Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Students Kick Military Recruiters off UC Santa Cruz
by Students Against War
Tuesday Apr 11th, 2006 2:47 PM
Students Kick Military Recruiters Off UC Santa Cruz
Military Prevented from Recruiting for Third Straight Job Fair

(for more information, photos or press contacts, goto
SANTA CRUZ, CA – It’s been over a year and a half since the military has been able to effectively recruit on this UC campus as all their attempts have been met by mass student actions. Today, in spite of the pouring rain and administrative attempts to stifle students’ free speech, Students Against War (SAW) organized over 150 students to march from the center of campus to the job fair, where they nonviolently prevented access to military recruiters through sit-ins and other measures. After about an hour and a half of negotiations and students’ refusal to back down, military recruiters left the job fair.

The students’ first victory appeared early in the day, as administrators separated military recruiters from other employers, allowing the protesters to block access to the military, while the remainder of the job fair continued. This separation was the only one of SAW’s proposals for protecting free speech to be adopted by administrators, who still banned media from the event.

The successful protest was also significant in light of the fact that University administrators hired, at great cost to the school, a number of police from other UC campuses. These police, local officers, and a top local official, physically assaulted multiple students without provocation and repeatedly refused to provide identification when requested. Students were pushed, punched, choked, and a student’s hand was slammed in a door. One student, acting as a legal observer, was pushed and arrested for documenting police surveillance, but was released after an immediate display of student support. The student may face charges in the future, which SAW intends to vehemently resist. In the face of administrative and police repression the students remained remarkably peaceful.

The action stressed the importance of connecting the complexities of the “War on Terror,” continued military occupations, and government neglect of communities at home. Students also emphasized solidarity with labor struggles, immigrants’ rights, the fight against the privatization of education, and numerous other movements. In order to directly highlight the sexism inherent in the military, a group of female students directly confronted the recruiters. This was a result of consistent student-initiated negotiations with administrators. The action proved to be a key moment, as military recruiters left quickly after the women entered.

In response to the victory, SAW member Sam Aranke responded, “Our demonstration today is a clear example of how tangible success can be when we take strategic actions against the war at a local level. It’s not just about the action today, it’s about creating sustained movements that directly resist the militarization of our communities.”

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by DLi
Tuesday Apr 11th, 2006 8:16 PM
It's good to spread the word of the small(but growing all over the land) victories by our Progressive citizens against the Empire's militants. One more time,

"A small step for anti-Recruitment forces, A Giant Victory for Peace!"
by A29 Info
(info [at] Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 5:44 AM
Don't forget to support the United for Peace and Justice rally in New York City on April 29th. Please add the button to your website and link to us at Thanks!
by Red X Show, Free Radio Santa Cruz
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 8:43 AM
Listen now:
Copy the code below to embed this audio into a web page:
This is an interview with David, a member of Student Against the War, who organized the event. Interview was done as part of the Red X Show on Free Radio (101.1 FM) Tuesdays, 6-8pm.
by Slug en Exile
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 11:00 AM
First, congrats on this huge event.

But why all the black clad masked individuals? Why all the violent symbolism and "Destroy the War Machine" message? I completely agree with the point of this action and support you guys 100%, but from what I can see on Indymedia is that most Americans are going to think you all are a bunch of anarcho guerillas bent on violently pursuing your politics. I know you folks, and know that this is not necessarily true, but that's not what people are seeing on the web.

I hate to be a downer, but the whole black-block aesthetic sucks. The actual black-block sucks even more. I know its sexy to be super radical and espouse a "diversity of tactics," but this particular tactic WILL NOT WORK at a bourgy university in the USA. I admire the movement you all are building up there, but I don't completely agree with the identity of the movement that's being constructed.

Perhaps not all of you are down with nonviolence. I myself am a radical pacifist. So you know where I'm coming from when I frown on ski masks, smoke bombs, and calls to "destroy".

I can't lay out anything more than a really shallow critique here, but let me try to get more to the point. The anti-war culture being constructed (at least the one that I can see in these photos) is not one that the majority of people will ever want to join. If we're really in the business of building a social movement against US empire - within the empire - then we need to find ways of constructing our identities and carrying out practices in daily life that are opposed to war. I really can't see most people, even most college students taking interest in protest action that plays into the violence game. You know, radicals marching with faces hidden chanting to destroy the war machine, etc., then the cops come down hard, or Right-wingers call you "seditious" and violent. It doesn't matter whether or not you're violent. It's whether you play into that game or not.

