From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Santa Cruz Indymedia | Education & Student Activism | Police State & Prisons
Reflections on Kerr Hall (by student participants)
by Occupy CA (repost)
Sunday Dec 20th, 2009 11:22 PM
In the aftermath of the November occupation of Kerr Hall at UCSC there has been a storm of writing and discussion as both supporters and critics have rushed to represent the unprecedented events and imbue them with political meaning.
an amazing article from Anti-Capitalist Projects:

Reflections on Kerr Hall (by student participants)

In the aftermath of the November occupation of Kerr Hall at UCSC there has been a storm of writing and discussion as both supporters and critics have rushed to represent the unprecedented events and imbue them with political meaning. The administration said what everyone knew it would say – that the participants went beyond the bounds of civil protest, that they deprived the university community of its rights, et cetera. We are neither surprised by nor interested in their rhetoric. More important to us have been the conversations developing within the movement itself, some of which we fear threaten to distort the real content of the occupation and drain it of its radical potential. As participants in the Kerr Hall events we want to set the record straight about a few misconceptions and also challenge a particular kind of political logic that has surfaced from some quarters.

First of all, we have witnessed over the last several weeks an effort on the part of some to cast the student occupiers as frightened victims of administrative terror. We have heard more than a few descriptions of events that – whether out of ignorance or political utility, we cannot be sure – describe students erecting barricades fearfully and desperately as riot police arrived. Not only is this factually inaccurate, it misrepresents the basic dynamic inside the occupation. It was a collective, preemptive decision by the occupiers to barricade the doors, not a fearful reaction to the imminent threat of police violence.


When negotiations with the university broke down, we had a number of discussions about how to respond, and ended up deciding to defend the occupation physically. We had taken over the administrative headquarters of the university; we knew the administration could not let us stay. When we made the decision to remain, we accepted the inevitability of police force being used to evacuate us – because when people occupy property that does not belong to them, and when they refuse to leave, they will eventually be forcibly removed by the state. Students put up barricades not in a last-minute panic as news spread that riot police were approaching, but because we made an assessment of the balance of forces and decided it was strategic to put up a fight. Though we recognized there was a good chance we would get arrested, we decided it was essential to demonstrate our unwillingness to give up control of administrative headquarters after the administration failed to grant any of our demands. We also calculated that we had enough support outside that our escalation tactic could potentially pay off.

The point is that there was nothing out of the ordinary or irrational about the way the administration or the police acted on that day. Administrators acted like administrators, and police acted like police. Anyone who was surprised or appalled by their actions seems to us naive in their understanding of the dynamics of power and resistance. The truth is that there was no “peaceful resolution” to the occupation, because the occupiers refused to allow it. It was not the administration’s fault that the police were called. The outcome was forced by the students themselves.

The conflicting interpretations of the occupation that have surfaced in the last week raise deeper questions about the way we understand and represent the emerging student-worker movement. Why do so many of the occupation’s defenders choose to frame the action using the discourse of non-violence, martyrdom, and moral purity? Why do they present the students as victims? From our experience anger and aggression characterized the mood of students more than fear and pacifism. This type of rhetoric is seductive in the short term because it has the power to keep more moderate supporters from feeling alienated by the movement. However in the long run it is a major obstacle to be overcome, because movements for radical change are not actually won by moral suasion. In a recent piece by George Ciccariello-Maher about the occupation of Wheeler Hall at Berkeley, he interviews a student, Ali Tonak, who participated in the day’s events. Tonak criticized the misguided attempts of some faculty members to quell the crowd’s rage when police forced their way into the building, commenting that “They have a warped understanding of how power works. They think that calming people outside was keeping the people inside safe, when it was really the opposite: the only thing that was keeping the folks inside safe was people being rowdy outside.”

Ciccariello-Maher develops the analysis further, commenting that “the final police and administration response–that of opting to let the occupiers walk out of Wheeler of their own accord–tells us just how powerful our collective presence was on that day. There can be no doubt that every single occupier would have been arrested, likely beaten and abused to some degree, and hit with the trumped-up felony charges, had the crowd not been assembled outside. And this was not merely because the crowd was bearing witness to injustice or expressing its verbal non-consent. It was not moderation and negotiation that created and sustained this pivotal moment and generated its outcome: it was the unmistakable show of force that the students gathered represented, a force that was not merely symbolic.”

