top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay
Regions
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
Topics
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Police Officers Pepper Spray People on Science Hill
by ~Bradley (bradley [at] riseup.net)
Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
On January 12th, two University of California police officers used pepper spray to disperse about 15 people gathered below an occupied redwood tree on Science Hill at UC Santa Cruz. The officers got out of their car, which was parked in the parking lot, and then followed the people dressed in black and wearing bandannas across their faces. One of the officers proclaimed that the group was trespassing and then both officers began pepper spraying people in their faces.

No one was apprehended by the two officers and more police quickly arrived on the scene. Two bags, which appeared to contain food items, were left below the tree until an officer took them to the backseat of a police car. Several police cars rapidly drove away from Science Hill and may have been pursuing the group which they accused of assisting trespassers.
tapestry_1-12-08.jpg
Shortly after the pepper spraying, three treesitters came down to the lower branches of the redwood and discussed some of their motivations with a group of inquisitive supporters. One the treesitters spoke of how he grew up in Santa Cruz and developed a deep passion for the trees at UCSC. Since being in the tree, he has come to more fully appreciate the relationship other animals have with the redwoods.

A student stood below the tree and told people in and below the tree that the reason he was there was because he received an email from UCSC telling him to avoid the treesit. The treesitters thanked their inquisitive supporters for the good conversation and encouraged people to stop by anytime with food or for conversation. A few final suggestions from a treesitter were that people should be more casual and come during the day in smaller groups when the police are not around.


For more information about the treesit on Science Hill against UCSC expansion and the increased police repression, see:

Eyewitness Report of Police Attacking Two People at UCSC
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/10/18471576.php

Winter Break at the UCSC Tree-sit
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/19/18467787.php

Santa Cruz Community Supports Tree-sitters
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/16/18461591.php

Standoff with Police as Activists Occupy Redwoods to Oppose UCSC Expansion
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/08/18458938.php
§Police Officers Approach
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
enclose_1-12-08.jpg
§Police Officers Use Thier Pepper Spray
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
spray_1-12-08.jpg
§Close Up of a Stream of Pepper Spray
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
spray-close_1-12-08.jpg
a close up from the photo above
§An Officer Continues Pepper Spraying
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
pepper1_1-12-08.jpg
§Left Hand on Shoulder, Pepper Spray in Right Hand
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
pepper1-close_1-12-08.jpg
a close up from the photo above
§Officer Holds Pepper Spray After Spraying People
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
pepper2_1-12-08.jpg
§An Officer Holding Pepper Spray
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
pepper3_1-12-08.jpg
§Holding Pepper Spray After Spraying People With It
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
pepper4_1-12-08.jpg
§An Officer Takes Two Bags Left Below The Tree
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
food-grab_1-12-08.jpg
§Two Bags and a Blanket Brought to a Police Car
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
confiscated_1-12-08.jpg
§Provisions in the Backseat
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
backseat_1-12-08.jpg
§M. Larsom
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
m-larsom_1-12-08.jpg
* I think I read the name correctly, but I could be wrong.
§Comfort Bubble
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
comfort-bubble_1-12-08.jpg
A slightly humorous point of the day came when Officer Brian Hughes said to me, just before this photo was taken, "Bradley, I will arrest you if you get in my comfort bubble."

Of course this was only humorous because Officer Hughes quoted funny words from the eyewitness account posted on SC-IMC about his unjustified violence on the night of January 9th.

Eyewitness Report of Police Attacking Two People at UCSC
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/10/18471576.php
§Officer Tony Contreras Explains the Situation
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
more-security_1-12-08.jpg
The guy on the left might have been involved with the security hired to keep watch on Science Hill, however Officer Tony Contreras was pointing out which trees were occupied.
§Police
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
police_1-12-08.jpg
§Treesitters
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
treesitters_1-12-08.jpg
§Treesitters in Tree 4
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
sitters-tree4_1-12-08.jpg
* I am calling this tree, "Tree 4" only because I heard the other three occupied trees called "Tree 1," "Tree 2," and "Tree 3."
§Talking with Treesitters
by ~Bradley Saturday Jan 12th, 2008 11:56 PM
interview_1-12-08.jpg

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by $
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 6:33 AM
California taxayers want to know:
1) What is the cop doing in shorts and shortsleeve shirt in January in the woods when the temperature is not more than in the 50s and the ultraviolet rays are very weak? Is he high on drugs or alcohol?
2) Why is pepper spray, a lethal substance that should be banned (as should tasers) being used against people who are obviously just delivering food and not a threat to anyone? Remember, we are paying for all of this.
3) Why are we paying for construction of any buildings in the forest, far from the urban populations that need universities? Right now, we need state univerities in San Mateo County, Santa Clara County and Alameda County, for starters. San Jose State with its 30,000 students, is obviously not enough, a second campus needs to be built. Alameda County is certianly not well served by little Hayward State with 12,000 students. UC Berkeley already has 33,000 students drawn from all over California.
4) When is this state going to raise taxes on the rich? The money must come from the progressive income tax, known as tax the rich, those who make over $200,000 a year, who should have their taxes raised immediately to save the California budget, shut down the prisons, provide job training for ex-convicts, and build sufficient universities to accommodate every high school graduate in California, and a high school diploma should be sufficient to enter any state university, both the University of California system and the state university system, which should be combined and run directly by the state Board of Education, eliminating the till-tapping ruling class gang known as the Board of Regents of UC. The entire UC Santa Cruz campus should be moved to a new San Jose State campus so that the workingclass can finally attend college while working for a living and having a place to live. This isolated enclave in the middle of the beautiful woods, which should never have been torn down in the first place for this campus, must be closed as soon as an urban campus in Santa Clara County is built to accommmodate the current students and thousands more.
by Lucky it was only pepper spray.
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 7:49 AM
I see 12 people in matching uniforms of all black, with their faces covered and their identities concealed. They're holding up a curtain to hide the activity they're engaged in.

I'm surprised the cops didn't have their guns drawn instead of pepper spray. I call that admirable restraint on the part of the police.

