By Cliff Montgomery – June 25th, 2012
In Nov. 2011, the Police Department at University of California, Berkeley, worked to end a campus protest begun by the Occupy movement. As readers surely remember, Occupy’s first act of free speech and free assembly involved the long-term occupation of public spaces.
The campus police broke up that initial protest, at times using force. Its response to the free speech of the 99% was essentially the same as that employed by police departments across the U.S. and around the world.
But the Berkeley campus stands out in one important way: Some officials seem genuinely embarrassed by the police state tactics and oppression of basic human freedoms, and have demanded a formal questioning of these actions.
That review recently was released. It provides a small – but necessary – defense of basic human rights, and also calls for an end to the increasingly tyrannical actions of our self-appointed ‘guardians’:
“On the morning of November 9, 2011, thousands of students, faculty, staff, and community members gathered for a noontime rally in Sproul Plaza. Protesters voiced their opposition to a variety of issues including recent tuition increases and state cuts to public education, and their support for the Occupy movement, which began in New York City a few months prior.
“In the early afternoon, hundreds of protesters convened a ‘General Assembly,’ in which they voted to set up tents near Sproul Hall. The first tents to be erected in the grassy area near Sproul Hall were quickly removed by campus police without incident.
“Two later incidents in this same area, however, one in the mid-afternoon and one at night, involved the use of force by police against large numbers of protesters.
“Around 3 p.m., another set of tents was erected. In an effort to remove the tents, the police used batons and other means of force to move protesters that were locking arms and blocking access to the tents. After tense interaction with protesters, the police removed this second set of tents and withdrew to their command post in the basement of Sproul Hall.
“During this period, six individuals were arrested and more were injured and in some instances handled roughly.
“Later, another set of tents was erected in the same area. Around 9:30 p.m. the police again used batons and other means of force against protesters to obtain access to and remove the tents.
“During this period, thirty-two individuals were arrested and more were injured or handled roughly.
“After removing this third set of tents, the police set up a perimeter around the grassy area to prevent further tents from being erected at that site, although a number of protesters stayed on Sproul Plaza throughout the night.
“A few days after these incidents, Chancellor Birgeneau asked the Police Review Board (PRB) to review the events of that day, to the best of their ability determine what happened, and to assess whether the conduct of the police was consistent with the norms of the Berkeley campus and established campus policies.
“While a review of this breadth is not the regular business of the PRB, complying with the Chancellor’s request is within the stated mission of the Board.
“Given limitations of time and resources, the PRB limited its review of November 9’s events to the two primary confrontations regarding tent encampments summarized above, as well as the communications and actions by protesters, UCPD [University of California Berkeley Police Department], and the campus leadership directly associated with those confrontations.” […]
“The Brazil Report [a 2009 study on police actions during campus protests led by Wayne Brazil, a law professor at UC Berkeley and former U.S. magistrate judge] suggested that ‘when police wear riot gear they raise levels of fear and suspicion in the crowd’ and recommended to ‘try to avoid formations or modes of movement or ways of doing things that seem overly militaristic or rigid’ because it may ‘inflame demonstrators’ emotions and needlessly provoke hostile reactions.’ ”
“The Brazil Report also mentioned that guns that shoot rubber projectiles ‘look to the untutored eye like machine guns [s]o their visible presence, by itself, can intensify reactive emotions and invite erroneous inferences about the measures to which the police are prepared to resort.’
“While no such gun was fired on November 9, they were present, prompting changes of ‘Put the guns down!’ from protesters.” […]
Following quotes from Addendum by Eve Weissman, Graduate Student Representative, Police Review Board
“The lack of protocols was also reflected in the way campus leadership communicated with the Board. On a number of occasions, campus leadership refused to answer questions or speak directly with Board members, other than the Chair.
“The Board Chair had conversations with UC Berkeley Counsel Chris Patti and perhaps with other members of the Administration, to which members of the Board were not privy, compromising the transparency and reliability of the investigation.
“Also of concern is the fact that campus leadership paid private outside counsel to prepare testimony on behalf of UCPD, while comparable resources were not available for students or faculty participating in the investigation process.
“The PRB process was intended as a search for the truth, but the campus leadership assisted only one set of stakeholders in presenting its story to us.”
“In conclusion, the University’s use of force on November 9 was unjustified because it rested on faulty factual assumptions and questionable legal premises. Establishing a blanket ‘no encampment’ policy days before November 9, while making no attempt to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with students and faculty about the substantive issues underlying the protest, was a thoroughly ineffective approach to the announced protest action.
“Going forward UC Berkeley campus leaders should carefully consider how to promote and encourage an atmosphere in which free speech and expression is valued and supported.
“Campus leadership should recognize that they share many of the same goals as the protesters – sustaining and growing a premier public university. Accordingly, the response of the Administration to protests should be crafted with an eye toward collaborating with students and faculty to achieve common ends and not simply to squelch peaceful assembly and speech because it may violate a ‘no encampment’ policy.
“Further, if campus leadership is serious about curtailing the use of force by law enforcement, an independent, transparent, and sufficiently staffed PRB must be in place, guided by clear written protocols.
“Most importantly, never again can there be a recurrence of the type of uncalled-for violence by campus police that we witnessed on November 9, 2011.”
