|
Hey guys I know this thread is mainly about the police actions last Friday but I just wanted to throw some quick updates on what happened at the rally today. It is still going on right now but I showed up for a good 30 minute portion, mainly interested in what Katehi had to say.
I was EXTREMELY disappointed. She basically got up on the podium and spoke for 1 to 2 minutes max. She didn't really say much other than she was not resigning, and that she wants to "work together" with the students. It was a huge let down for me because I was hoping she would maybe go through the crowd and actually DISCUSS. Or at the VERY least, take questions from students for 30 minutes. ANYTHING interactive would have been better.
Instead, after starting her speech with "I'm here," she bounced after 2 minutes.
Like my friend said, "If you're chancellor and you're living your life in fear of the students, maybe you're doing something wrong."
|
On November 22 2011 07:33 domovoi wrote:
Again, given all we know about the demographics of OWS protesters, university students, white students, etc., they are more likely be rich than not. From a world income perspective, they are most certainly rich. The more important point, however, is that Americans tend to view university students as privileged and police officers as working class. Watching students around the country continue to aggravate campus police only alienates Americans, and that will make OWS utterly irrelevant come election time, which is a fucking travesty given all the energy expended. OWS protesters are too enthralled by their anti-establishment delusions to realize this, however.
Sacramento has a pretty high median household income.
You are forgetting the main reason of the protests. Stop comparing America to the rest of the world, that is not what the movement or protests is about. One reason is about why are school administration receiving huge raises from their predecessors, and why are student tuition increasing at an alarming rate at the same time. The protests is about the comparison within American citizens.
Also, your argument is very flawed in that you base this whole thing mainly on assumption. Yes they are white protestors, yes they are students protesting at an university, but you automatically put them into the generalization on the assumption that they are more rich because of demographics. You assume that they are doing well better than others just because of ONLY their race.
|
So, all she did was state only that she wasn't going to resign? No other speaker on her behalf told anyone of a time and place for further in depth discussion? As a personal opinion, she's not done a good job at all with the whole ordeal and seems to be more of hiding away from attempting to solve any issues.
|
On November 22 2011 07:44 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Hey guys I know this thread is mainly about the police actions last Friday but I just wanted to throw some quick updates on what happened at the rally today. It is still going on right now but I showed up for a good 30 minute portion, mainly interested in what Katehi had to say.
I was EXTREMELY disappointed. She basically got up on the podium and spoke for 1 to 2 minutes max. She didn't really say much other than she was not resigning, and that she wants to "work together" with the students. It was a huge let down for me because I was hoping she would maybe go through the crowd and actually DISCUSS. Or at the VERY least, take questions from students for 30 minutes. ANYTHING interactive would have been better.
Instead, after starting her speech with "I'm here," she bounced after 2 minutes.
Like my friend said, "If you're chancellor and you're living your life in fear of the students, maybe you're doing something wrong."
Just curious... when did she arrive? I went there at 12pm and left around 12:45 since I felt she wasn't going to show up (and I had to go to office hours).
But wow, from what you said, that's kind of stupid of her just to speak up for 1-2 minutes and not explain or take questions from the crowd.
|
On November 22 2011 07:44 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Hey guys I know this thread is mainly about the police actions last Friday but I just wanted to throw some quick updates on what happened at the rally today. It is still going on right now but I showed up for a good 30 minute portion, mainly interested in what Katehi had to say.
I was EXTREMELY disappointed. She basically got up on the podium and spoke for 1 to 2 minutes max. She didn't really say much other than she was not resigning, and that she wants to "work together" with the students. It was a huge let down for me because I was hoping she would maybe go through the crowd and actually DISCUSS. Or at the VERY least, take questions from students for 30 minutes. ANYTHING interactive would have been better.
Instead, after starting her speech with "I'm here," she bounced after 2 minutes.
Like my friend said, "If you're chancellor and you're living your life in fear of the students, maybe you're doing something wrong."
I was there, too. It was the "announcement" part of the general assembly. All of them were supposed to be limited to one minute max, including Katehi.
See here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/21/4071197/uc-davis-rally-each-speaker-gets.html
Obviously, some of the other speakers broke the limit, like the ones who started singing.
|
On November 22 2011 08:09 usernamegl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 07:44 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Hey guys I know this thread is mainly about the police actions last Friday but I just wanted to throw some quick updates on what happened at the rally today. It is still going on right now but I showed up for a good 30 minute portion, mainly interested in what Katehi had to say.