If I came across that group while I was walking in the trees, I'd feel in danger for my safety. But because they've informed us that they are there for good, I'm supposed to accept their anonymous word for it?
by leni
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 8:30 AM
Weird. I walked by at 11am, and I couldn't even spot the security guards or any activity.

There must be some sort of rule stating that pepper spray and other weapons must be used in a defensive fashion. What I see there is a group of people milling around a tree, and the officer using it offensively to help enforce his verbal command to stop standing there. Those people are not holding up their arms or showing any sort of aggression at the officers. So it looks like inappropriate or unlawful use of force.

I personally support some expansion of the student body so that college isn't for only the elite, but it can be done in a reasonable fashion. First, run more buses up the hills. I'm always picking up hitchhikers complaining that the next bus to campus is coming in 45 minutes during evenings/weekends. This will cut down on the traffic that everyone complains about. Secondly, if you look at many other cities, there are plenty of apartments in some areas of town. Santa Cruz just has a few apartments, and there are whiny letters to the editor at the Sentinel by people claiming the university is a newcomer. It actually was established in the 60s and has been here longer than most residents, and it's time that they could approve some apartment construction on the main roads near campus.
Finally, you can fit a lot of people and offices in 4-5 storey buildings with a small footprint. You can cut down fewer trees if they lean towards approving projects that are close to the middle of campus and involve few spread out parking lots and one storey outbuildings.
by Social Justice
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 9:36 AM
Thats Officer Lunnen spraying pepper spray in the faces of trespassers. Nice work, and nice uniform!(shorts and gray soxz). THe early 80's called, wanting their prescription glasses back.
I am concerned about UCSC hiring officers how are heavy handed, and show little restraint. These photos illustrate the cavalier actions made by Officer Lunnen. I hope UCSC will evaluate his actions a little more closely.
by comfort_bubble
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 10:15 AM
Want to see some REAL police brutality? Check out the Rampart Scandal in LA. Makes a couple of short-wearing UCSC bike cops with pepper spray actually enforcing the LAW look like child's play. All this whining cheapens what many people of color go through every day.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/scandal/cron.html
by iris
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 10:52 AM
a question - do you actually believe you are saving trees by camping in them? the weight of the platforms, bodies and camping gear are destroying and damaging the very trees you're trying to save! the limbs were not meant to support 100s of pounds of non-natural weight.
and please, stop dropping your garbage bags from the trees. someone's going to get hurt.

by (a)
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 12:25 PM
The treesits are physically preventing the trees from being cut. The sit does no damage to the trees as the platforms are being held up with ropes, and are not supported by brances, but the trunk itself (which is capable of holding thousands of pounds of extra weight). Maybe you dont understand the concept of a treesit, but the point is to prevent them from being CUT DOWN. Thats right, the minimal damage you (unfoundedly) claim is doing to the trees is nothing compared to the trees being felled.
by (a)
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 12:49 PM
Youre the only one in this entire thread who has mentioned anything about police brutality. Though this is very obviously a clear example of excessive force, and speaks to the UCPD's violent history.
by m
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 1:09 PM
the tree sit is not only happening to save those trees...it's about so many other things, including many trees! 120 acres of forest
by ,,,,
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 4:48 PM
lokks like the 50's , those caryl chessman era looks of those cops...
by 1983 USC
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 7:44 PM
ultimately these sits might not save these trees from the chain saws. most of them in humboldt, oregon, washington and other places where sits have occurred never saved but a few trees. however, this has made the UC plans a public relations nightmare and raised the debate and gets people involved in the issues. same can be said for the northwest forest practices and treesits, the pigs have more resources, but they don't deal with the PR nightmare the administrators are having to deal with. there's a disconnect between admin and these low level so-called legal goons know as coppers.

someone oughta sue these cops. the humboldt sheriff's department learned that the hard way. non-violent protesters and pepper spray might cost the taxpayers a lot of money. attorneys fees attach to use of force when a jury awards a verdict in the protesters favor.

is tired of cops reaching for their OC and being lazy and not dialogging and taking on extracting punishment flippantly.

put that in your pipe and smoke. HA! la luchue sigue!
by Unaccountable Police Force
Sunday Jan 13th, 2008 11:04 PM
Jim Burns and Carolyn Lagattuta feel that it is important to provide the UCSC community with timely information regarding the 'BioMedical Facility Protest'. Ask them why UCSC students were pepper sprayed in the face by two UC police officers. Ask them if it is safe to wear black clothing at UCSC. Officer Lunnen said that he pepper sprayed the students under the tree because they were trespassing, however they were in fact not trespassing.

UCSC students are not trespassing when they are walking around their own campus (right next to the library) on a Saturday afternoon. Officers Lunnen and Larsom knew they were not trespassing. They did not ask to see anyone's student ID. Attacking students with pepper spray is excessive force for what UCSC spokesman Jim Burns calls, "enforcing the law and campus regulations."

"To the extent that we catch people who are aiding and abetting these people, ... there will be consequences."
- Jim Burns, UCSC spokesman

There will be excessive force by the UC police, emails to the 'UCSC community' by Carolyn Lagattuta in the Public DisInformation Office and Sentinel articles packed with quotes UCSC spokesman Jim Burns.

Do you want to send your child or your money to a school where the police will pepper spray your daughter (or son) if she decides to bring some snacks to her friend in a tree? If you graduated from UCSC in the 70s, 80s, 90s or more recently, do you want your alma mater remembered for it's reactionary and largely unaccountable police force? Demand an end to the misinformation from UCSC. Ask for the truth about the police and their excessive force. Respect the right of students to protest against UCSC.

CONTACT THESE PEOPLE
Jim Burns = Director, Public Information Office = 831-459-2495 = jrburns [at] ucsc.edu
Carolyn Lagattuta = Public Information Assistant = 831-459-2495 = clagattu [at] ucsc.edu

CONTACT ALL THESE PEOPLE!
Vice Chancellor's Office, Alumni Relations, UC Santa Cruz Foundation, Annual Fund & Colleges, Stewardship & Development Communications, Corporate & Foundation Relations, Planned Giving, Student Affairs, Government & Community Relations, Public Affairs, Public Information Office, Publications, Resource Planning & Management.
http://urelations.ucsc.edu/staff.html

Send them this article and tell them that you withdraw all your support from UCSC when you see their intolerance towards students who speak out against the financial interests of the UC Board of Regents.