I feel that organizers at UC Santa Cruz really need to rethink their relationship with the whole aesthetic of anarchy. I'm a bit of an anarchist myself, but I don't like the style and more radical than thou shit that often comes of it. I think your presentations of self, and movement, are flawed and needs some serious work in order to take things to the next level.

And whoever was throwing rocks, if you want to do things like that you can just join the army. They have lots of opportunities to take aggression on other human beings.

by anarcho, inc
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 12:52 PM
Let my grouchy comments not take away from the fact that these folks were successful in driving away the military. Nice Work! Imagine if this happened nationwide...

The anarcho-fashionist thing is pretty hilarious though.
Hehe. Pretty soon they'll be selling black balaclavas at the Gap. Buy 3 and you get a free anarcho-syndicalist flag.
Teens and college students everywhere are poised to accept the Anarchy product. They may not accept silly ideas like consensus or Autonomy but the black clad anarcho-elite mystique is perfect for the latest cult-like marketing techniques.
There are lots of corporations that have caught on to the patch thing, sewing ragged homemade looking patches on to black jeans and such. You can buy them at department stores.
The Anarcho-punk uniform is now the latest fashion trend!
The Ruling Class doesn't need cops, batons and teargas. They've got trademarks, the worst WMD of them all!
I find it all hilarious in a Kurt Vonnegut, "humanity is doomed so might as well laugh" sorta way.
by Imp
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 1:05 PM
While I know that "converting the masses" into a huge movement is important to many activists, I doubt that the Black Bloc is any more harmful than the "normal" anti-war movement. Are the general populace going to want to join anyways? Why would being an unmasked protester being any more appealing? Why are we limiting ourselves to this artificial construct called a "movement," that devotes itself to recruitment and "success"? I don't usually participate in protests, but if I were going to, I would mask myself up. I'd prefer the aesthetic of the Black Bloc to that of the normal protest, but my mixed feelings are on "protest" itself.

It also seems to me that the event was "successful" (whatever that means), in that the military recruiters were prevented from doing much recruiting. The Black Bloc tactic was not the sole reason for this success, but I'd say it helped rathered than hindered. But how do we define success anyways? By a large number of "ordinary" people coming to a protest, then milling about like cattle at a slaughterhouse? Why is that considered success?

The image of anarchists is usually a bunch of angry masked protesters, but that certainly isn't what anarchy is. Anarchy is about living your life according to what you want, not what society wants. Anarchy is not a "movement." While spreading these ideals is certainly desirable, it is not the purpose of anarchy. One more thing: while I don't know why rocks were thrown or what use they were, a rock hurled at the authorities in a moment of passion is different from a bomb dropped on a city while doing one's "duty."
No it's not. It's about living your life according to anarchist principles.

by non-violence or non-confrontation
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 3:18 PM
wearing a mask?
breaking shit?
blocking the streets?

there is nothing new about these tactics. there is nothing
"anarchist" about these tactics. they have been used all over
the world, by all sorts of people resisting authority. they have
been used, and will continue to be used, simply because they
work. they are militant and/or confrontational tactics.

however, the earlier post brings up an interesting point
the political insophistication of the american left has
reached an incomprehensible level. the tactics mentioned above
are quite hard for the american left to come to terms with for a

the american left is holding onto
what it _thinks_ is an ideology of non-violence, what it would
like to portray as the legacy of gandhi and king. but in reality,
the ideology of the american left is one of non-confrontation,
not non violence.

non-confrontation is certainly not
non-violence in the tradition of gandhi and king.
no, G+K WERE NOT ABOUT AVOIDING violence. quite the contrary,
they sought out confrontation that they knew would lead to violence
against them. their non-violence was a strategic tactical decision
about their own RESPONSE to that violence. the american left,
with its fetishistic reframing of the non-violent ethos, focuses on
avoidance a violent response, and forgets that non-violence actually
requires you to first provoke of a violent response from the state,
and then not respond with violence.

now, thats also the reason the "radical pacifist" posting above cant lay
down more than a shallow critique. there is no such thing anymore as
radical american pacifism in the movements for social justice, outside of maybe
a few cool religious types, and they tend to be smart enough not to
get uppity on anarchists who believe in self-defense.

