One Year Anniversary Celebration at the UCSC Tree-Sit

Nice photos, nice perspective, crisp clear and forest-friendly.

I didn't realize that they are still up there.

Yeah the treesitters are still up there. The number of supporters have been declining the longer the treesit continues (compare images of the original march one year ago to the rally this week). It doesn't look like the treesitters have any specific plan other than to stay in the trees until the University forces them out. CLUE and the city council were able to negotiate and get a compromise out of the University. The treesitters refuse to meet with University officials and have therefore not affected the University's policies. With dwindling student support the treesit is becoming more and more irrelevant. If the police could pull off a safe extraction of the treesitters, I believe that a majority of students, faculty, staff and community members would support it. It might actually give the police the opportunity to redeem themselves from the violent end of tent university.

It is a bit depressing to see the treesit in its current form. The LRDP and the process that generates the LRDP needs to change. The treesit started as the vehicle to change how the LRDP was formed and would be formed in the future. The treesitters expanded their platform to include anti science stances and they try to link the University's current plans to Spanish colonialism. Mixing in random other causes that the student body does not support and making links to history that have little to no connection to the current action have eroded away the support from those with rational opposition to the LRDP. Just walking by the treesit, all you can see are the banners that the wind, rain, and sun have rendered twisted up and unreadable, as if nature itself has turned away from the cause. The current treesit is truly sad to see limping along, propped up by an increasingly insular and closed minded group.

Do you have more pictures showing how many people were there?

where are you getting the information that you speak of when you say that the treesit was intended to be the vehicle for addressing the way the lrdp was formed. the treesit is in fact merely one form of resistance to the lrdp as a whole and all that it stands for. the treesit went up to oppose the lrdp not the way that it was created and the way future policies will be created. it is true that the numbers of supporters for the treesit is declining but a quantitative assessment of support is not the correct measure of recording resistance. a qualitative assessment is necessary. when looking at other justice struggles it is a few people that ignite change. it takes many tactics, of which the treesit is just one, to bring about change. a dedicated group of just a few people are just as strong or even stronger than a mildly interested large populace. i am sure that most people would agree that the earth is being pushed to its limits and that we must do what we can to ensure the continuation of life on earth. but a few people have decided to start bringing about this change rather than just agreeing there needs to be some. just like any project that is sustained over long periods of time people move in and out of involvement. this project is no different. look at any resistance movement here at ucsc and see the dwindling numbers as time passes by. this is a matter of life on a college campus. people have tons of commitments and people are constantly entering and leaving the university. the lrdp has more implications than just environmental impact and the treesitters and those in support are not willing to excuse those other effects. maybe this is why they refuse to make compromises like the city did in exchange for money. the truth is that the treesit still has enormous support and that even if the actual treesit comes down, resistance to the lrdp will not stop.

Hey... what's the big deal?

The University needs a new $80 million biomedical building because, well, Sinsheimer is a bit old and dingy, and the chemists got a new building, so why should biomedical science? Biomedical science holds out the promise of some juicy patents - a new oxycontin knock-off, maybe, or perhaps a undetectable growth hormone mimic for the doper athletes? This is how the administration envisions funding the university in the future, and some of them might get rich too! That's the gloriousness of public-private partnerships for you.

Why do the large corporations like it? Well, it's a whole lot cheaper to get $80 million from state taxes and student tuition for your R&D department, isn't it? Why pay that out of your own pocket when the government will build it, staff it, and (in exchange for a royalty payment) give you control of the patents? You can then write off your own R&D department, and give yourself a million-dollar bonus. Again, this is the beauty of a public-private partnership - everyone wins! Everyone who matters, anyway.

Yes, the students get screwed over. They're stuck with 1950s-era organic chemistry labs down in the basement of Thimann - don't inhale deeply, the chemical hoods suck poorly. That's what your huge student loans and massive debt buys you - second rate treatment. In fact, all you are is a drain on the universities patent-generating activities - which is why the big research stars don't have to teach classes. Money talks, everyone else teaches... yes, that's the way the world works, so get used to it.

And now, the City and the local Environmental Organization have joined hands with the University to bless the affair - so, tree-sitters, it's just you versus the behemoth... time for a recruiting drive! Get your message a little more focused, and reach out to the students - the administration will tell you one thing and do the opposite, it's worse than bargaining with a basket of snakes. Tell the students the truth - they're being neglected in favor of corporate patent races - while their tuition goes up, their loans get fatter, and the hole of debt they're in gets deeper. Maybe that $80 million would be better spent on them?