Police Officers Pepper Spray People on Science Hill
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/12/18472029.php
by anarchista
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 12:08 AM
I hate to be the one to always bring this up, but people need to think more about tactics involving actions such as these. The Black Bloc tactic is great for big marches and conventions and the likes, but it seems like just trying to bring food up to some tree sitters would be much easier to accomplish using stealth rather than a black bloc, especially if you're not willing to get physical with the cops at all. The whole point of being in a black bloc is so you can be anonymous within a big mass and do what needs to get done without revealing your identity. Having less than a dozen people in the middle of the forest do a black bloc is rather silly and a big tactical mistake. Think about how you're going to out-do the cops, because they have large amounts of training with how they are going to deal with you (batons, pepper spray, and hand cuffs). Either be ready to out maneuver them or defend yourself against them. Hope this helps, best of luck with the struggle.

"Sorry for the inconvenience, but this is revolution"
-Subcomandante Marcos
by nr5667
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 1:31 AM
"I am concerned about UCSC hiring officers how are heavy handed, and show little restraint. These photos illustrate the cavalier actions made by Officer Lunnen. I hope UCSC will evaluate his actions a little more closely."

Are you kidding me? This is why no one takes Santa Cruz hippies seriously...

People on this forum seem to have difficulty understanding the laws, and the applications of said laws -- apparently police aren't allowed to enforce laws, according to the logic of this contributor.

They were trespassing, they refused to disperse (that is, refused to follow the law), and so the law was enforced. If you don't want to get peppered sprayed, simply obey the law, it really is that simple!
by (a)
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 9:42 AM
At UCSC, it is not tresspassing for either students, faculty, or community members to be on campus (or at the site of the treesit) until 8pm, 7 days a week. They were not breaking the law. It is also not illegal to bring food to the tree sitters.
Perhaps you trolls who are so concerned with the law should be concerned with the police trampling the rights of your fellow citizens and illegally dispersing a crowd that was legally allowed to be there.
by nr5668
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 12:09 PM
Don't feed the trolls.

nr5667 has a predictably contrary opinion to most things posted on Indybay, considering he is a young, eager beaver wannabe law enforcement who currently works at an airport rent-a-cop.
by Jerry Andrews
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 12:59 PM
To: Jim Burns, Director, Public Information Office

Dear Jim,

Why did UC police pepper spray students at UCSC on Saturday trying to get food to the tree-sit? My understanding is that the group of people were unarmed, and that the police were unprovoked and issued no warnings. The only excuse I've heard is that the students were masked to protect their identity and were supporting what the administration (but not the courts) consider an illegal protest.

Is this a new UC policy that anyone who tries to help kids up in the trees is subject to pepper spray? Will the campus start pepper spraying and arresting anyone, faculty, staff, and students if they express support for the protest?

Is legitimate protest such a threat to this institution that UC police have to crack down with excessive force on dissent? I thought protest was a long accepted UCSC tradition, or is that only when it is ineffective and not a threat to the UC status quo?

Numerous communiques from the Executive Vice Chancellor's office have linked the tree-sit protest to unrelated vandalism, unproven allegations, and un-based rumor.

As an alumnus, staff, and as a parent with children considering UCSC, I am outraged. The UC community demands an honest explanation. Enough of the lies, exaggeration, and innuendo.

Jerry Andrews

Cc:
Carolyn Christopherson, Executive Director, Alumni Relations
Jennifer Svihus, Associate Vice Chancellor, Development
Editor, City on a Hill Press
Don Miller, Editor, Santa Cruz Sentinel

--

Jerry R. Andrews
Programmer Analyst
Information and Technology Services
by comfort_bubble
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 4:04 PM
Perfect. So if somebody has opinions contrary to your own, they are not fit for Indymedia and people should just ignore them as they are a "troll"?
by nr5667
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 4:55 PM
"Don't feed the trolls.

nr5667 has a predictably contrary opinion to most things posted on Indybay, considering he is a young, eager beaver wannabe law enforcement who currently works at an airport rent-a-cop."

Negatory, good job on your google skills, however. I did work as an airport rent a cop (32 hours a week) to pay for college, but now that law school is on the horizon no more -- just a lot of student loans.

However, my views are predictably contrary because my views are predictably logical. It speaks more about the self absorbed and reality challanged individuals up at UCSC that they would view this as police brutality... They could be pursuing a worth while cause, but that might actually involve work, and wouldn't allow them to think of themselves as martyrs. I (and most people) find these statements to be silly because there really is police brutality out there -- this is just like PETA comparing a slaughterhouse to the holocaust.

With all the problems in the world... They latch onto a few trees because they don't want a science facility built that will probably do important research.
by 2007
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 5:25 PM

The main problem I have with the tree-sit is that for the proceeding two years there was meetings upon meetings discussing and changing the LRDP. Often these meetings were not attended, but for the very few students mainly bring concerns about why certain parts of the campus were not expanding enough. My question is where were you (tree sitting students/student allies) all then? You claim democracy at every turn but then turn to the violence when you disagree?
by Lying, or hiding?
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 5:36 PM
There is no UCSC employee by the name of Jerry Andrews in any phone book or staff list.
by JA
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 5:57 PM
is choosing to protect her or his identity here on indybay. Be assured Jerry used her real name in the original letters. Sorry to disappoint.
by Nancy
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 6:14 PM
Jim and I are very proud of UCSC's Police Crowd Control Management Team and Police Emergency Response Team, respectively. UCSC's Police Crowd Control Management Team officers (Ava Snyder, Carl Breton, Mark Larson, Todd Lambaren, and Steve James) have provided exemplary Leadership and Direction to field officers when handling large crowds and demonstrations. UCSC's Police Emergency Response Team officers (Linda Robinson, Mark McDonald, Rich Guerrero, Steve Garcia, Scott Clark, Mike Kimura, Brian Cabriales, Doug Anderson, Brian Hughes, and Tony Contreras) are also distinguished for their Professionalism and Integrity when facing adverse situations and effectively dealing with those situations.
by Social Justice
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 6:29 PM
The discussion is regarding Officer Lunnen and his blatant excessive force. And, his nice work pepper spraying people who are by a tree, with masks. It is clear Officer Lunnen's standard is spray-have the students pay.
The guy is over the top.
by Seen them in action
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 6:35 PM

The protesters probably won't admit how lucky they are to be engaging your officers instead of many other departments.