Indeed, not symbolic but material. According to one participant in the Wheeler occupation, the police were threatening the occupiers with ‘felonies and beat-downs’ if they did not open the doors voluntarily. Of course, they did not open the doors voluntarily, and the principal factor precluding such asymmetrical violence was precisely the fact that the police were physically surrounded. The crowd did not disperse when met with a police charge, despite the injuries suffered. Rather, many people stood their ground and fought back, leaving the police with the only option of forcibly removing a thousand people if they were to arrest the occupiers. Faced with a potential situation they could not handle, the police had no choice but to simply cite and release the occupants of Wheeler.

In Santa Cruz, a similar crowd dynamic would likely have been necessary if it were not for the injury of faculty member Mark Anderson. It was not due to the peaceful chants of the small crowd that the occupiers of Kerr Hall were released with no charge. If it wasn’t for the immediate accidental injury of the faculty member, which made the police look brazen and overly-forceful at a key early moment, then the occupiers could have faced serious charges and injuries. Defeating such consequences would have been possible only by forcibly securing a defended perimeter around Kerr Hall.

The dynamics outside of Kerr Hall were most of all a result of the administration’s decision to send riot police at 6am Sunday morning, after threatening occupiers with police intervention for the duration of the night. Their calculation that sleepless occupiers and exhausted, dwindling supporters would present the least effective resistance and exit most passively was the sole reason for the timing of their action and it should be noted that such a diffusive end to the occupation would not have been possible at any other time.

In order to understand what happened that morning we must also consider the role played by some of the faculty members present, in particular the attempt made by some professors to negotiate a resolution to the occupation.  Professor Bettina Aptheker, for instance, communicated directly with both EVC Kliger and students inside Kerr Hall in an effort to persuade students to leave before the police were called. She described her efforts to the Santa Cruz Sentinel: “I told Kliger, ‘If you give me another five minutes I think I could get the door open.’  And he said, ‘I don’t have five minutes.’” ” The Sentinel and others have characterized Aptheker as negotiating on students’ behalf, but we would like to point out the logical absurdity of that statement. Let’s think about it for a second: Aptheker was negotiating on behalf of students to convince students to leave before the police arrived? If she was really acting on behalf of the students inside, why was she desperately trying to buy more time so that she could convince us to leave? And why was she unable to do so? Because we had made a collective decision to leave on our own terms, when we were ready. Aptheker was never given permission by us to negotiate with Kliger. If we were to give her any kind of authority to do this, we would have asked her to help win demands, not to convince him to let us leave – when the whole point of setting up barricades after negotiations broke down was to demonstrate that we weren’t going anywhere!

Clearly Aptheker was not acting on behalf of students but as a representative of certain faculty members who thought the occupation had reached its limit and that it was time for students to leave. These faculty members asserted their own political goals outside Kerr Hall by demanding a clean-up outside and inside the building, regardless of student aims. With “Faculty Observer” signs duct taped to their shirts and strung around their necks they immediately attempted to take control of the situation. One faculty member, without discussing her reasoning with students and supporters gathered outside, enforced a no-smoking zone near the building by telling students that they would “lose the faculty” if they did not obey. Some faculty took it upon themselves to contact students inside via cell phone and encourage them to leave.

When police arrived some of these faculty members took up a policing role themselves. Students who reacted to the riot police in anger, who wanted to demonstrate collective power and antagonism toward the authorities, were instructed to remain “peaceful.” Students who used swear words against the police were reprimanded and those who broke the police tape that cops had strung around the building to keep the crowd away were told to back away and observe the line.

While we do not doubt that these faculty members acted out of a desire to protect the students inside, we question the sense of authority and paternalism that guided their behavior. They clearly felt they had either a right or a responsibility to manage the situation as they saw fit. Faculty acted as though those of us inside were not aware of the possible consequences of our actions or were too naive to think them through.  In reality we had already spent hours discussing every aspect of police and university repercussions and made our decision together, as informed adults. Real solidarity would have meant supporting our collective decision and joining the crowd outside as participants rather than “observers.” Instead their mode of interaction undermined student autonomy and collective power.

It is clear that the unprecedented events of the last several weeks – occupations, blockades, strikes, sit-ins, and demonstrations across the University of California system – were generated almost entirely by student and student-worker initiative. Therefore we must make it clear to all faculty members who attempt to assert their authority over our actions that they should follow our lead, rather than the other way around. As we experiment with new political forms we will make our own decisions about tactics and strategy and cannot accept their recommendations as sacred. We welcome their genuine participation and support but we will not allow the teacher-student relationship that we experience in the classroom to characterize our interactions in this movement.