I was EXTREMELY disappointed. She basically got up on the podium and spoke for 1 to 2 minutes max. She didn't really say much other than she was not resigning, and that she wants to "work together" with the students. It was a huge let down for me because I was hoping she would maybe go through the crowd and actually DISCUSS. Or at the VERY least, take questions from students for 30 minutes. ANYTHING interactive would have been better.
Instead, after starting her speech with "I'm here," she bounced after 2 minutes.
Like my friend said, "If you're chancellor and you're living your life in fear of the students, maybe you're doing something wrong." I was there, too. It was the "announcement" part of the general assembly. All of them were supposed to be limited to one minute max, including Katehi. See here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/21/4071197/uc-davis-rally-each-speaker-gets.htmlObviously, some of the other speakers broke the limit, like the ones who started singing.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. God this is just a joke, Katehi sucks lol can't even voice herself properly.
@A-tan, I believe she addressed the crowd around 1:15
|
I will update the OP with pictures and new information I learned about at the rally. Responding to the earlier question, Katehi arrived around 1:10 iirc.
|
On November 22 2011 06:56 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 06:50 JinDesu wrote:On November 22 2011 06:36 domovoi wrote:On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote:
UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there. Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket. Buddy, buddy, buddy... I really like to see where you get that idea. A good portion of the asian students that attend universities in NYC depend highly on GPA based scholarships (because they can achieve those) and on federal/state loans. Asian families generally have a higher income than the average American family. University students generally come from families with much higher income than the average American family. Students with high GPA and SAT generally come from families with higher income than the average American family. From both an American and a global standard, it is likely that these students are rich. My point is that it doesn't help attract the average American, who is increasingly someone who could not even afford to attend college, much less a high-caliber one like UC Davis, to OWS's cause if they keep seeing these students deliberately aggravating "blue collar" types like police officers and engaging in anti-establishment rhetoric. It's poor messaging. If you think it's a criticism to call these kids rich, or that I think we should ignore them because they are rich, then that's a problem with your own inadequacies.
Your logic is invalid. If they were rich they wouldn't care about rises in tuition.
Also you're a racist.
|
Also you're a racist.
Playing the probabilities doesn't equate to racism. That term is thrown around far too liberally and as a result many people fail to realize what it actually means.
|
On November 22 2011 05:11 couches wrote:
The amount of "it's the law" white knighting going on is making me sick.
I say if you've never broken the law yourself then you can be in a position to call these students out on it too.
It's not that it's the law, it's that it's a good law.
|
On November 22 2011 08:51 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 06:56 domovoi wrote:On November 22 2011 06:50 JinDesu wrote:On November 22 2011 06:36 domovoi wrote:On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote:
UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there. Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket. Buddy, buddy, buddy... I really like to see where you get that idea. A good portion of the asian students that attend universities in NYC depend highly on GPA based scholarships (because they can achieve those) and on federal/state loans. Asian families generally have a higher income than the average American family. University students generally come from families with much higher income than the average American family. Students with high GPA and SAT generally come from families with higher income than the average American family. From both an American and a global standard, it is likely that these students are rich. My point is that it doesn't help attract the average American, who is increasingly someone who could not even afford to attend college, much less a high-caliber one like UC Davis, to OWS's cause if they keep seeing these students deliberately aggravating "blue collar" types like police officers and engaging in anti-establishment rhetoric. It's poor messaging. If you think it's a criticism to call these kids rich, or that I think we should ignore them because they are rich, then that's a problem with your own inadequacies. Your logic is invalid. If they were rich they wouldn't care about rises in tuition. Also you're a racist.
Well you have to realize "rich" is a relative term. For instance, someone making $150,000 a year is top 15% of America, and surely top 10% of the world- justifiably called "rich". However, when college tuition alone gets to around $20k, thats a hefty amount still... factoring in books + residence + food + etc
|
On November 22 2011 08:51 killa_robot wrote:
Your logic is invalid.
You obviously have no idea what "logic" means. My logic is quite valid given the axioms stated, as are most arguments. But logic has very little to say about the veracity of the axioms.
If they were rich they wouldn't care about rises in tuition.
Like, here. This is not a counterargument to my logic, this is simply arguing for an axiom that would make my logical deductions no longer true. Unfortunately, I call bullshit. Rich and poor people alike care very much about rises in tuition.
Also you're a racist.
An illogical counterargument.
|
On November 22 2011 07:58 Pleiades wrote:
Stop comparing America to the rest of the world, that is not what the movement or protests is about.
It's good to have a global perspective, which many Americans lack.
One reason is about why are school administration receiving huge raises from their predecessors, and why are student tuition increasing at an alarming rate at the same time. The protests is about the comparison within American citizens.
