Anti-Occupy Cal?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>I'm throwing a proposal out there that will not likely get much positive response but it can't hurt to ask: is anyone willing to help me organize an Anti-Occupy rally? These people have caused my classes (for which I have already paid) to be cancelled. They don't obey the law or respect lawmakers or law enforcement in the least. They smoke weed on the steps of Sproul and make it so dirty and cluttered that I can't even go into the main entrance to take advantage of administrative services (for which I have also paid). The cops have plainly told me that the only ones who will be effective in driving them out are those who oppose them - and they are too arrogant to realize that anyone even <em>does</em> oppose them. I'm certain that I'm not alone in this. Any statement we could make to show them that they don't speak for everyone would be amazing. But obviously I understand if you're too busy attending class. </p>

<p>Thanks CC</p>

2

<p>Count me in. If they’re still going on in January, I’ll be occupying Occupy, holding my sign in support of higher tuition (to fund financial aid for the middle class and low income students). I wonder how they’ll respond to me standing right in the middle of their rally, opposing them. It’s basically the same idea as opposing capitalism in the middle of Wall Street. I somehow doubt they’ll supports free speech rights.</p>

<p>On that note… Isn’t “Occupy Cal” sort of like an army occupying itself? “Occupy Hillsdale” makes sense. Occupy Cal, not so much.</p>

3

<p>Omg, yes! Haha Sproul is seriously so disgusting now. :(</p>

4

<p>it has a very unwashed odor to it…thats for sure…</p>

<p>are they also protesting basic hygiene and showers??</p>

5

<p>If it were students protesting, it would be one thing. What annoys me is that all the scumbags around the campus take every and any opportunity they can get to come and cause trouble on campus claiming that they speak for the people and the students, when they are there because 1) they have nothing else to do 2) can’t get any attention unless they are on campus</p>

<p>I actually went to listen to Robert Reich @ 8pm
What annoyed me off was that the rally people were milking every single possible minute out of it. I went there to listen to Robert Reich, not all the hippy leftist movement crap. The speakers were not that engaging too. The woman in blue was particularly annoying. </p>

<p>They claim that they stand there for the students, but what they are doing is

  1. extra UCPD = extra money
  2. BAMN = money (and I feel that the students doing this are suing the university for their own political career)
  3. cleaning up Sproul = money</p>

<p>where does all the money come from ? Students.
Those scumbags, losers are sabotaging the campus and it is hurting the students in 2 ways : by levying the extra costs onto the students, and cancelling the classes that we’ve paid for </p>

<p>It’s just so pathetic. This movement isn’t about Cal. It was about Wall Street and people just jumping on bandwagon and abusing the momentum to give voice to every single insignificant thing that they’re unhappy about.</p>

6

<p>I think a lot of money comes from the feds and the state.</p>

7

<p>They hold their General Assembly at 6pm each evening. Assuming that at least some of them will still be there on Friday, I would like to propose that we “occupy” their GA that night and air some of our grievances. </p>

<p>Our message doesn’t have to be unified because the problems that they cause are so diverse in the first place. Whether you’re against privatization or not, whether you think police should be respected or reprimanded, whether you’re a student upset because your classes have been disrupted or just a resident of the city who has had enough of the public disturbance, noise, sanitary conditions or general unlawful activity, they NEED to know that they do NOT speak for everyone. </p>

<p>Please join me in an exercise of free speech this Friday at 6pm in front of their encampment. If their objective is honestly democratic, then they will listen. If not, then we get to make them look foolish and hypocritical. Can you be there?</p>

8

<p>This sounds tempting…</p>

9

<p>Soooo, I’m gonna state that I sympathize with tuition hikes for people who are just barely able to pay tuition, and just a tiny increase would mean having to seriously reconsider being here at Cal, etc. Also, I’m also going to admit my ignorance on the topic, but what @nick said about tuition hikes made me wonder: for people who are financially able to do so, helping out the lower income people would be nice. But if higher income people have to pay, so do lower income people, because tuition can’t price discriminate. Even then, does the higher tuition go toward scholarships that will be redistributed back, OR does it go to other, more indirect stuff that will still put lower income students at a disadvantage?</p>