This also means we must say goodbye to the sanitized and pacified version of the sixties that has been surfacing at recent actions and events. The spectre of the sixties – its political symbols, modes of discourse, and cultural forms – is part of the mechanism by which the older generation seeks to maintain its authority over the movement emerging now. More than a few times we heard faculty members telling students, “Don’t link arms when the police arrive because it will antagonize them. Trust us, we did this in the sixties.” Every time these words were used in the context of persuading students to follow pacifist principles. And some students themselves embraced the climate of political nostalgia, choosing songs and chants from the era and flashing the peace sign. Our point here is not to trash the movements of the past but to caution against condemning ourselves to repeat the gestures of a bygone era, against letting the political weight of a particular set of symbols and messages be used to discourage us from generating our own ways of thinking and acting. The world has changed and a new generation will develop its own political forms. While history offers up many lessons that we may find useful, ultimately the present must be made anew.

Finally we must address the issue of property damage, which has proven so controversial in the wake of the occupation. As the administration and local news outlets broadcast inflated figures relating to clean-up costs, many have rushed to defend the occupiers by denying the fact that damage occurred or by characterizing it as unavoidable and minimal. In one sense these statements are generally accurate. Based on our experience it is correct to say that the majority of students inside the occupation had no desire to deliberately cause damage to the administration building.

However, while we appreciate these expressions of support and recognize their tactical utility in the midst of a smear campaign, we again fear that they overlook an important aspect of the political content of occupation. For we witnessed something else as well, something that seems not incidental but central to the experience of occupation itself: we watched the sheer glee with which students took over the headquarters of the university adminstration and made it our space. We ate food, listened to loud music, smoked cigarettes, wrote messages on every available surface, spread our belongings everywhere and used the Chancellor’s conference room as a screening center to watch the news coverage of the day’s events as well as footage from similar movements all over the world.  We took back university property in a way that was much more than symbolic and in the course of so doing we experienced directly the realization that the institutional spaces from which power emanates – which we are taught all our lives to treat with deference and respect – were merely ordinary physical places, filled with mundane objects. And the shared experience of messing up that space, of treating the property inside as valueless, created instant bonds between participants. It was also a moment of genuine – if temporary – expropriation, as we claimed the property of the authorities for our own collective use.

this is our uni

We wonder why the issue of mess and property damage has proven so controversial in the way the occupation has been portrayed. Obviously we live in a society obsessed with the sanctity of property rights; however, the extent to which the issue has raised objections even among leftists suggests that it again taps into conflicting ideas about the nature of the movement itself. The pacifist camp seems to find the very notion that the occupiers deliberately made a mess or damaged property distasteful if not scandalous. It seems that they believe that every action on the part of students has to be represented as a defensive act, forced by the administration. For them the students are obligated to constantly embody the moral high ground, and their tactics have to cause the least amount of damage, disruption, or controversy possible under the circumstances. Their response to critics is always the apologetic “We were left with no other choice. The administration forced us to take this drastic action.” With this reactive approach to political action there can be no effective way to go on the offensive, to analyze the existing scenario and traverse the political terrain as we see it, based on our own terms and initiative. We prefer to take responsibility for our own actions and plans instead of perpetually playing the victim.

Based on the criteria of the pacifists, deliberately careless treatment of private property seems like a liability, because in an immediate sense it was not necessary for the political success of the action. However, it sent an important message to administrators, namely that we had come to the point where we no longer felt intimidated by their authority.  We have observed that some of the recent actions at various campuses have been controlled relatively easily by administrators. A number of sit-ins were successfully de-escalated when an administrator was sent in to “talk with the students” about the budget and students, through force of habit, responded with deference. In situations where students refused to enter into a paternalistic dialogue with university representatives their efforts to disrupt university functions have been much more successful. More importantly, we initiated real, materialized disregard for administrative property that rippled through the minds of fellow students. Let’s not forget that the purpose of a movement is not just to enact a series of symbolic spectacles but to transform its participants, their relationship to one another and to the structures of authority that govern their lives. We submit that a lack of care for administrative property demonstrates not immaturity or irrationality but a very real sense of collective power and agency that is critically necessary if we are to sustain the courage necessary to continue to attack existing institutions.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

I am appalled to hear you brag about smoking cigarettes. The 1964 Surgeon General's Report revealing the terrible effects of smoking was issued long before you were born, and the scientific evidence has increased since then, so you cannot claim to be unaware of the horrors of the effects of smoking on yourselves and everyone around you. If you doubt smoking is a disaster, go to the nearest hospital's lung cancer and emphesyma ward and see the people hooked up for their remaining life to breathing machines via tubes as they wheeze away. Ask any doctor about the effects of smoking on increasing blood pressure as high blood pressure is a common problem in our frantic society. WHEN WILL YOU LEARN TO STOP SMOKING?