The UCSC officers I've interacted with have always been professional and they've comported themselves in a manner that typifies the best of policing.

I find the frequently repeated complaints here on Indy-B that they are vicious, vengeful, and looking to get payback on the protesters to be laughable.

In the face of crowds outnumbering them by hundreds, with many in that crowd donning facemasks, overturning barricades, pushing and shoving...the police have always acted in the least physical way at their disposal, in my opinion. (I refer to the Regents Protest, the anti-recruiting protests, and the tree protests).

Did they tear gas the protesters? Yes.
Would any other police force have done the same? Yes......and likely a whole lot more.

Count yourselves lucky protesters. Odds are you'll meet a truly "bad cop" at some point in your protest life, and when you do, I hope you'll remember my words.
by Social Justice
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 6:49 PM
See the photos? This was a different situation the one you are talking about! Look at the photos!! Mr. Lunnen is not defending himself. He is walking up from behind, grabbing the persons shoulder and spraying him. I count four people in black and a lot of officers.
“Would any other police force have done the same?” Let’s see…..probably other UCSC Officers.
We are not fooled, Seen them in action.
by ha
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 7:16 PM
Use of OC by LEOs is abundant and is bad policy. Kids supplying food to people in trees. These cops don't like the tree-sits and are using it to justify to extract a lil vengeance on the kids. Did you know that one of the Humboldt Sheriff's had a hard on when he applied OC with a Q-Tip?

Those pigs are in the same class, getting their rocks off on young kids making a stand. There was no reason for the pigs to spray. And for those who might be near sided, watch out because OC is known to separate the retina from the back of the eye. Would hate to be the pig who causes someone to go blind because they were lazy in doing their job. Remember, the people pay their salaries and they choose to take these jobs. Being lazy is no excuse. And there is no excuse for using OC in the situation described by the pictures.

Bad policy decisions Mr LEO and there are some accountability lawyers out there who might just try and get you and your employer wth with attorneys fees. Oh yea, punitives aren't covered by insurance. All that it takes is a dollar award to get attorney fees in 1983 claims. Punitives are usually a bit more difficult.

One other thing, filing a complaint with UCSC's PD won't get ya any kind of accountability, but it does land in the officers personnel file. Comes up during pitchess motions for future defendants arrested by the pig and promotion time. Would also come up if there's enough complaints the IA looks into thing, though that's like have the wolf guard the hen house.

And for those who actually read this, yes I'm being disrespectful, but so are the pigs. Quick to draw the OC and lazy in their jobs, so I say Fuck em.

Now back to your regular programming.
by Earth Person
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 7:42 PM
They hurt people and get away with it.

They protect injustice, but they're just following orders.

They are injustice.

I don't like cops.
by Memory Lane
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 7:53 PM
It comes as no surprise to see a photo of Officer Lunnen being violent with a protester. This is the very same Officer Lunnen, who in 1996 was employed by the SCPD. On Oct. 16, 1996, while out on a lunch break, Lunnen strolled into the Mission St. McD's for a bite to eat. Little did he know, that at the very moment of his arrival, a group of animal rights activists was descending upon the same McD's for a rooftop banner drop, and lock down. Lunnen violently assaulted a young woman on the rooftop, slamming her head repeatedly into the building's ventilation system. She had to be escorted away from the scene in an ambulance. Later, another activist successfully locked down to the counter near the register. A photo of Lunnen assaulting the young man, ran on the front page of the SC Sentinel the next day.

by No Compromise
Monday Jan 14th, 2008 8:02 PM
More info from the McD's protest I referenced can be found here: http://www.nocompromise.org/news/mcdeath.html
by Dragon Lover
Tuesday Jan 15th, 2008 8:22 AM
In all of these incidents you people act like the police should do nothing when you are blatantly breaking the law. If you refuse to be arrested or cease your illegal actions they should just wlak away and leave you alone to trespass and/or destroy private property. Police are trained not to take risks so if you refuse to cease and desist I do not blame them for bringing and end to the situation in the most efficient manner while minimizing the risk to themselves. All too often you say well we were just doing this or that not really hurting anyone so what if we were breaking the law or inconviencing others as a justification for your actions. Can the police be a little heavy handed? Yes. Are you breaking the law? Yes. do you both bear responsibilty for the resulting mess? Oh hell yes.
by (a)
Tuesday Jan 15th, 2008 2:41 PM
As I clearly said earlier, it is not tresspassing for anyone (students, faculty, community members) to be on campus until 8pm. They were not tresspassing, and it is not illegal to be at the site of the treesit. They were not breaking the law.
by Robert Norse
Tuesday Jan 15th, 2008 2:42 PM
All these incidents are from 2002 when Officer Lunnen was on the SCPD. I've known Lunnen for 20 years now (first encountering him and writing about him when he removed the Xmas tree from the Homeless Protest Table during December 1989). Full disclosure: he also went out of his way at the time to find jobs for some of the homeless protesters.