<p>ANYWAY, that’s not my point.</p>

<p>My point is, if you guys plan on doing some sort of Anti-Occupy thing, although at the moment I’m mostly siding with the Occupy people, I would commend you. What separates stupid, spur-of-the moment movements with truly powerful ones is their ability to self-criticize and to openly hear criticism from others. Although the right sentiment is there, and the power of the masses is there, I don’t think occupying, dirtying, and annoying Sproul is gonna do anything. Why don’t they take the power they have right now and put it to good use, like

  1. being more organized in terms of long-term goals and needs
  2. Going about this like mature adults, with petitions, information, organized forms of reaching out to officials in Sacramento, etc.
  3. Getting together with non-Occupy students who feel the same way about loss of funding for higher education in Sacramento and coming up with a plan to work <em>together</em> instead of alienating everyone by crazy protests
    These are just things that people need to ask the Occupy people, and an anti-Occupy thing at this moment might be what it takes. That being said, this isn’t my movement and I’m gonna stand at the side, but it would be interesting to see what happens when an organized group of students call the Occupy people out on these things. How will they react toward criticism? This is what will determine how strong of a movement they really are.</p>

<p>EDIT: Rant= Over…lol</p>

10

<p>These people are not the “other 99%,” they are causing so many problems for area businesses and locals in and around their “protest” areas.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>So you want higher tuitions? You do realize there are people that-according to FAFSA-can pay $30-40k, but in reality, just can’t? And all the “middle-class” gets is loans, which honestly don’t do much in the long run when you’re stuck paying off debt in your late 20s (I would be in that category). And if tuition does rise, what makes you think it is actually going to come back to the students? The reason for the increase is a lack of sufficient funding, so any money gained from the increased tuition would be used to offset the effects of budget cuts. Sorry, but I highly doubt anyone would support an increase in tuition in order to help pay for others - especially if they will hardly be able to pay for it.</p>

<p>And just saying…isn’t this the “share the wealth” thing that the occupy movement is pushing for by criticizing the 1%? They want to do it in the form of increased taxes…or something of that sort at least…</p>

12

<p>Occupy protesters are losers. So don’t do anything that might provoke them any further.
As someone mentioned it’ll only help UCPD make more money for their extra hours. They already make more money than professors. Can we get by without UCPD? It will save the state hundreds of millions of dollars (so that we pay less).</p>

<p>You’d better go finish your home and do your parents proud.</p>

13

<p>Only a Cal student would make an Anti-Occupy Cal Thread.</p>

<p>God this school is crazy…but I love it.</p>

14

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>Everyone has a right to their opinion and to express their philosophy and concerns. That is what the Free Speech Movement was all about. So if anyone feels the need and the conviction to protest the protest, far be it from me to tell you not too.</p>

<p>What is depressing to me, is the logic used against the occupy movement as well as the student protests. There are extreme problems in the social fabric of United States and California society right now, and social change comes from people speaking out and being seen. </p>

<p>I understand it is stressful, especially at the end of the semester like this. It is inconvenient for sure. But demonstrations like these are changing the political conversation in Washington and Sacramento. Just 18 months ago fewer people were in the streets deathly afraid of socialism, screaming for lower taxes and more government cuts. They got them, and now great places like the University of California are suffering because no one countered those arguments. All of us are wondering what our chances of getting a job when we graduate, and nervous about the amount of debt we are taking on to complete our education. The basic direction of government of the last 30 years has been to liberate the free market, cut taxes and privatize as much as possible. People are in the streets and at Cal just saying ENOUGH. Just a more fair system. Stop sticking it to college kids and the poor. Put a transaction tax on Wall St trades, raise the capital gains tax back up to 20%, just do something to the top earners for once instead of just cutting and cutting from the bottom and poorest of society.</p>

<p>That is just my view of the whole thing, and why I support it. I am not sleeping in tents, but I am glad because those tents are keeping the conversation going. The conversation is what direction is CAL heading for the next generation? What kind of society are we building for the future?</p>

<p>Of course there are different views on the whole thing. And if you feel the need to protest the protest, if you are philosophically opposed to what they are trying to accomplish, or your personal view of the protesters and the inconvenience it brings overrule everything else, go right ahead and have an anti-occupy rally. It is your right to do so and I won’t try to tell anyone not to.</p>

15

<p>Sproul cleaned this morning…
[Tents</a> removed from Sproul Plaza; two arrested in peaceful sweep](<a href=“http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/11/17/tents-removed-from-sproul-plaza/]Tents”>Tents removed from Sproul Plaza; two arrested in peaceful sweep | Berkeley News)</p>