As to Bettina Aptheker's actions, they clearly come from her own terrible memories of what happened at Sproul Hall in 1964 during the Free Speech Movement, where the various police agencies, directed by then Democratic Governor Pat Brown (father of Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown) beat people up and threw them down the stone stairs. Once at the County Jail, they were beaten, including Bettina, and when serving their sentence, they were often raped, as was Bettina, when she was pregnant no less. Her 2006 autobiography, "Intimate Politics: How I Grew Up Red, Fought for Free Speech, and Became a Feminist Rebel" is available at and is a must read for all of you at UC Santa Cruz.

My advice to the faculty is to let the students do their protest without interference so they can only blame themselves instead of scapegoating the faculty for whatever occurs, as is clearly the intent with the above article on Aptheker's actions. That poor 65 year old woman has suffered all kinds of abuse as her autobiography describes, and I suggest you read it carefully before you say another nasty word about her. Just surviving the anti-Communist hysteria, perpetrated by righteous Americans who were and still are the overwhelming majority of university students, is enough trauma, which is in the memory of this writer. All the other horrors, including rapes, homophobia, isolation, defending Angela Davis (I see you did not dare attack UCSC Professor Angela Davis and lifelong friend of Aptheker as the scapegoating would have been too obvious), illegal abortion, government surveillance and much more are what this cat who lived 9 lives and is still standing tall survived.

As to all these occupations of buildings, they cannot stop the fee increases as they are just acts of desperation. I suggest you take your frustration to the workingclass and organize labor as only a general strike by labor to put an end to the profit motive that is the cause of this destruction of education will stop the fee increases. THE REVOLUTION HAS STARTED. ORGANIZE THE UNORGANIZED FOR A GENERAL STRIKE TO END THE PROFIT MOTIVE OF CAPITALISM.

Contrary to your very youthful fantasies, THE WORLD HAS NOT CHANGED ONE IOTA. Capitalism is still a bankrupt social order and must be abolished with all deliberate speed to save humanity and the planet and ONLY A LABOR MOVEMENT CAN DO THAT. And your smoking and anti-adult attitudes are some examples of how NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Just because you are UC students mostly from comfortable backgrounds does not mean you know anything. You are just kids and when you get done with school and start earning a living full time, you will see how very true that is. TRY LISTENING TO YOUR ELDERS AND AT THE VERY LEAST, STOP SMOKING. When you get done with that, AS SOON AS YOU CAN, DO LABOR ORGANIZING TO SAVE PUBLIC EDUCATION.
by Older Supporter
Monday Dec 21st, 2009 11:10 AM
I think the UCSC student activists were right to reject the advice of EX radicals like Prof. Bettina A. Obviously their goal was to accomplish what the Adm. wanted, abeit by more peaceful means , That is to end the occupation without Any of the demands being met. IE Unconditional surrender .
The student radicals of 1964 at UCB were right to reject the advice of their ex radical Profs , old Social democrats and ex stalinists who advised them to ''moderate '' their completly justified demands . Fortunely the FSM (probably including a younger and wiser Bettina ) told them what to do with their unsolicted advice .
As re the previous post that Bettina and her comrades were grossly abused by the police , What's news about that ? Cops acting like Cops ? ANY Social struggle faces that risk (0r far worst . ) Of course we should try to miminalize that risk by carefully planning our actions, considering what tactics to use or not . . But it will happen. Should we then suspend our efforts ?
Much has been made , usually correctly , of the dangers of '' Agent Provocateurs '' . They certainly have done a lot of harm to progressive struggles thruout history . But overall i think '' Agents Pacificers'' have done greater damage . Those who, perhaps very sincerely , perhaps not, have tried to tame , limit, and even derail struggles for justice.
To paraphase a song that Professor Bettina might dimly remember, Student activists don't need any ''Condescending Saviors''
by Will
Monday Dec 21st, 2009 11:36 AM
I think the issue with the property damage isn't about control and authority, it is mainly about hypocrisy. The occupation's main goal was to protest budget cuts where the main cause was the lack of money the university has. By causing property damage, UCSC must pay money (our tuition money) to clean up which only exasperates the problem. Unless the occupiers can foot the cleanup bill, I find the arguments on the mess and damage ring hallow.
by a student
Monday Dec 21st, 2009 2:09 PM
The problem with the budget is largely speaking not because the UC doesn't have enough money, but because it is spending the money that it does have on frivolous pursuits (ie, administrative salaries being raised, biomedical buildings at UCSC, new stadium instead of the memorial oak grove, etc).
The vicious male chauvinist contempt for a woman who has given and CONTINUES TO GIVE HER LIFE FOR THE STRUGGLE, namely Bettina Aptheker, is DISGUSTING AND REACTIONARY. Police brutality is neither legal nor acceptable AS ANY LAWYER WHO DEFENDS CIVIL LIBERTIES AND CIVIL RIGHTS WILL TELL YOU. One other horror Bettina experienced was incest from about age 3 to age 13, and somehow she managed to carry on and participate in the political struggle and become a professor of feminist studies. There was no such thing as feminist studies in the 1960s; women were expected to get married early, or at the very least, find a husband in college, get an "Mrs" degree and have children. Being an open lesbian was out of the question and getting advanced degrees was rare.