so, heres how you know if you are really the radical pacifist you think you are.
sit down in front of a row of riot cops sometime when they are clearing the street.
(take a look at "the miami model" if you want to know what to expect when you
do this) let them kick the shit out of you. video tape it and get the footage on
the news and so forth. thats radical pacifism. you need to be bloodied and bruised,
and get up the next morning ready to do it all again, before anyone should listen to
you prattle on about how non-violent tactics are superior.

now, that bring us back to the smashing windows, the masks, the barriers, the
mobile tactics. this radical "fashionable" anarchism is fashionable indeed.
turns out because most human beings, when faced with the inevitable
retaliation from the state that comes when actual confrontational resistance
is practiced, well, they just arent "non-violent" folks. instead they believe
in self defense, and they dont sit still while people kick the shit out of them.
this is usually how it plays out in real life, with a few notable exceptions in the
cases of the civil rights movement and gandhi. if look at the situation today,
and the context does not encouraging to real non violent tactics. thats why they
toss rocks and block roads and wear masks in nepal, france, bolivia, argentina,
peru, nicaragua, mexico, greece, italy, china, korea, san francsico, egypt, iraq,
because it makes sense.

but of course, listen up world, a tiny population of mostly white middle class
liberal-radical-progressive american pacifist pseudo-non-violent types
want to reinvent the wheel. of course, they went to fine american universities
and studied how their two favorite brown people (G+K) changed the world
(well, they learned this in between hits of pot at the coop and their memory
is hazy, and they can Tooootally picture themselves cast in the mold of their heroes)
and now that they know better than the rest of the world, if only people would listen
to their smug sophisticated asses, they could outsource your social movements
to some nice, white, rich NGO, so nothing will ever change in your country either.
by ...
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 4:51 PM
> The anti-war culture being constructed (at least the one
> that I can see in these photos) is not one that the majority of
> people will ever want to join.

this statement brings up another issue. it
indicates that the writer clearly sees "anti-war culture" or
resistance as something that is chosen, where participation
is elective. this is a classic mainstay (in addition to non-confrontational
"non-violence") of the american liberal left.

but there is a big problem with idea that politics and resistance is about
"choosing" an alternative, that resitance must be "sold" to the
ideological consumer. while college students might put themselves
in a position where they have the luxury of "choosing" to act or not,
this is really just the exercise of privelege. neither us soldiers and their families
nor iraqis have that same privelege. tailoring the aesthetics of our
movement to appeal to a class of activists in order that they might "opt into"
resitance is a bad precedent, and it reaffirms the exercise of privelege and
thus concentration of political power in the hands of those most
insulated from its effects.
by me
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 5:30 PM
thanks a lot for that essay. that really made sense
by pointer
Wednesday Apr 12th, 2006 6:21 PM
by Weather Woman
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 12:48 AM
yes, yes ... we do infact need to keep all tactics available to us ... and confrontations with authority are often the only the only things that bring about true social change. So, all the philosophical, passifict authoritarians sound naive and well ... preachy.

But, ok, having said that, why is it effective to smash things and wear black at big public events. Do that shit at a bank when nobody is looking. If there are indeed a big group of people confronting military recruiters in a big and public way, then why give the cops a possible way to dress in black and provoke bad press coverage for the big group? It makes no sense. The cops in Seattle 99 were donning black block regalia and throwing crap and hurting people. Anyone can do it. So, you know, I'm all for like "smash the state" and stuff ... but not at big "nonviolent" civil disobedience type of events. There is a difference between "direct action" and "civil disobedience." I mean if you want to do something secretive and radical, then, dawn the blackwear and break into Lockeed and smash up some missile factories. Or go confront some recruiters on a campus in Texas, where there is no public consciousness already being expressed about it. Let the big group take the moral high ground if it is infact being effective. Small groups of black-clad individuals in a big peaceful crowd are unoriginal and they are infact a liability. It's not that I disagree with the black block tactic when things are going wrong and the cops are going nuts on the nonviolent (OK, maybe then, sneak around the corner, dawn some black and really give the cops something else to focus on instead of gassing old ladies ... if that is the case ... then, the black block tactics are strategic.) But, don't show up to a peaceful march, wherein nothing has really gone down, already wearing the black block uniform. It's counterproductive. In essence, it's all about timing. In this case, the students are doing something really cool ... let that be the story. And, that goes for "code pink" and "now" and "answer" and anyone else who would co-opt these already successful events for their petty sectarian agendas. Get over your bad selves. I think that the UC Santa Cruz events are successful because they are real ... they are successful because the Cindy Sheehans, the Answer Socialists, the freking "vanguardists" and other Stalinists have not completely taken them over - as they tend to do everything that starts out good and real in this damn country. Real people expressing real sentiments is more powerful than has-been leftifts or reform capitalists from Global Exchange. Can we say that? Sphew. This Santa Cruz thing is good inspite of the the tired cliches like the code pinks and the black blocks. So, can the stereotypes and keep it real! Peace out, WW One
by Mixed Feelings
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 1:24 AM
It's amazing the degree to which many of the responses to my comments have taken the Bush route - that is, answering the questions or commenting on the things you would liked for me to have said.