Again, you keep assuming I'm attacking their grievances. I am not. I very much agree that tuition needs to be lower. I'm criticizing their anti-establishment behavior that leads to all these confrontations with police. It does not help their image.
Also, your argument is very flawed in that you base this whole thing mainly on assumption. Yes they are white protestors, yes they are students protesting at an university, but you automatically put them into the generalization on the assumption that they are more rich because of demographics. You assume that they are doing well better than others just because of ONLY their race.
It's called Bayesian inference. Look it up. All the facts ("priors") point to a high probability that these students are relatively well-off compared to the average American. I'm open to countervailing facts, but don't think that simply asserting ignorance ("You can't assume anything!") will change any of my priors.
And you keep missing the point about image.
|
Are the police really that threatened by students sitting peacefully on the ground? This is another example of how police are using far too much force to achieve their goals. Why didn't they just handcuff or zip tie the students who refused to move? I've seen plenty of episodes of cops where an officer tackles a crack head hand cuffs them and throws them in the back of their squad car without using tasers or peppers pray. The students are already sitting down just push them over onto their bellies while telling them they are under arrest and hand cuff them if they resist after that then use pepper spray or another non lethal device but you can't skip the part where you try to detain the students in a reasonable manner and jump straight to causing peaceful protesters harm. Those officers are nothing more than bully's with authority.
|
On November 22 2011 09:19 CeriseCherries wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 08:51 killa_robot wrote:On November 22 2011 06:56 domovoi wrote:On November 22 2011 06:50 JinDesu wrote:On November 22 2011 06:36 domovoi wrote:On November 22 2011 06:35 Pleiades wrote:
UC davis is like 42% white, 42% asian in terms of students who enroll there. Asian university students also tend to be in the high income bracket. Buddy, buddy, buddy... I really like to see where you get that idea. A good portion of the asian students that attend universities in NYC depend highly on GPA based scholarships (because they can achieve those) and on federal/state loans. Asian families generally have a higher income than the average American family. University students generally come from families with much higher income than the average American family. Students with high GPA and SAT generally come from families with higher income than the average American family. From both an American and a global standard, it is likely that these students are rich. My point is that it doesn't help attract the average American, who is increasingly someone who could not even afford to attend college, much less a high-caliber one like UC Davis, to OWS's cause if they keep seeing these students deliberately aggravating "blue collar" types like police officers and engaging in anti-establishment rhetoric. It's poor messaging. If you think it's a criticism to call these kids rich, or that I think we should ignore them because they are rich, then that's a problem with your own inadequacies. Your logic is invalid. If they were rich they wouldn't care about rises in tuition. Also you're a racist. Well you have to realize "rich" is a relative term. For instance, someone making $150,000 a year is top 15% of America, and surely top 10% of the world- justifiably called "rich". However, when college tuition alone gets to around $20k, thats a hefty amount still... factoring in books + residence + food + etc
This really has nothing to do with whether the protesters are rich or not. It is whether there protest is valid and if so whether the response from the University and the police was appropriate.
Does being rich mean that you should accept an 80% increase in tuition without protesting? That is a subjective call, particularly that "rich" is always based on comparison. Who exactly do you compare these rich students to? Students in africa can well say these guys are ridiculously ric but that has no bearing on the validity of their protest. So lets assume that an 80% increase is large enough to justify protesting.
What of the response from the University?
Well they allowed the protest to run for a week, then requested that the protesters leave grounds on the basis of safety and health concerns.This is a reasonable request but of course the purpose of protesting is to demonstrate your willingness to put aside such concerns because you believe in what you are demonstrating about. Thus the protesters refused to comply.
The question then becomes was the University justified in calling in the cops? Yes, they were. They gave the students warning that this course of action would be followed. They had every right to do what they did. Should they have called in the cops, is much more debatable. The health and safety concerns with forcefully removing students, in my opinion, far outweigh the risks associated with letting them camp.
Yes, there are disruptions and other nuisances but those were not used as reasons to cancel the protest. Based on this it seems to me that the Chancellor overstepped by calling in the police and from there on it became inevitable that some form of violence would eventuate.
Was the police response appropriate?