As to the Free Speech Movement of 1964, it did not accomplish much if anything, as it did not and could not solve the class issue of the University of California being basically a rich folks' finishing school, which it is now more than ever. Thus recalling some song of the 1960s does you no good. One lesson the students of the 1960s learned is that their parents were not so dumb after all. If they called them Condescending Saviors in the 1960s, they do not do so anymore.

You may criticize the faculty all you want but IT IS THE FACULTY AND THE OTHER UNIVERSITY WORKERS WHO HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THE FEE INCREASES BY GOING ON STRIKE which hopefully they will do on March 4. Students are simply the raw material and have no power. Your protest in unity with the striking labor force in September was heard loudly and clearly throughout the state, and you now need to support a statewide labor strike hopefully of all state workers, at least all state university workers, including the faculty, on March 4.

The faculty are right about not swearing at the police or anyone else. As to the police, it is best to fight fire with water, and the police have lots of fire power. It is best to say nothing to the police. After all, our struggle is not about fighting the police; it is about organizing labor for a general strike to put an end to the capitalist motive that is the cause of this privatization of the schools. As to swearing in general, the English language is too rich for that and you have too good an education to lower yourself to the level of the thug police. It is best to take the high road in all political struggles.

It is perfectly natural for any adult who is at least 20 years older than you to express concern for your personal safety and attempt to teach you the lessons of past struggles. It is not condescending; it is simply the reality of the human family of which we are all a part.

As to who leads, LABOR MUST LEAD ANY AND ALL STRUGGLE AS IT IS LABOR WHO CREATE ALL WEALTH AND ONLY LABOR CAN END THE PRIVATE PROFIT SYSTEM THAT IS CAPITALISM. Students must accept the leadership of labor, both faculty and all other university workers, as it is labor that has the power to decide our future.

Those of us who come from socialist families have met the participants of the struggles of the beginning of the 20th Century through today, learned of their hopes and disappointments and noted that no matter what, they NEVER STOPPED FIGHTING BECAUSE THEY TOOK CARE OF THEIR HEALTH. You may not realize your education dreams, but you can and must still have your health to carry on the struggle. THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO STOP SMOKING.

We are way past arguing about smoking. In San Francisco, in 1984, we abolished smoking in offices as by then there were enough buildings with sealed windows that sealed both the air and all smoke that it was urgently needed to ban smoking. Soon thereafter, smoking was banned in hospitals, all public buildings, prisons, and we won a Labor Code provision to ban smoking in restaurants and bars as their labor force was literally choking on the smoke.

It is easy to clean up the paper in our taxpayer-funded administration buildings; it will take months if not years to eliminate the noxious odor residue left by your poisonous cigarette smoke, an odor that is bad for the LABOR FORCE in those buildings, who maintain your school records. Think about that for a minute; the people who were most adversely affected by your smoking is not only you but your allies, LABOR!

