UC Berkeley

Is demonstrating part of “The Berkeley Experience?”

June 17, 2010 1:30 pm by Frances Dinkelspiel

1964 demo. Photo: San Francisco Chronicle.

In the 128-page document released Wednesday by UC Berkeley’s independent Police Review Board is an interesting reference to something called “The Berkeley Experience.”

It may have played a significant role in the demonstrations against budget cuts last fall.

“The Berkeley Experience,” according to the report, is every student’s desire to do something that is very Berkeley: participate in a demonstration.

Students come to Berkeley not only to study, according to the report. Since the university has a tradition of massive protests dating back to the days of the Free Speech Movement, students often come to Cal with the expectation that they, too, will hold placards, shout slogans, denounce a policy, and perhaps even occupy a building.

Police arresting student in 1964 protest. Photo: SF Chronicle.

“Outlets for emotional intensity have become prominent features of Berkeley’s history,” according to the report. “In the minds of some students and faculty, these facts are an essential component of what it means to attend Berkeley. As some students have told us, one reason they joined the rally outside Wheeler on the 20th was their desire to have what they considered “the Berkeley experience.” That inchoate desire can be expected to enlarge demonstrations and protests on campus – independent of their specific agendas.”

The chair of the review board, law professor Wayne Brazil, said the report is not suggesting that the thousands of people who gathered inside and outside Wheeler Hall on November 20 were only there because it was fashionable, although some may have been there for that reason.

“We were told by some students that they came down to the rally in the mid-afternoon or late afternoon because they didn’t want to go through four years of Berkeley without going to a demonstration,” said Brazil. “Most people were demonstrating out of a deep conviction and concern that the university was being privatized, … and some were protesting to have it on their resume.”

Noah Stern, the president of the Associated Students of UC Berkeley, agreed with Brazil’s assessment. He said many students come to Cal and want to demonstrate because it is such a rich part of the university’s history.

In fact, the university itself seems to honor and even promote the Free Speech movement and protests over the Vietnam war and People’s Park.

A glossy history panel on the first floor of Sproul Hall – right near the office of Undergraduate Admissions — has pictures of past demonstrations.

And any prospective student can’t miss it.

2 Comments

Tagged , ,
?
  • http://basiscraft.com Thomas Lord

    What an odd aspect of that report to focus upon.

    People should read that report.

    If nothing else, it is a good piece of writing. It is a bit forced or stilted in parts but, overall, is economical and sophisticated in its use of language. Fine writing. Enough reason to read it right there. But, on to the substance:

    The report (partly because of the methodology of its sourcing) provides a pretty powerful, convincing, and somewhat scathing critique of the administration and the police. Well, ok.

    On students (and other protesters), it has some criticisms but they are far more weakly supported by evidence, far less convincing, and far more condescending. That bit about “the Berkeley experience” is a fine example:

    It encourages the reader to believe that a significant (enough to be worth mentioning) segment of the protesters are there just for something to put on their “resume”.

    That, in turn, discourages the reader from contemplating whether the extent of the student action might not correlate very well indeed with legitimate student gripes and genuine desires to demonstrate to effect change concerning actual issues of heartfelt concern.

    The report, while it is beautiful writing, falls apart in places and one of the examples quoted above illustrates this:

    The Berkeley Experience,” according to the report, is every student’s desire to do something that is very Berkeley: participate in a demonstration.

    None of the factual findings of the committee come even remotely close to supporting the phrase “every student”. Nor would any support “most students”. Nor would any of their findings support “most of the students at this event”. Nor would any of their findings support the conclusion that such a purported desire among a mintority of students was a significant contributing factor to this event. Indeed, the findings lead to opposite conclusions – the report elsewhere says as much. That bit about “every student” is gratuitous and misplaced and says more about the authors than the event.

    The allegedly universal desire for “The Berkeley Experience” is something that they, pardon me but…, pulled out of their nether regions.

    So we ought to ask: who benefits from promoting such a bogus notion? It answers itself: those who would seek to dismiss or distract attention away from the actual political concerns of students.

    This is consistent with the reports focus on the tactical issues of demonstration suppression. Even while it chastises the administration and police, it strives primarily to give them good advice for nipping events like this in the bud and preventing even the possibility of sustained civil disobedience.

    This is a bit like doing a postmortem on the beating of civil rights marchers crossing a bridge into Selma, focusing on the question of how best to prevent them from assembling in such large numbers or reaching the bridge in the first place. It rather misses the larger point, even while intelligently honing the knives of fine-grained social control.

  • Pingback: In the News — Wayne Brazil Finds UC Bungled Response to November Protest