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.