A Redbud-esque breed of tree-people has been plaguing the University of California at Berkley for the past year. The protest, which may well be the Longest-Running Urban Tree-Sit in the World, began in 2006 after the university announced plans to build an athletic facility that would destroy a grove of oak trees.
It’s a hard sell, even by Berkley standards.
The university has promised to plant three trees for every one destroyed, and the protestors’ claims that the site is host to an Indian burial ground, lies on an earthquake fault line AND is dedicated to WWI veterans, have all been debunked. Leaving what? Just the snuggly satisfaction of guarding tree spirits from the murderous glee of progress.
“People call us crazy monkey hippies,” one canopy-dwelling protestor told the San Francisco Chronicle, “but this is the greatest thing I’ve ever done.” That is a pity. But to each his own. Hayden Panettiere weeps for the dolphins. Sean Penn complains about U.S. policies over tea with Hugo Chavez. Me? I start tire fires and burn effigies of Karl Marx while dancing to Lee Greenwood’s “Proud to Be an American.”
Protest may be a matter of taste but the $367,000 worth of security, fencing and floodlights that Berkley has spent on ending the environmental demonstration isn’t helping out anyone’s carbon/water/ecological footprint.
But there are some things that are worth living in trees for. For example, when I heard about Barbara Krause’s parting-shot revisions to the Campus Code of Conduct, it made me want to drag a 70-foot Norwegian fir to the center of the Arts Quad and move in with 100 of my closest friends. This horse is not yet dead, so I will continue to beat it.
On Feb. 4, President Skorton released his review of the Krause Report and the responding revisions from the Codes and Judicial Committee of the University Assembly. The CJC report drew heavily from the input of concerned [read: outraged] community members like yourself, and focused on retaining the criminal-justice style rights of the accused.
Well and good, but how many of these recommendations will make the final cut?
In his introduction, President Skorton characterizes the Code as “overly encumbered with criminal-like protections for the accused.” How irksome. Instead of bothering with these procedural annoyances, the Krause Report outlines a paternalistic disciplinary system that has “a more educational focus.”
Skorton has accepted the CJC’s proposal to keep the Office of the Judicial Administrator independent — as opposed to Krause’s recommendation to incorporate it into the Dean of Students Office — but sides with Krause on the most important issues. The President’s recommendations are as follows:
Right to Remain Silent: You’re welcome to remain silent. Your case will just be decided without you based on the available evidence.
Right to Adviser/Attorney: You’d rather not stay silent then? Yes, you can have an adviser. They just can’t take part in the proceedings. No attorneys, unless you’ve been criminally charged outside of the University. No, your attorney can’t be part of the proceedings either.
Sufficiency of Evidence: This one’s still up in the air. The CJC wants to retain the standard of “clear and convincing” evidence. The Krause Report wants to use the “preponderance standard” in the interest of the “educational mission” (“There’s a good amount of evidence here and you have shifty eyes. Guilty.”). President Skorton writes that the “clear and convincing” standard requires further review. Bad news bears.
In my sophomore year I was, shame of shames, J.A.-ed. A C.U. police officer handed me a slip of paper that said I was in violation of Title Three, Article II, Section V of the Campus Code of Conduct. My BAC at the time was 0.00. I was pissed.
I looked up said “Title Three” to inspect the precise nature of my violation: It is a violation “To possess any alcoholic beverage by a person under 21 years of age with the intent to consume such beverage.” I wanted to be convinced of my own guilt before I submitted to any remedial measures, so I made an appointment with the J.A..
Even after my internet research, I was unsure if the J.A. was a student advocate, neutral party, or a prosecutor of sorts. To avoid incriminating myself I threw out elaborate hypothetical questions. Beer pong, as I suspected, is ”clear and convincing” evidence of intent to drink. “Well, we were going for a shutout. We had no intention of drinking.” Didn’t get me any laughs then, either.
But what if I were on some medication that made it impossible for me to consume alcohol? What if someone else was drinking for me? If that were the case, said the J.A., I could request a hearing. This was not the case. This was one of my hypotheticals. After a few more minutes of probing, I signed the admission of guilt because 1) I was guilty and 2) Even if I hadn’t been, the consequences of guilt seemed less annoying than proving innocence.
I paid the fine, I had my booze counseling, I wrote my response paper. Painless in the long-run, but mine was a low-stakes game. Even with all my Googling and Campus Code perusing, I was confused and wary enough in a one-on-one conversation in an office in Day Hall. I cannot imagine being required to represent myself in a hearing where much more is at stake than a one-page paper and a few hours of filling out computer surveys.
If I want to be “educated,” I’ll go to class. What I want from the Campus Code of Conduct is uniform proceedings that accord me the same rights and respect granted to adults outside of the University. A separate standard of justice only perpetuates the Cornell-as-alternate-universe tradition.
The revised Campus Code is scheduled to be reviewed and adopted by the Board of Trustees on May 23, and Ho Plaza seems to be a little short on activist crazies this semester. And the trees? The trees are waiting. Go to it.
Carolyn Byrne is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be contacted at cbyrne@cornellsun.com [1]. Byrne it Down will appear alternate Tuesdays this semester.
Links:
[1] mailto:cbyrne@cornellsun.com