I think your choices about identity and how you want to oppose war and oppression are yours to make, but I'm worried that what you have constructed, your anarchist culture up there, has themes of violence and destructiveness throughout it.

Take a look within as you look without. Be as reflexive and skeptical toward yourself as you are to others. I wasn't there for this, but I think you all could have done a better job really representing that different world that is possible where bombs aren't dropping.

PLEASE BROTHERS AND SISTERS! All discussion among those who are politically, spiritually, and morally opposed to the current imperial-capitalist establishment MUST be regarded as purely theoretical and tactical discourse. Attacks against differing views of "protest", "non-violence", or tactical elements, must be within full consciousness of the fact that we commonly oppose massive military-industrial police states that impose violence, propaganda, and isolation as a matter of simple usage against all of us. PLEASE let us not attack each other by label or name, but let us all find a matter of discourse and information-exchange that will benefit us all regardless of how "hardcore", or whatever names we give to our personal movements and motivations. We must all be agreed that there is a LONG way to go before ANY kind of real change is made upon our modern global society. The Empire of Capital and Greed is UNITED! STRONGLY so! Are we so united who oppose it? We all relish the diversity of color and culture that compose OUR movement, (it is a strength!) but let us not oppose one another in our tactics. Informative critique is merely a tool. Let us not confront out brothers and sisters with it as a weapon!! We must all acknowledge a combination of "peaceful protest" and "direct action", and ALL other tactics as various methods of oposing and resisting the police states. Please reply to me if you disagree....
by marc
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 10:55 AM
Weather Woman gets it right on.

Every time independent radicals raise energy, the sectarian leftists try to swoop down to abscond with that which they cannot create.

Sectarian leftists are political reptiles, ecothermic and always looking for a hot rock near you.

I cut my radical teeth on anti-apartheid work on campus 20 years ago. Every time we got a head of steam, on that or central american solidarity and even some of the first housing occupations as homelessness began to creep into consensus reality, the damn sectarian leftists hoardes try to insinuate themselves as the leaders and take over.

We are not stupid. We can read history over the past 75 years and learn that sectarian leftism and socialism have no play with Americans politically.

Why anyone would want to follow failure is beyond me and probably a question best answered by psychologists than political scientists.

The ISO is the absolute worst. Their newspaper is pathetic. They seem to be a cafeteria plan of protest coordinated by an hierarchical, authoritarian structure. Yet they have the audacity to christen their imprint as "Haymarket Books!" Yet another effort to transfer comtemporary affinity for anarchy onto the dead carcass of leftism.

As a Green Party activist, we saw how Medea Benjamin, an candidate with a much broader appeal than Chretien, fared in 2000. There is no reason for anyone to believe that Chretien and his gang of straight male leaders can do any better. It is telling that the self-selected high office quixotic candidates run the range from Medea to Todd, the poles of progressivism as mentioned by the insightful Weather Woman.

At least Medea ran to eclipse a real wing nut rather than as one.

I am not sure what is going to work to combat an increasingly grotesque consensus capitalism. But I am sure that sectarian leftism in all of its forms will not work. We need to try a wide variety of untested approaches while discarding those which are proven failures.

by um
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 12:00 PM
"Sectarian leftists are political reptiles, ecothermic and always looking for a hot rock near you."

What exactly does sectarian mean. If it means radical groups that really dislike other radical groups wouldnt you fit into that category by your critique? The ISO has problems but its not really sectarian (you would have to look at the Sparts and various Anarchists groups for the open sectarianism).

"...the damn sectarian leftists hoardes try to insinuate themselves as the leaders and take over."