Try writing a press release, or something.

Picking out oxycontin or athletic performance hormones as the only possible positives coming out of research shows your snarky cynicism.

Pitying the students their poor facilities, while the treesitters are the ones impeding their improvment, shows your stupidity.

How about a specific? Who are the last couple of UCSC admins. who've reaped millions in profit from partnership with private organizatons? You allude to it like it's common. Tell me specificallly who gave themself a million dollar bonus from their R&D money.

Here is who you want to contact: UCSC Office of Intellectual Property Management

Ask for a complete list of patents and licensees, and whether those licenses are exclusive or not. Then, ask for a list of all corporate-partnership research projects being carried out at UCSC. That'll make them real happy, and you won't get anywhere. Now, look up "Freedom of Information Act" and submit one of those. FOIA acts don't apply to private corporations, of course, and this is a "public-private partnership".

Second, the biomedical building is unlikely to do anything for students, if the new Chemistry building (which has zero student teaching labs) is any indication. The main backer is a consortium of financial institutions, university professors and private corporations called QB3. Their goal is to generate revenue by licensing patents.

Research into issues like the environmental causes of cancer, the possible problems with genetically modified foods, the fate of PCBs and organochlorines in the environment, etc. - that stuff just isn't profitable. After all, the University of California makes about 15 cents off every dose of bovine growth hormone sold - because the UC holds the patent. What if rGBH was banned? There goes that cash. There are numerous examples.

It's called "conflict of interest." It's why public-private partnerships between academics and private corporations are a bad idea. This is especially true when the relationships are not transparent - which is definitely the case at the UC. You should also be aware that the University of California is the #1 booster of this full-scale corporatization and privatization plan, with an MIT-led consortium being a close competitor. It's bad science and it also serves as a public subsidy for politically connected corporate interests - the ones who get their hands on the patents.

The mad rush to build a building for QB3 is just another example of the ongoing trend - the patents are all that matter. That fits with the lack of concern about the local Santa Cruz environment, or the quality of student education and life, doesn't it? They're closing down the UC extension program, aren't they? They don't have the cash - some $25 million - but they're going to build a $80 million corporate research park. That's the name of the game - wake up.

"it is true that the numbers of supporters for the treesit is declining but a quantitative assessment of support is not the correct measure of recording resistance. a qualitative assessment is necessary. when looking at other justice struggles it is a few people that ignite change."

or as the band manager replied to Rob Reiner when asked if Tap's appearances in clubs vs. large arenas indicated a decline in popularity: "No, it means our appeal has become more selective".

The new biomedical building does not need student teaching labs when students can internship and gain real hands on experience that is far better than any pointless lab class. I'm an undergraduate and I work in a lab in Sinsheimer. In just two years, I have learned more about science than I have in my entire life. Please don't spout all that crap about absence of students because it's just false.

Point being, the agenda is not to increase the quality of undergraduate experience. In fact, this is a central issue with the planned UCSC expansion, since bigger labs with more postdocs and grad student mean far fewer opportunities for students to work in professor's labs. The chances of a UC Berkeley undergrad getting to be involved in hands-on research are much lower than at UCSC, for example. The expansion is just a bad idea on multiple levels - they should simply build a campus extension in San Jose or Watsonville.

Second, why aren't they renovating Thimann instead? Answer: they're not interested in investing in student teaching labs, just in patent-generating research, period. That's the mentality of the administration.

Actually renovatting is much more expensive than you would think. Also Thimman is being converted to undergrad teaching labs and classrooms. Kind of ironic that your suggestion would lower the number of undergrad facilities. Also the fume hoods in Thimman all work properly and exhaust an adequate amount of air.

...This has all become part of the background noise in Santa Cruz. Until I read the full article, I couldn't honestly remember why the tree-sitting was taking place. Just for fun, I asked a co-worker. She couldn't remember, either.

Not a criticism. But this whole protest has basically become invisible. Old news. Less interesting than American Idol. The tree sitters need to pump it up somehow and connect with the university, or the demonstration will eventually shrivel and fall apart.

For the record, when you scoff at 'Corporate Media', take a look at Dana Priest (http://tinyurl.com/5veg2f). She's won two Pulitzer Prizes in three years, is a UCSC alumna, and also is a hero of mine. And she works for the Washington Post.

