to the crisis of priorities within the U.C., including those organized by the Free UCR Alliance. I am currently under investigation by the University for my role in a satirical website. In the spirit of what UCSD Professor Ricardo Dominguez has called radical transparency, I would like to make you aware of some of the details of the investigation and to ask for your support.

In November of 2009, I purchased the domain name markyudof.com. Inspired in part by the energy and dynamism of the student protests in the fall and in conversation with a group of artists and activists interested in thinking about the connections between the struggles within U.C. and the broader dynamics of neo-liberalism, I imagined the site as one that might bring wider attention to the debates regarding the future of public education (these conversations eventually led to a seminar at the Public School in Los Angeles, a series of public events and to the Occupy Everything collective). Ultimately, I decided to use markyudof.com to declare the U.C. president’s resignation in anticipation of March 4, 2010, a statewide day of action in support of public education. I saw the satirical use of Yudof’s domain name as a way to playfully undermine the illusion of his power, directing the public attention focused on the president of the U.C. towards the broader context of the March 4 actions. To put it simply, markyudof.com became a vehicle for imagining other possible futures.

I contacted Ricardo Dominguez at UCSD in connection with this project, as I have long admired his pioneering work on Electronic Civil Disobedience (ECD). He agreed to host the project on the B.A.N.G. Lab server. The site went live on March 2 and was quickly repudiated by Yudof himself and labelled a “hoax” by a number of media outlets. On March 11, I received news that UCR was conducting an investigation into my connection with the satirical website. On April 4, UC –AFT issued a resolution in support of B.A.N.G. Lab and in defense of academic freedom. On April 5, I attended a contentious meeting with representatives from Labor Relations at UCR, which also included the Dean of Humanities, the chair of the Art Department and representatives from UC-AFT Local 1966. Labor Relations asked me a series of questions about my involvement in the website. Although repeatedly asked by the UC-AFT to clarify their intentions, Labor Relations did not make clear the scope of the investigation nor did they specify any particular violation of my employment contract. I made it clear in the meeting that I was indeed responsible for the website and I believe that the satire is protected speech within the context of academic freedom.

Whether or not you think the satire is funny, is meaningful as political speech or a stupid prank, the real question is why the university feels it necessary to investigate this matter now and how it is relevant to my employment. The fact is that this investigation is part of a much larger and troubling trend on the part of the University that seems clearly aimed at stifling dissent and certain forms of speech. Recent cases at UCSD, UCI, and UCB all indicate that the University is engaged in a highly selective process of attempting to discourage speech it deems inappropriate. One of the core tenets of a public university is the principle of academic freedom and the ability of faculty to engage in public discourse and pursue research without fear of intimidation or retaliation. Certainly, the criminal charges that Professor Dominguez is facing are the most blatant and visible manifestation of this disturbing trend.

I encourage you to write to the President, Chancellors and Regents of the University of California and to charles.long@ucr.edu, stephen.cullenberg@ucr.edu, chancellor@ucr.edu, gkester@ucsd.edu, klarsen@ucsd.edu, slerer@ucsd.edu, Lawrence.Pitts@ucop.edu, arosen@ucsd.edu, SVCAA@ucsd.edu, rrdominguez@ucsd.edu to express your support for B.A.N.G. Lab and call for an end to the investigations of Ricardo Dominguez, Micha Cardenas, Brett Stalbaum, Amy Sara Carroll and Ken Ehrlich. Please circulate this letter as widely as possible.

Sincerely,

Ken Ehrlich

see more on this here.

Visit ucstrike.com to sign the petition.

From the ACLU: “The ACLU of Northern California sent a letter today to the Chancellor and Chair of the Academic Senate at U.C. Santa Cruz, criticizing the University’s use of restitution as a penalty for students alleged to have participated in protests in November 2009. The ACLU letter cites due process concerns, criticizing the University for subjecting students to a $944 fine without a hearing and without proof of individual responsibility for claimed damage. The letter also criticizes the University’s failure to provide students who are being granted a hearing for other forms of discipline with specific factual allegations of misconduct and a description of the evidence the University has of their alleged misconduct.”

View the letter at

http://occupyca.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/aclu-raises-constitutional-concerns-regarding-ucsc-judicial-process/

A complaint was filed in the North Justice Center charging that on or about 03-03-2010 you committed a violation of section(s)

602(m) PC TRESPASS – OCCUPATION BY SQUATTER

It appears as though all of those charged have received the same court date, May 6th at 8:30AM at the North Justice Center in Fullerton.

These notices appeared after the detained students were told matter-of-factly by the police present that they would not be cited or charged, only banned from campus for 7 days, and that the only further consequences, should there be any, would come down from the university’s own student conduct hearings.

via http://makebelievecommittee.wordpress.com/