People trying to take on causes and move things in the direction they want assuming they know better than everyone else is a real problem. The ISO on college campuses acts in this way and frequently undermines movements with which they work. But its hardly unique to Socialist groups and one sees similar power struggles with Anarahcist wanting to use ANSWER marchs as the base for organized breakaway marchs, and there were a lot of issues surrounding Anarchist work in New Orleans with locals finding it a bit vanguardist.

"sectarian leftism and socialism have no play with Americans politically."

The US is a pretty right-wing country and Socialism is a dirty word as is Anarchism. Thre Anarchist critique of Socialism sounds a lot like the right-wing straw man definition of Socialism and the Socialist critque of Anarchism similar revolves around similar stereotypes.

"Why anyone would want to follow failure is beyond me and probably a question best answered by psychologists than political scientists."

Socialists didnt lead any of the major political movements in the US since the 1930s up until the current war (when the mainstream liberal groups that usually run things went into hiding because they didnt want to be seen as supporting pacifists and thus didnt take a strong antiwar stance until the war was clearly lost)

"Yet another effort to transfer comtemporary affinity for anarchy onto the dead carcass of leftism."

There was a trend towards support for Anarchist ideals that really had its start with the fall of the USSR (and the collapse of any ability for anyone talking to former Soviets to see what happened there as a good thing). It probably peaked with the globalization movement in 2000 but has been on the decline sense. The reasons for the decline are in my opinion tied to Anarchist sectarianism; people often get drawn into Anarchism since it takes good stands on many current issues and want to avoid the culty feel of Communist groups, but as Anarchist groups grow more openly hostile to other groups, the pull lessens since Anarchism just looks like any other sectarian cause.

"As a Green Party activist, we saw how Medea Benjamin, an candidate with a much broader appeal than Chretien, fared in 2000. There is no reason for anyone to believe that Chretien and his gang of straight male leaders can do any better."

He isnt running to win and really just using it to promote himself. But he was behind an antiwar ballot initiative passing so you do have to give him that.

"We need to try a wide variety of untested approaches while discarding those which are proven failures."

I'm not sure what your proposing and how anything you invent wont be defined by others as a form of "sectarian leftism".
From what Ive seen Anarchist style actions have big advantages which are more about style rather than substance. The face masks, shields, riot porn, etc... are very appealing fashion statements that have much more pull than the drab early 20th century Russian motifs of Communist groups.

One problem is that its mainly a style that targets a late teen and early twenty-something crowd and the crowd tends to disappear as the scene ages. Using youth culture to aid in organizing resulted in many large demonstrations in the 1960s but while peopel like to think back and claim things were close to a revolution, I think thats more a matter of nostalgia than fact. The immigrant rights protests of the past few weeks were larger than any of the demonstrations of the 1960s and groups like the Weather Underground and even Red Army Fraction seem to be more desperate attempts to get attention when the mainstream culture moved away from the radical style, more than anything real that made much of an effect on anything (and the radical style of the late 60s brought in a huge amount of money to major corporations). The end effect of the 1960s radical youth culture is much moe visible in MTV, Apple and the like than anything purely political. Im not saying a movement has to be drab, but the more radical than though Anarchist marketting gimic has its limits (I mean Fox could easilly make a Saturday morning cartoon with black bloc super heros, and Van Damn had a miltant antioil move "On Deadly Ground" that made Warner Brothers money.... ).

Anarchist style protests are one way to organize and the willingness to engage in legally risky activities of many in the target audience, makes it so new orginal ideas can be tried out in a way that one wont find in other scenes. But its just one aspect to organizing not a new way that makes everyone else obsolete. The ISO is much more likely to get members who have no countercultural ties than Anarchists and while they do get in the way of some Anarchist organzing, demanding that everyone has to be part of your scene to be an activist is ultimately limiting.