16

<p>@meep1234</p>

<p>Yes, I do–that is, I want the sticker price to be higher. The Occupy types tend to lament the loss of the “golden years” of the UC, with its zero tuition (and minimal fees) policy. I really don’t see how that makes sense, though. The students of wealthier families disproportionally benefit from such policies, since they have fewer non-tuition barriers to higher education than do the students of poorer families.</p>

<p>Consider this: In the UC system, 15% of undergraduates come from families earning more than $180,000 per year. They receive nearly no financial aid, and therefore pay something like $12,000 in net fees. Does anyone doubt that, in the absence of a public higher education system, these students would be attending Stanford, USC, or the Claremont Colleges, and paying $40,000 in tuition?</p>

<p>My proposal (in a nutshell) is to raise the sticker price of UC tuition, to, say, $20,000, but adjust financial aid so that every group except the $180,000+ group pays the same as what they pay now. The $180,000+ group would pay the full $20,000 per year–which is still a 50% discount from what they’d otherwise pay at a private institution. Doing this would add something like $200 million in funding to the UC, systemwide. That would cover half of the funding increase Yudof is currently requesting from the state right there.</p>

<p>Of course we’d lose some of those students to private institutions, but how many? Would a student who chose Cal over Stanford because it was $30,000 less reverse his decision if Cal were only $20,000 less?</p>

<p>The difference between this proposal and simply raising taxes is choice. Under my plan, wealthy students can weigh their options and choose not to pay the higher tuition. I think it’s attractive enough that few will choose not to, but the option still exists.</p>

<p>Anyway, what I’m talking about is moving toward a highly-progressive system of tuition. The “ideal” of zero tuition for all is actually a regressive policy.</p>

<p>(Note that I used round numbers for simplicity’s sake–they’re not exact.)</p>

17

<p>A. In a nutshell, the 180,000+ range should not have to face an extra fee hike just so the lower brackets’ fees don’t go up. They should not have to pay more for being financially successful, otherwise there is no point in being financially successful. If the 180k+ range is paying more for the school than the lower brackets, then their children should get better benefits e.g., priority registration, choice of dorms, etc. Would it be fair for Starbuck’s to charge investment bankers more for the same coffee simply because they have more money?</p>

<p>B. I could have gone to UT or USC on scholarship for a little bit less than Cal, I felt Cal’s prestige was worth it, but if I had to pay $10,000 more at Cal, I would go to UT every time.</p>

18

<p>How much does a year of undergraduate education at a research university cost? Among private universities, which set their own tuition, the rate is almost universally $40,000.</p>

<p>The whole point of a public higher education system is to increase access. The $180,000+ group would almost certainly attend a private university in the absence of a public option. How is it the proper role of government to fund educations for people who could and would fund it on their own?</p>

<p>You’re looking at it from the perspective of how things are now. I’m looking at it from the perspective of how things ought to be–how a well-designed public university tuition policy would be, starting from scratch. Here’s my thinking:</p>

<p>1) The market price of a university education is $40,000 per year. Poorer students cannot afford this, but wealthier students can.
2) Start a public university system to serve those who would not otherwise be able to attend.
3) Set tuition for students depending on their income. $0 for the poorest, $20,000 for the wealthiest (increasing gradually from poor to wealthy).</p>

<p>This gives every class of student a discount from the market price of a university education, with those least able to pay getting the greatest discount. Since everyone gets a discount from what a university education costs, the difference between the average cost per student and the average fees paid per student would be covered with state funding.</p>

<p>Now, we can quibble about the precise numbers. My intent is to present a framework for a more intelligently designed tuition system that is both fairer and more solvent than the “zero tuition for all” that many seem to view as the ideal.</p>

<p>And yes, this means that poor people pay less. That’s the whole point. If you’re going to have a public higher education system, this is the way to do it. You can dispute whether one ought to exist at all, but that’s a separate issue.</p>

19

<p>to be honest, I think it’s a good idea, but it won’t work at all because people will only become more enraged by a counter protest and you will be labeled as the hated 1%. There’s really nothing you can do. Just focus on your studies… and stop worrying about the occupy cal movement if it bothers you so much.</p>

20

<p>I just wanna throw out there that, remember what happened with the Bake Sale earlier this year? It seems that any protest that’s against the liberal status quo is gonna get squashed on a massive level, lol</p>