James Nay letter to Metro Santa Cruz re: Cops tabling on Pacific Ave. in prohibited zone November 20, 2002
http://www.huffsantacruz.org/docs/James%20Nay%20letter%20to%20Metro%20Santa%20Cruz.html

SCPD Disturbs the Peace at http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/2345/index.php

SCPD Jails Homeless Activist for "Vandalism" chalking at http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2002-August/006622.html


I encourage folks to use the Public Records Act to get the "incident recalls" on tape from the 911 center to get more information on the Lunnen tasering incidents.
by Dragon Lover
Tuesday Jan 15th, 2008 3:30 PM
So if these people refuse to indentify themselves how are the police to know if they are students? Also the treesit is ILLEGAL! Supplying the treesitters is aiding and abeting an ILLEGAL act. The constitution says nothing about sitting in a tree being a protected act. The Supreme Court has said it is reasonable for entities to control the place and form of free speech activities.
by 14 people in black
Tuesday Jan 15th, 2008 3:33 PM
The first photo shows 2 officers approaching 14 individuals that can be seen; 14 people hiding their identities, erecting a facade to hide illegal activity. Not 4.

I said that any other police force would have responded in the same manner, if not more aggresively, and I stand by the statement.

You say "we are not fooled". I suspect that neither are you fooling the police.


by lalala
Tuesday Jan 15th, 2008 6:40 PM
There are certain laws (well all laws) that we should question and challenge! You know a lot of laws are created not out of the best interest of the masses, but to keep power and authority over them.

You have been trained to believe that all laws by our government are implemented to "protect" us and keep us "safe". Some laws are just trying to keep us oppressed and unable to think for ourselves and our best interest. Just to let you know :)
by lalala
Tuesday Jan 15th, 2008 6:47 PM
Are you serious??? You really think that law enforcement has the right to use PEPPER SPRAY to keep people from TRESPASSING????????????????

Pepper spray is supposed to be used when the police officer has used her or his best judgement to conclude that they are being physically threatened, and need to use it for defense. This is not DEFENSE. The use of pepper spray is a big mistake on their part, and definitely is classified as police brutality. I personally think that if someone tried to sue SCPD for this, something could come out of it. Meaning, the police officers could lose the case.

This kind of statement made shows how controlled people are. So submissive and willing to lose so many rights just in the name of "protection" and "security". We are turning into a bunch of working, money spending, controlled robots.
by pdog
Tuesday Jan 15th, 2008 8:28 PM
You've been watching too much Reno 911.
by Vendetta
Wednesday Jan 16th, 2008 12:05 AM
Sure would be nice to see what official California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) is, on the use of pepper spray. But the Cal DOJ, the academies, the police themselves all insist it's super-double-top-secret info not to be shared with the public.

When the police keep so many secrets from the public who pay their salaries, we call those SECRET POLICE. Many well-known countries have developed this cancer throughout history. Now America is suffering from it. The disease is almost always fatal to the health of a nation.
by Dragon Lover
Wednesday Jan 16th, 2008 8:28 AM
LaLa I agree there are many unjust laws on the books. However the method for changing them is by breaking them. Challenge them in court. If the challenge fails then try the folks who make the laws. If that fails just ignoring the law or blatantly breaking it is not acceptable if a civilization is to survive. As much as we would like to we cannot just pick and choose which laws we want to follow.
That said I think we can agree that there are plenty of folks who have drank the kool-aid on both sides (if you don't understand the reference I can explain later) and asked for seconds. Most inteligent folks will admit that somewhere between the folks who say cops should not exist at all and the ones who wonder why they don't always pepper spray first and ask questions later is an ideal situation where folks can function freely but still feel safe in the world.
by Dragon Lover
Wednesday Jan 16th, 2008 8:54 AM
I wonder if the protest against pepper spray is more effectiveness at shutting down a protest and less to do with the discomfort and pain it causes?
by Beavis
Wednesday Jan 16th, 2008 11:28 AM
Secret Police are those who wear no uniforms, have no names, and come in the middle of the night to take you away and torture you to your death. Your local police dept. does not fall into this category. You can debate what the CIA does, but the UCSC police aren't connected to them. Really. I'm not kidding. Seriously.

See real injustice and remember to keep your head on straight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo
by danielsan
Wednesday Jan 16th, 2008 1:01 PM
640_panel1_undercop.jpg
minimize and marginalize seems to be the mantra of the trolls re: the tree sit

the tree sitters have explicitly embarked on a path of direct action.

sitting in on notoriously rigged and far-from-transparent UC proceedings will end only after huge legal fees have been paid and the trees are, well, already gone.

no matter what anyone says in the comment section? this protest is working. you know why?

people know about the LRDP and are discussing tactics.

pushing people to consider their boundaries regarding legal and extralegal protest is a damn good result for a direct action when we're almost five years into two illegal wars...

oh and vandalism ain't violence, people. quit whining about a couple tagged bus-stops and slashed tires (and warm soup deliveries, for that matter) and get outraged about greedy UC administrators who raise their own salaries and student tuition in the same week.

wanna know why we cover our faces??
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/12/17/fotos.jpg
by RT
Wednesday Jan 16th, 2008 3:43 PM
A tale of someone who was arrested by UC Police without evidence of a crime and then harassed by police at her or his workplace.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/18/18467691.php

And this harassment has continued when this person shows up at the tree-sit space.
by Scott K.
Wednesday Jan 16th, 2008 4:24 PM
"Stop complaining about slashed tires?"

Boy, aren't you just the self-serving jerk here. So basically, as long as no one is physically hurt, it's okay to do whatever the hell you want to get your way? That's the most horrifically insane thing anyone has ever said on this already self-glorifying website. Not only is it a GRAVE disservice to yourself and to your entire cause to go about doing whatever the hell you want to get attention for your cause, but you are creating victims every time you do shit like that. Basically, you simply are disagreeing with someone, and your impulse out of disagreement is to slash people's tires, vandalize their property, and ruin their businesses (like the tree-cutting business was). That's not protest. That's what hoodlums and punk-ass 15 year old pseudo-anarchists do to rebel against their parents who want them home by 10:00 on school nights.