You can take a step back and say that its not about Aanrchism and Socialism but finding some new way to effect change. And its worth doing that every once and awhiile. But when you do come up with a new idea and get your friends to work with you in that direction you cant really expect everyone to jump on board and see you as the leader of the new vanguard. Good new ideas will spread quickly if they are accessible but you cant really expect to find a silver bullet that will cure everything or assume that such ideas are bound to come only from within your community of friends (the organzing for the immigrant rights protests over the past weeks has some very new aspects to it that revolve around use of Spanish language radio stations and mass organizing with no leaders presented to the media but the reasons things worked as well as they did and the direction of the bulk of the immigrant rights movement has little overlap within the radical Anarchist or Communist communities)
by youhadtobethere
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 6:06 PM
while black bloc masks personally make me uncomfortable because they often seems to be more about an image, glamor or whatever rather than strategic, i have to say that this action was a circumstance where they were more apropriate even though are action was nonviolent and intended to be so. The truth is, the pentagon has been spying on SAW at least since last april. Also, there has been a lot of harassment and death threats (over phone and email) from right-wing psycho's nation wide. When people are calling you and saying they are going to hunt you down and slt your throat, you better hope you were wearing a mask.
by Guido
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 9:22 PM
April 13, 2006

To: UC Santa Cruz Community

From: Denice D. Denton, Chancellor, and David S. Kliger, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

Re: Protest on April 11

On April 11, at the UC Santa Cruz Career Fair, a small group of individuals violated the principles they claimed to embrace – those of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. In using threatening and aggressive tactics to prevent interested students from contacting military recruiters, these protesters infringed on the rights of others and acted with intimidation, intolerance and disrespect. Many did so with their faces covered, unwilling to take public responsibility for their actions.

The university, like any public body, has established guidelines that protect rights of freedom of speech, expression and assembly. Moreover, this campus provides in its Principles of Community a clear statement of standards for behavior that it expects of all its members, including the expectation that reasoned discourse includes a free exchange of ideas with mutual respect and consideration of differences.

Despite repeated efforts to engage with the Students Against War group, to discuss the time, place, and manner in which their protest could occur safely, the group declined to communicate further. A letter to them on March 27 reiterated the desire to collaborate, but there was no response from the group.

We are extremely concerned and disgusted by the behaviors of the approximately 75 protesters, whose actions are not consistent with the values of our campus community, including 15,000 students. We apologize on behalf of the campus to those whose rights were violated, and we will take appropriate disciplinary action against students who are found to have been in violation of campus policies.

In contrast to the disrespectful and sometimes dangerous behavior of the protesters, true character was demonstrated by the nearly 800 students who attended the career fair for its intended purpose and by the many faculty and staff who encountered the protesters with composure and self-control.

Our primary concern at the Career Fair was ensuring the safety of our students, faculty, staff and visitors. We also held the goal of protecting the rights of our students to have access to the 90 employers attending the event, including the military recruiters.

Although the situation was extremely volatile, staff, faculty, and military recruiters used admirable restraint to prevent a serious situation from escalating to a point where public safety would have been further jeopardized.

We thank all those students, staff and faculty who made the best of a difficult situation, and we appreciate the vast majority of our campus community who demonstrate the ideals of our democracy by respecting the rights of all individuals.

by Weather Woman
Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 11:27 PM
Wow, listen to the tone of those who dare to post as administrators. Do they realize that the
U.S. military and the CIA are taking civilians off the streets of the world, blindfolding them, sticking drug enemies up their rectums and flying them away in private planes to be tortured in countries far and wide? Are they proud of themselves, to protect this psuedo free speech, while the rights of so many around the world are being violated with their tax dollars? They are nice, happy brown shirts and overpaid administrative weenies. Do they have the nerve to write to say the owner of the Boston Redsox or to a Senator from Nevada (Paul Waxler) to be all aloof and professional sounding as they ask them what their planes are doing with the CIA ... taking innocent people off to be tortured? I doubt it. But then, not many from among the German administrators were brave and clear-thinking either (after the Reichstag burned and the brown shirts were getting their little war going.) And, oh yes, lest we forget the Nazis were bigtime "victims" as well. The whole Nazi movement was built upon a similar rhetoric ... "look what they have done to us ... we have to protect the homeland/fatherland" ... UC administrators probably love the idea of homeland "fatherland" security. But, there is no security until there is full employment, honest politicians and indipently owned media. But, hey, when you don't have the guts to fight for any of these, you may as well get all heifi on some students who kick the brownshirt recruiters off of the campus.

Oh ... what has become of Santa Cruz? ... Next they'll put a statue of Reagan down on Pacific Street ... right next to the corporate, controlled-environment surf shop ... yahoo ... rock on American democracy ...

by James Lockridge
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 1:05 AM
Of course one of the authors of the original torture memos is an esteemed U.C. staff person and none of the U.C. faculty or administrators seem to have to guts to speak about this ...