Apparently, you did not have the visual photos provided to you in high school biology class of smoker's lungs contrasted with healthy lungs as we had in the 1960s, or you did not pay attention. Fortunately, we now have just about everything on the Internet. If these photos do not convince you to stop smoking immediately, go to your science library on campus or at your public library and do the research on smoking. Remember, SCIENCE MEANS KNOWLEDGE, and if you had the knowledge about the horrors of smoking, you could not smoke at all. Here are the websites:





(go to the bottom of the page)




Click on the word in the Diagnosis column to get the picture with explanation.

"One of the dangers of lung cancer is that it may metastasize and spread to other parts of the body. Below is graphical lung cancer picture of the spreading of lung cancer to the brain." Also, see the contrasting healthy/sick lung photos.
by =
Tuesday Dec 22nd, 2009 6:33 AM
California smoking bans are as follows (and this is not a complete list):
Statewide smoking ban: Since January 1, 1995, smoking has been banned in all enclosed workplaces in California and within 20 feet of such places, including restaurants and bars (bars were excluded until January 1, 1998), exempting only the following areas: workplaces with five or fewer employees (as long as all workers consent and persons under 18 are prohibited from the smoking area), 65% of the guest rooms of hotels/motels, lobby areas of hotels/motels designated for smoking (not to exceed 25% of the total lobby floor area or, if the lobby area is 2,000 square feet or less, not to exceed 50% of the total lobby floor area), meeting and banquet rooms except while food or beverage functions are taking place (including set-up, service, and clean-up activities or when the room is being used for exhibit activities), retail or wholesale tobacco shops and private smokers lounges (i.e. cigar bars), truck cabs/tractors if no nonsmoking employees are present, non-office warehouse facilities with more than 10,000 square feet of total floor space and 20 or fewer full-time employees working at the facility, theatrical production sites if smoking is an integral part of the story, medical research or treatment sites if smoking is integral to the research or treatment being conducted, private residences except homes licensed as family day care homes during the hours of operation and in those areas where children are present, patient smoking areas in long-term health care facilities, and employee breakrooms designated for smoking.[27] Additionally, effective January 1, 2008, smoking in a moving vehicle while in the presence of a minor (18 years or younger) is a misdemeanor; the charge is not serious enough to be pulled over, and only can be cited along with a stricter offense, such as a moving violation or traffic accident.[28][29] Local jurisdictions may regulate smoking more strictly than the state. Many California communities have established smoke-free registries for private residential apartment buildings, which range from complexes where smoking is entirely prohibited (whether inside private dwellings or outside) to those where certain sections of dwellings may be designated as smoking dwellings. Most California cities allow landlords to regulate smoking at will.
Belmont, October 9, 2007, banned in parks and other public places, as well as inside apartments and condominiums.[30]
Berkeley, March 26, 2008, banned on all commercially zoned sidewalks, and within 20 feet of a bus stop[31][32]
Beverly Hills, October 1, 2007, banned in all outdoor dining areas.[33]
Burbank, April, 2007, banned in most public places including Downtown Burbank, outdoor dining & shopping areas, parks, service lines and within 20 feet of all building entrances/exits.[34]
Calabasas, 2006, banned in all indoor and outdoor public places, except for a handful of scattered, designated outdoor smoking areas in town. Believed to be the strictest ban in the United States.[35]
El Cajon, August 14, 2007, banned on city streets, in outdoor patios in restaurants, and outside of the local shopping mall. Anyone caught smoking in public areas will faces a fine of up to $500. The city previously outlawed smoking in parks, and also requires businesses that sell tobacco products to obtain a city license.[36]
Glendale, October 7, 2008, banned smoking[37] in/on and within 20 feet from: all city property (except streets and sidewalks); city vehicles and public transportation vehicles; city public transit stations; places of employment; enclosed public places; non-enclosed public places; and common areas of multi-unit rental housing. Some of the areas where smoking is prohibited are authorized to have smoking-permitted areas, subject to regulations. Also, landlords in Glendale are required to provide disclosure to a prospective renter, prior to signing a lease, as to the location of possible sources of second-hand smoke, relative to the unit that they are renting.[citation needed]
Loma Linda, July 25, 2008 banned on all sidewalks, streets, common areas in shopping centers, bus stops, parks, restaurant patios, theaters, City Hall, and 80% of motel rooms and apartment units. Exempts the federally-controlled VA hospital grounds, and smoking in cars traveling in the city.[38]
Los Angeles, 2007, banned in all city parks.[citation needed]
Pasadena, October 27, 2008, banned smoking in certain outdoor areas, including shopping malls, unenclosed areas of bars and restaurants, swervice waiting lines (e.g. ATMs, bus stops, etc.) and within 20 feet from them, and within 20 feet of doorways, windows, or ventilation areas of enclosed places where smoking is banned.[39]
San Diego, July 11, 2006, banned smoking at all City of San Diego beaches and parks, including all beaches from La Jolla to Sunset Cliffs.[citation needed]
San Jose, October 2007, banned in all city parks.[citation needed]
San Luis Obispo, August 2, 1990, became the first city in the world to ban smoking in all public buildings.[40]
Santa Monica, 2006, banned smoking within 20 feet of entrances, exits or operable windows of a public building (such as City Hall and the courthouse), in local parks (including parking lots), on the Third Street Promenade, on local beaches and on the Santa Monica Pier (except within designated zones).[citation needed] City Council passed law that prohibits smoking in ALL common areas of a multi-family residential building including condominiums.[citation needed] Law went into effect February 26, 2009.[citation needed]