People have a right to have their belongings not destroyed by miscreants such as yourself. Merely disagreeing with another's viewpoint and disapproving of their actions (which, mind you, pose no physical threat to you or your physical belongings) is not grounds to do whatever the hell you want to their stuff in the name of "protest".
by Steve Stormoen
(sstormoen [at] napf.org) Wednesday Jan 16th, 2008 5:24 PM
To the commenter identifying herself as "Nancy",
I am assuming that you are UCSC Chief of Police Nancy Carroll. You may remember me -- you put handcuffs on my wrists a little over a year ago, in October of 2006 at a protest against the UC Regents' visit of UCSC. In fact, I'm fairly certain you would remember me because you felt familiar or comfortable enough to identify me on a first-name basis at another protest several months later. But that first protest, in October of '06, was the first documented use of pepper spray by campus police officers against student protesters in UCSC history, and, referencing an article from City on a Hill Press, it came at your recommendation.
Now, some 15 months later, pepper spray has been used three times. What I want to know, Nancy, is whether you would be able to look me in the eye -- someone who you've spoken to, who is not an anonymous protester to you, though I could have been at any point while I was a student -- look me in the eye and tell me that walking through UCSC carrying food and "looking suspicious" is grounds to use ordinance like pepper spray. You say you're proud of the job the UC police who respond to protests do, but would you be able to look me in the eye and not express shame and regret for the precedent you've helped set, using tactics of pain compliance and chemical ordinance against students, now not even in a protest setting or under the disguise of defensive tactics?

Steve Stormoen
sstormoen [at] napf.org
by Matt M.
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 5:52 PM
I'm currently lolling at the fact you guys just deleted my post. Good thing I'm copying and pasting this one. You aren't being pepper sprayed for trespassing, you're being pepper sprayed for aiding and abetting criminals. Plain and simple. If you don't disperse when asked, don't expect police to ask nicely a second time. Unlike the way your parents probably raised you, there are consequences in the real world for acting like a child.

and who exactly do you think put up that "GO HOME PROTESTERS" sign on the window of the humanities building?
Hint: it's not the administration. Everyone sees through your self serving motives and thinks you're all spoiled rotten children without even a finger in reality. Start bracing yourself for that rude awakening when you graduate, its gonna hurt.
by Matt M.
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 5:55 PM
*physical science building

(though i wouldn't be surprised to see one in the humanities building soon)
by WOW!
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 7:31 PM
Super Heroes!
http://indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/17/18473079.php
by nr5667
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 2:04 AM
"Pepper spray is supposed to be used when the police officer has used her or his best judgement to conclude that they are being physically threatened, and need to use it for defense. This is not DEFENSE. The use of pepper spray is a big mistake on their part, and definitely is classified as police brutality. I personally think that if someone tried to sue SCPD for this, something could come out of it. Meaning, the police officers could lose the case."

It was the UCPD. Every department formulates its own policy in the use of pepper spray. However, the use of force in this incident was justified, so the question then becomes what degree of force was justified?

You are also incorrect in your assumption that pepper spray is only supposed to be used in self defense (and even still, how would you define that?). Many departments authorize the use of pepper spray after use of verbal command fails to yield the desired response.

Think of the escalation of force with law enforcement like this : First they'll ask you , then they'll tell you, and finally they'll make you.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the police should do when some breaking the law refuses to follow the commands given by a police officer?
QB3 is the university institution behind the push for a 'biomedical sciences' building, and it's surprising that this has gone undiscussed - which is precisely what the university administration wants.

What is QB3?

"The California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3) is a cooperative effort between the state of California, the University of California campuses at Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz, and industry and venture capital partners.

QB3 fosters industry and venture capital partnerships by identifying potential opportunities for research collaborations and support, and by assisting faculty with intellectual property and technology transfer issues. QB3's Industrial Advisory Board, which includes industry and venture capital leaders, provides private sector perspective on QB3's role in the California economy and identifies emerging opportunities for new QB3 activities."

(contact: Ann Pace, pace [at] soe.ucsc.edu, 831-459-3501)

Essentially, what this program does is to allow private industry to use the university as their private research park - thanks to the Bayh-Dole patent laws that allow corporations to patent scientific discoveries generated with taxpayer funds. This has created a corporate culture in university research departments and in the administration, in which the open exchange of information has been replaced by a new focus on generating profitable patents.

The QB3 Industrial Advisory Group makes for some interesting reading: http://www.qb3.org/indusboard.htm - as does the SERVICES FOR FACULTY ENTREPRENEURS web page. In all cases, "industry partners" have exclusive rights to, or even sole ownership of, patents generated with public funds.

Who are UCSC's wannabe entrepreneurs? QB3 members at UCSC include:

Mark Akeson, Manuel Ares, Phillip Berman, Bin Chen, Phil Crews, David Deamer, David Draper, William Dunbar, David Feldheim, Tony Fink, Dietlind Gerloff, Grant Hartzog, David Haussler, Ted Holman, Fan Hsu, Richard Hughey, Michael Isaacson, Melissa Jurica, Kevin Karplus, Doug Kellogg, James Kent, David Kliger, Joe Konopelski, Wentai Liu, Scott Lokey, Todd Lowe, Glenn Millhauser, Harry Noller, Karen Ottemann, Raquel Prado, Seth Rubin, Holger Schmidt, William Scott, Bakthan Singaram, Donald Smith, Josh Stuart, William Sullivan, John Tamkun, Hongyun Wang, Manfred Warmuth, Fitnat Yildiz, Alan Zahler, Martha Zúñiga.

Nice deal - take home your cushy government salary, and use your position as a launching platform for your own private enterprises. Teaching students? Who has time for that when you're trying to start up a biotech business?

by Beavis
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 9:53 AM
If you are so concerned about privatization of UC, then write to your state and federal legislators and ask that they provide more funding for public education. I think the point has been made over and over again here, that you all are barking up the wrong tree. You pick on the locals because that is easier than starting a long term plan to change the way the system works. There are many progressive groups who could use help in achieving real change. But I guess it comes down to a choice between being a free-thinker or a mindless mercenary.
How much money would that save?

Furthermore, why should the State of California give millions of dollars to research programs that only benefit a tiny handful of politically connected companies?