Their silence can only be taken as support for John Yoo

And, since they also fail to take a position on Renditions, they must support that also:

So, in essence, since the UC system that they are a part of is supporting a big author of this country's ongoing torture of innocents and since, it is widely known that the practice of secret renditions is continuing and since they have failed to champion the rights of people like Maher Arar - thay have no moral authority to claim that they are capable of defending the rights of anyone. You don't have any rights if you are being taken away and tortured. You don't have any rights if gun-ho marines bust down your door and take all the males away in your house. So, how can the U.C. Administrators claim to defend rights, when they are complicit with torture and they are defending the recruiters of death, torture and murder? It doesn't make any sense at all and thay have lost all credibility.

by Mixed Feelings
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 9:41 AM
Of course the Chancellor is going to say those things. The university builds nuclear weapons, trains the future leaders of the security state, the future weapons disigners, the future managers of capital. As a parastatal corporation the university is a terrible thing. It's all about serving the state and corporations, no questions asked. The university is a superbly designed institution for doing this while compartmentalizing and distancing people from the horrible things they contribute to.

Again, however, your protest tactics have opened you all up to more criticism than necessary. Had you not come black-clad, masked, smoke bombs and "anarchy", then it would be harder for the administration to characterize your actions as "violent."

I'm really happy you all took it up a notch there, but there's still huge problems with your tactics. There are more nonviolent ways to shut things down. The administration is going to be able to use this as a means to discredit you amongst many students who we need to reach out to. Things are quickly going from bad to worse. I hope your next action retains the passion, but I'm not sure you've built anything with this, and you have legitimated the violence of the state by appearing chaotic and dangerous - in need of authority.

by .
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 12:53 PM
on a brilliant action.

its sad, but as certain comments here show,
there are a lot of wieners out there who think they
are your allies but then they internalize and puke back
the same tired narrative of the people we are fighting.

oppression is always internalized, so
we can understand why we hear so much bullshit
from supposed allies. but we won this round, and
we can and should be proud and confident and
we should be articulating our own narrative of
the event, not theirs.
by marc
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 8:20 PM
"But he was behind an antiwar ballot initiative passing so you do have to give him that. "

A ballot measure urging antiwar measures is not low hanging fruit in san francisco, rather fruit on the ground that is about to rot.

had todd done grassroots organizing and consensus building beforehand, then prop i could have been a measure to tax the rich in order to obviate federal money encumbered by no child left behind.

but the iso knows better than we so we got an advisory resolution urging blah blah blah.

todd chretien has never changed anything through the iso and its actions.

greens have changed things locally, min wage, police reform as a start, etc.

by Maybe this will help
Friday Apr 14th, 2006 9:14 PM
Maybe this will help you take a critical/questioning view, rather than the naive one that you are taught to take.....
If you really believe that the US military has been an enforcer of 'noble causes', I suggest you educate yourself and investigate alternative sources rather than the govt. PR versions of the US govt.'s assault on the world. The stated reasons are not actually the real reasons.....
by Mixed Feelings
Saturday Apr 15th, 2006 6:58 PM
by Kermit
Saturday Apr 15th, 2006 9:38 PM
just gotta say it:

although the phrase "Direct Action" has come to be interpreted recently as sabotage, militant disruption, property damage, and the like, the phrase really means acting directly to accomplish what you want to see. It could be destroying a bulldozer, blocking access to a trade ministerial, growing food, teaching a child, challenging a racist joke, helping a friend process their childhood, spiking trees, letting the neighbors use your phone if their's isn't working, picking up your disabled neighbor's food pantry box for them, providing your backyard as venue for a highschool punk band, chasing military recruiters off campus or it could be homeless folks squatting a building.

Direct Action is distinguished from other indirect methods off achieving something: voting for a politician who you feel will do it, paying a charity to do it, circulating petitions to get someone to do it, protesting passively to get someone to do it, protesting militantly to get someone to do it, civil disobedience to get someone to do it, etc. All of these may have their place but they are not Direct Action no matter how militant they may be. Similarly, most forms of direct action are decideldly hum-drum.

Rock out

by niceguy
Monday Apr 17th, 2006 2:48 AM
The site listed in the post above is to a hoax site on a pitiful geocities account apparently trying to derail the efforts of the organizers. The correct link is

Or if you have doubts, go to the United for Peacec and Justice web site and follow the link from there.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 104.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network