All I'm saying is that you should look and what the news reports, use your minds, and decide for yourself. It seems that 80% of the posts on IMC (at least the Santa Cruz section) are slanderous bunk and it's disappointing.

There plenty of open spaces on campus where this building could be built and not kill a single tree.

Let's hold a design party and show the regents a that we have identified a better site for this building.

There has been significant discussion about building in various locations on campus; the selected locations weren't selected in a vacuum or without lots of debate.

-The meadows are viewed as just as ecologically sensitive and important as are the woods. And, the buildings stand our more glaringly there.

-The out of sight canyons are important riparian corridors for wildlife movement on campus, so they're not good choices.


-There's been lots of back and forth about whether to spread the growth out or keep it focused on a core area, and the core area option has been embraced.

Well the location for the biomedical sciences building is currently being used as a parking lot. Yes some trees will be cut down in the process since that particular parking lot has some redwood trees in it. The University wanted the Science building to be next to other science buildings, and building on top of a parking lot sounds like a good idea instead of chopping down a new section of completely forested area.

The thing is that nobody who reads indymedia and agrees with its positions will ever go and talk to anyone in the administration. Treesitting should be a last resort, but you get someone spouting off a holier-than-tho rant about the capitalist system and you wind up with words like negotiation, compromise, and civil discourse dropping out of their lexicon. I don't understand how anyone can say "the University doesn't listen" when the only way that people attempt to communicate with the University is with expletives flung from a platform in a tree. Who has attempted a dialog with the University? Who did you attempt to contact before deciding that all communication was fruitless and that a treesit was necessary? Did you try for a whole day before giving up? A week? If I were to venture a guess I would say that a majority of the people associated with the treesit never attempted to contact anyone, and if they did they gave up in under 1 day. The thing is that changing the direction of a bureaucracy as large as UCSC takes work and dedication. The treesitters lack the determination and the work ethic to attempt a change from within, but they have the dedication to attempt to do something that has loosely defined goals and a low probability of success.

Oh and people saying that "now is the time to grow the movement" need to be realistic. The people sitting in the trees have just spent an entire year sitting in a tree NOT growing the movement. What makes you think that they will all of the sudden get off their asses and do some actual work to grow support to their cause. I will be very surprised if any of the treesitters accomplish anything greater than pee in a bucket in a tree tomorrow.

While walking around campus today something struck that I have not heard mentioned here before. Do any of realize just how many trees UCSC plants on campus? In the areas around the Great Meadow they are planting native Oaks. Palntings around buildings consist of native low water plants. Did any of you know that when UCSC cuts down a Redwood the standard procedure (when possible) is to transplant the stump to an area that needs reforesting. Seems like in spite of the expansion UCSC is being quite a good steward of the land and doing a much better job of caring for it than any commercial venture that might have ended up here.

let all be fine and well,
i am continually inspiredaby the dedication, committment, and perserverence of the treesitters/treehuggers in santa cruz. i wish you the best of possible outcomes, and protection for the forest we love so dear, may it live forever.

phoo, fooey, you have been hoodwinked. you cant replace a four hundred year old tree. are the trees they replace fruit and nut? are they native. greenwashing with invasives is not sustainable

And are you aware that none of the trees up there are 400 years old? Almost every tree on campus is new growth planted after the entire area had been logged years ago.

Check that one out.

let the trees mature! look what careless neglect one can have for life! these trees deserve to live a long and natural life! ahem......duh. maybe its time people thought about what the natural world enjoys.

hmmmm........ the washington post? ties together conservatives? and what about your messiah? reverend sun myung moon? and what about writers who cowtow to the cia? ah, the oft-forgotten murkier side of corporate conglomerations. if i had a million dollars.... if you had a million? i think you try to persuade the ignorant with ignorance

They are not planting fruit and niut trees because they are not native to this type or area. They are planting native trees, grasses and other plants. Haven't seen any invasives. Have you actually looked at what is planetd up here dandelion? And like the previous poster said there are damn few 400 year old trees up here. Most are 3rd or 4th growth about 100 years old. Cowell used to clear cut the trees to fire the lime kilns. UCSC has been a much better steward of the land than Cowell ever was.

You're getting the Washington Post mixed up with the Washington Times, the latter is owned by the Unification Church.