The San Francisco Health Code banning smoking in enclosed areas and sports stadiums as of 1994:

Information from the San Francisco Tobacco Free Project:

The 1984 smoking ban in San Francisco:

The 2008 ban on smoking in taxis in San Francisco:

The 2008 ban of selling tobacco in pharmacies in San Francisco:
by Anon
Sunday Dec 27th, 2009 9:53 AM
The reason why a large number of the protesters are so quick to disavow any intentional violence or mess-causing should be painfully obvious to you. It's the same reason why you had a few hundred people, or less than 1% of the student population at UCSC, turned out to support you. Most of the campus does not agree with the actions you took, and are even less likely to support you in the future if your violent and damaging. Yes, it's true, we don't want a fee hike. No, we don't think that protesting the way you did is a remotely effective way to do anything other than make a nuisance of yourselves.

You're right, it doesn't "demonstrate immaturity or irrationality". Instead it demonstrates a wildly flawed understanding of the views and values of the people who you NEED to support you, if you want any form of change to come out of your actions. UCSC's turn out for it's protests was far lower than the turn out for other similar events. It was, at that point in time, also by far the most radical of the protests. The connection should be obvious.

If you want people to support you, you need to take into account what they believe in. You may look down your noes at so called 'pacifist values' attempting to 'retain moderates support', but the fact is, if you don't have those supporters, you're nothing more than a group of angry people behaving like children. You're no better than FOX's Tea Party Protesters.
by andrew
Tuesday Dec 29th, 2009 1:14 AM
Its absolutely ridiculous that you refuse to take responsibility for the property damage. Protesting should be a peaceful act not a destructive act, whether your willing to admit it or not the damage did more bad than good. It make the protesters and movement appear irresponsible and raised fees due to the cost of broken computers and other damages. Protest all you want all you want, we all should be fighting the fee hikes, but in order to be taken seriously we must take responsibility for the negative effects mob mentality can create.
by They're eating their own
Tuesday Dec 29th, 2009 6:23 AM
Cannabalizing their own groups, pointing fingers at one another as not effective enough or not invested enough. To call Bettina a tool of the administration or an outdated relic simply shows the level of desperation and separation that this splinter element has descended to.

by Not Middle aged but middle generation activi
Tuesday Dec 29th, 2009 11:37 AM
I couldn't agree more with ''Older Supporter''. What in the world does the (alleged ) incest* that Prof Bettina experienced have to do with the wisdom (or lack thereof ) of the unsolicted advice that she gave the Kerr Hall occupiers ? She wasn't a tool of the UCSC adm. ? Maybe not in her own head she wasn't but by her own words she offered to assist them in persuading the students to leave without ANY CONCESSIONS WHATSOVER given by the UCSC honchos !
I am a Mid generation activist. No longer a student at 35 but one that may have to reenroll somewhere to acquire the job skills that this increasily exclusive capitalist job market demands . But these dramatic fee increases probably will prevent me from doing so . So i do have a personal stake in this .he
I applaud those students who have been carrying out the occupations .If they continue in 2010 please consider all well intentioned advice . But please consider the sources and their intentions.
* Many old comrades and family friends of BA (both male and female ) challenge her account of her father's incest .
* My objections to the Profs intervention has nothing to do with her age . I'm writing this on the computer of someone of her generation.