This has been much discussed and I will not delve into it any further. Suffice it to say that is boils down to whether you believe the use of pepper-spray is justified in removing the protesting students.
|
On November 22 2011 09:32 HTODethklok wrote:
Are the police really that threatened by students sitting peacefully on the ground? This is another example of how police are using far too much force to achieve their goals. Why didn't they just handcuff or zip tie the students who refused to move? I've seen plenty of episodes of cops where an officer tackles a crack head hand cuffs them and throws them in the back of their squad car without using tasers or peppers pray. The students are already sitting down just push them over onto their bellies while telling them they are under arrest and hand cuff them if they resist after that then use pepper spray or another non lethal device but you can't skip the part where you try to detain the students in a reasonable manner and jump straight to causing peaceful protesters harm. Those officers are nothing more than bully's with authority.
I don't understand why people are advocating that the police use physical force. That's guaranteed to rile up the crowd and leads to a high chance of altercation if the person in any way fights back. You honestly think pushing them to the ground and arresting them will look better?
|
On November 22 2011 09:35 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 09:32 HTODethklok wrote:
Are the police really that threatened by students sitting peacefully on the ground? This is another example of how police are using far too much force to achieve their goals. Why didn't they just handcuff or zip tie the students who refused to move? I've seen plenty of episodes of cops where an officer tackles a crack head hand cuffs them and throws them in the back of their squad car without using tasers or peppers pray. The students are already sitting down just push them over onto their bellies while telling them they are under arrest and hand cuff them if they resist after that then use pepper spray or another non lethal device but you can't skip the part where you try to detain the students in a reasonable manner and jump straight to causing peaceful protesters harm. Those officers are nothing more than bully's with authority. I don't understand why people are advocating that the police use physical force. That's guaranteed to rile up the crowd and leads to a high chance of altercation if the person in any way fights back. You honestly think pushing them to the ground and arresting them will look better?
Because if they resist, THEN you use pepper spray. You don't just walk up to them and pepper spray them. Nor do you walk up to someone and taser them first. I'm using a slippery slope here but I think it's worth it. Should we just shoot the protesters first, since that would lead to the least chance of altercation? That'll look better, I'm sure.
|
On November 22 2011 09:30 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2011 07:58 Pleiades wrote:
Stop comparing America to the rest of the world, that is not what the movement or protests is about. It's good to have a global perspective, which many Americans lack.
This is not a global protest. The protest is about local issues, again, why would a student in africa care about tuition in california? It has no relevance.
Show nested quote +One reason is about why are school administration receiving huge raises from their predecessors, and why are student tuition increasing at an alarming rate at the same time. The protests is about the comparison within American citizens. Again, you keep assuming I'm attacking their grievances. I am not. I very much agree that tuition needs to be lower. I'm criticizing their anti-establishment behavior that leads to all these confrontations with police. It does not help their image.
Fair enough, is there any evidence that they have not pursued other forms of communication to raise their grievances? Yes demonstrating may alienate some people but that hardly makes the demonstration pointless. As for the their behaviour immediately leading to police confrontations, that is debatable. Why could they not let them stay? The risks of trying to remove them far outweigh just letting them stay.
Show nested quote +Also, your argument is very flawed in that you base this whole thing mainly on assumption. Yes they are white protestors, yes they are students protesting at an university, but you automatically put them into the generalization on the assumption that they are more rich because of demographics. You assume that they are doing well better than others just because of ONLY their race. It's called Bayesian inference. Look it up. All the facts ("priors") point to a high probability that these students are relatively well-off compared to the average American. I'm open to countervailing facts, but don't think that simply asserting ignorance ("You can't assume anything!") will change any of my priors. And you keep missing the point about image.
Since this is an image issue, would they be better served if they were poor? Are they not supposed to protest simply because they have enough money to go to college? Well pretty soon that may not be the case. Why does someone's background immediately invalidate what they are saying. I understand that you pushing this as an image issue, but in reality their image in not important to their concerns.
They would probably be better served by a more organised structure. Who knows that may arise out of this affair. But that hardly means you should dismiss them.
|
On November 22 2011 09:30 domovoi wrote:
It's good to have a global perspective, which many Americans lack.
Again, you keep assuming I'm attacking their grievances. I am not. I very much agree that tuition needs to be lower. I'm criticizing their anti-establishment behavior that leads to all these confrontations with police. It does not help their image.
It's called Bayesian inference. Look it up. All the facts ("priors") point to a high probability that these students are relatively well-off compared to the average American. I'm open to countervailing facts, but don't think that simply asserting ignorance ("You can't assume anything!") will change any of my priors.
And you keep missing the point about image.
I'm attacking your statement that you deem the protestors to be rich, not at them harrassing officers or the image of the outcomes of their actions.
|
Wait, how can anyone honestly support the police in this situation?! I am shocked that there are people who think that what the protestors were doing was wrong. It's just for non-violent protestors to get pepper sprayed in the face? No, it never is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