What would entirely undercut the entire program is to get Congress to revoke Bayh-Dole patent law - but "the locals" are just as opposed to that as are the UC Regents. That's really the only way to get the corporate interests out of the public university system. Once they lose exclusive access to publicly-funded research and inventions, the large corporations will have to invest in their own private applied R&D programs - which should be good for everyone.

Why does that need to be done? The UC is slowly but steadily being transformed from a public research & education university into a corporate research park, thanks to patent laws - and there's a basic conflict on interest between "the free and open exchange of ideas and information" that the public university is built upon, and the need for businesses to keep trade secrets from the competition.

More and more graduate students are doing proprietary research that they can't discuss, for example. It's really nothing but wholesale corruption of basic academic principles - and "the locals" (the most prominent example being Prof. David Kliger, Executive Vice Chancellor, but he's certainly not alone) are just as responsible as the UC Regents, and are indeed working hand in hand with them to push their shady agenda.

More and more people recognize the problem:

"Critics such as Professor Gary Rhoades at the University of Arizona worry that schools cozying up to biotech and other industries will be ethically compromised in the pursuit of riches. A scientist with a corporate consulting deal might be less willing to publish research that could be useful to other scientists.

Moreover, schools with fewer resources than an MIT or a Stanford might copy their pricey biotech investments, then raise tuition to pay for them."

Isn't the UC system proposing a 10% increase in student tuition this year? Someone's gotta pay for QB3 and the campus expansion, right?
by Charles V
Monday Jan 21st, 2008 1:37 PM
I am open to evidence that privatization is happening at UCSC, but everything that's been presented so far doesn't pass a sniff test.

The prime recipients of QB3 funds at UCSC are the same people who saved the genome from being patented by Craig Venter, the same people who are adamantly opposed to gene patents, the same people who turn down the big bucks in order to stay in pure research and adhere to their principles. These researchers do not generate patents, they do not make products. They publish papers, they do the hard work that discovers new biology. There's no money to be made directly from their investigations, and even if there was, these investigators have already shown that they care more about pursuing the cause of public science rather than making a quick dollar.

The argument that allowing private donations are harmful to research always seemed a tenuous argument, but the slim thread that held it together is completely broken when you try to apply it to QB3. And really, I haven't seen any instances at all where this argument applies at UCSC, other than rumors that only Ike S. knows about, and based on postings like the QB3 one, I don't trust him to overcome his emotions and look at the truth of the data.

I do not take as a given that science should be allowed to expand at a whim, or that the university should either. But if these are the best arguments against building more lab space, I say go for the lab space. If I'm wrong on QB3, please prove me wrong!
by Ike S.
Monday Jan 21st, 2008 9:23 PM
Here is just one example of the type of deals that QB3 is sponsoring:

"ChondroGene Enters into a Broad Alliance with UCSF;
Canada NewsWire
August 10, 2005, Wednesday
FINANCIAL NEWS
TORONTO, Aug. 10

"ChondroGene Limited (TSX Venture: CDG) announced today that it has entered into an alliance with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). The alliance provides a framework for ChondroGene to enter into collaborations with UCSF scientific researchers and clinicians in applying the Sentinel Principle to new diagnostic and therapeutic uses in a range of diseases. The terms of the alliance will simplify and accelerate the execution of individual collaborations with specific investigators. In addition, the alliance framework details the intellectual property (IP) rights of new inventions stemming from any collaboration. ChondroGene will either own any IP solely or jointly, or in cases where the invention was solely developed by UCSF researchers, will have an option for an exclusive license.

UCSF is one of three University of California campuses associated with the California Institute of Quantitative Biomedical Research (QB3) whose mandate is to foster relationships between its affiliated institutions and industry partners in order to facilitate the transfer of science and research into products, techniques, and knowledge that can improve human health. Established in 2000, QB3 has been involved in facilitating a number of collaborations with industry. This is the first such relationship with a Canadian biotechnology company.

"This is exactly the type of arrangement that QB3 was established to facilitate. ChondroGene's Sentinel Principle is a powerful technology that can lead to better diagnostics and therapeutics resulting in improved healthcare," stated Dr. Regis Kelly, Executive Director of QB3. "This alliance between UCSF physicians and scientists and those of ChondroGene represents an exciting opportunity to realize QB3's fundamental mandate to improve human health."

Let's repeat that again: "ChondroGene will either own any IP (intellectual property) solely or jointly, or in cases where the invention was solely developed by UCSF researchers, will have an option for an exclusive license."

So, taxpayer's dollars are being used to generate proprietary patents for private industry - and that's just one example of a massive trend (UCSC Professor Phil Crew's deal with Novartis Venture Fund on the marine sponge-derived compounds is a very similar deal). That's privatization at the taxpayer's expense, isn't it? Or maybe you have some other explanation?

This agenda is being pushed by the very top levels of UCSC administration as well as by the UC Regents - and while some UC faculty may be opposed to it, they are powerless to prevent it from happening.

For a more complete review of the issue, see the SF Chronicle article: The promise and perils of tech transfer,
Universities mull industry partnerships, Mar 2007
by Charles V
Tuesday Jan 22nd, 2008 9:54 AM
Thanks for the reply, I realize that this thread aging and that few people read the comments down here. However, I'm at best befuddled by your post, and can't agree with your interpretation of this press release.

"ChondroGene will either own any IP (intellectual property) solely or jointly, or in cases where the invention was solely developed by UCSF researchers, will have an option for an exclusive license."

"Solely or jointly" is very clear and jumping from that to "taxpayer's dollars are being used to generate proprietary patents for private industry" is just plain false. First, UCSF is not just going to cede it's fair share of the IP rights, as evidenced by the "jointly" part of that clause. The article you link to in the SF Chronicle touches on that; researchers don't want to deal with the BS of IP, but the University has plenty of lawyers who do.

Second, it is doubtful that any new IP was generated by this agreement. Though the press release is the typical vapid corporate speak, I can only interpret it to mean that researchers are going to use company's unreleased products. Leading public researchers commonly collaborate with private industry in order to have extremely cheap (or free) access to new lab technologies that are still in development. This is not a zero-sum game, where any gain by the private side is a loss for the researchers, or any gain by the researchers is a loss for the private side, it's highly mutually beneficial. Researchers can launch a first-in-field study with much less time and cost while influencing the design decisions of a new product, and the industry side has a real-world proving ground for their new technology. It's very unusual for new products or patents to come out of a collaboration like that, as it's just the application of previously developed technology that will likely soon be sold to researchers. As for this particular press release, a young startup is going to want to tout to investors that it's products are going to be used at UCSF, and that it will benefit from the relationship, so they issue a very optimistic press release.

I don't know the details of the marine sponge/Novartis contract and am in general not very familiar with UCSC's Chemistry department, but are you suggesting that the UC has given up its IP rights to discoveries from public funds? That would undoubtedly be exactly what happens at most private universities, but the UC is different from private universities and claims joint rights to IP developed with its resources. Why would they give that up for Phil Crewes/Novartis when the university is strapped for money? If they did give up their joint IP rights, what did they get in exchange?

Getting back to QB3, I'm familiar with many to most of the researchers you listed, and none of them have a research program to develop products, none of them are funded by corporate money, and the few that have had collaborations with industry are of the sort I describe above. And if a "cushy government salary," is 20%-50% of the industry rate, I think it's time to reconsider the sacrifices we ask in the name of public service.
by sasquatchh2o
Tuesday Jan 22nd, 2008 7:27 PM
so if the officer using pepper spray is in so much danger, why does he look like he's dressed for beach patrol? even the kids in the trees know that they need to wear long sleeves and long pants, shoes, etc. to deal with trees, rw forest microclimate, potential scuffles, running through the woods, etc. maybe this officer should go back to oc or take some conflict resolution and safety training...then he won't feel so threatened and have to break out his pepper spray as soon as he sees some dirty kids exercising their constitutional rights of assembly and free speech.

by the way...must take some monkey-like climbing to not fall out of that 2nd growth...those spindly limbs do snap off pretty easy...be careful!
To clarify, the UC police department probably has guidelines similar to other departments regarding the use of pepper spray -- and the use of pepper spray is generally not limited to use when an officer is in physical danger -- rather it is to be used on those who are not complying with orders from an officer.

If an officer has to resort to physical force to ensure an individual complies, pepper spray will probably be one of the first choices because it is one of the safest choices... People can complain about it, but compared to previous methods it is preferable -- and if a person didn't want to get hurt in the first place, they should think twice about breaking the law... Regardless of whether or not you support the protestors' cause, they are breaking the law.
by Robert Norse
Wednesday Jan 23rd, 2008 9:00 AM
Perhaps "nr5667" (ever anonymous) can supply us with some stats documenting how Pepper Spraying is "one of the safer choices".

Simply citing police bibles does not reassure me and is about as objective as citing the military's touting of "pinpoint bombing" in Iraq.

We know the police use it to get the uncompliant to comply. The question is whether this is a form of torture (as a jury found in a case involving rubbing pepper spray in the eyeballs of protesters locked-down in an anti-logging protest in the last decade). If used in self-defense, it makes sense. If used to painfully enforce mindless obedience, it is yet another form of violence against the community in the hands of the unaccountable.
by nr5667
Wednesday Jan 23rd, 2008 11:51 AM
I'm simply thinking about the alternative... which would be a night stick -- I personally would rather be sprayed with pepper spray than beaten with a baton.

Mindless obedience? The individuals in question were breaking several laws at the time, and ignoring the commands given by the officers... As such, the use of force by the police was inevitable, it was a question of what kind of force.

You can call it police brutality, but the justice system will simply call it enforcing the law... Emphasis on force.

The sooner people realize that breaking the law has ramifications, perhaps the sooner they will realize that any time the police use force is not necessarily police brutality, it is simply them doing their job. Likewise, if you're going to break the law, and continue to break the law after the police have ordered you to cease and desist you have invited it upon yourselves.
by Innocent Until Proven Guilty in COURT
Wednesday Jan 23rd, 2008 1:17 PM
At UCSC, it is not trespassing for either students, faculty, or community members to be on campus (or at the site of the treesit) until 8pm, 7 days a week. They were not breaking the law. It is also not illegal to bring food to the tree sitters.

by nr5667
Wednesday Jan 23rd, 2008 2:42 PM
"It is also not illegal to bring food..."

Actually, it is. Aiding and abetting the commission of a crime.
by UC Pepper Spray
Wednesday Jan 23rd, 2008 2:54 PM
One of the officers proclaimed that the group was trespassing and then both officers began pepper spraying people in their faces.

Pepper spray in the face for "trespassing" on a Saturday afternoon at UC Santa Cruz.
by nr5667
Wednesday Jan 23rd, 2008 8:47 PM
What does the official report say? Were they sprayed for trespassing, or refusing to leave after being informed they were breaking the law?

What does the police report or the Santa Cruz Sentinel say about the incident?
by vincent
Wednesday Jan 23rd, 2008 9:39 PM
no shit, if chondrogene develops the technology, they get the IP. did you read where it said that if UCSF did the same they can claim IP rights? read the whole fucking sentence, jeez.

by Ike S.
Thursday Jan 24th, 2008 3:11 PM
Nice to see the University PR team in action - have any of you bothered to read Jennifer Washburn's University Inc. - the Corporate Corruption of Higher Education?

The undeniable fact is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between academic research and business R & D - trade secrets vs. the free and open exchange of ideas.

Lyseko was the famous Soviet geneticist who forced conformity with communist ideology in the Soviet research community - and what's going on at the UC today is corporate Lysenkoism - serve the corporate agenda spelled out by the UC Regents and their private equity associates, or find yourself a new job.
by Brenda
Thursday Jan 24th, 2008 6:06 PM
Hey Ike, do you have any facts to back that accusation up? Any concrete examples, with names and links to UCSC?
by Brent
Friday Jan 25th, 2008 2:41 AM
Did sasquatchh2o really imply that the police officers would perhaps feel less threatened by the protesters and would be less likely to use pepper spray if they wore long pants and warmer shirts?

Just...wow.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 332.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

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

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network