| By Annika - Dec 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Nothing like some hippie perseverence to warm the hearts of lefty activists: one year ago yesterday, Berkeley residents took to the trees to protest the university's plans to build a new sports facility on a site currently occupied by a grove of trees.
The tree-dwellers have vowed to stay in the trees until the university considers alternate sites for the new facility. The university has spent the past year in court trying to remove the protestors, and earlier this year erected a fence around the grove to discourage participants. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, UC Berkeley has spent an estimated $367,000 because of the protest.
Campus residents have mixed feelings about the tree-sit. John Searle, a UC Berkeley philosophy professor, called the protest a "parody" of 1960s student activism. "I think this is a ridiculous farce,” he said. “A small number of trees are involved."
Others are inspired by the campaign's staying power. "The university is trying to deny students and others the right to free political speech,” said Michael Rossman, a leader of the Free Speech Movement. "What the tree-sitters are doing is a form of political speech, a dramatic form, but it is a form of political speech and it ought to be protected."
I'm not convinced the protestors have a legal case, but their protest method has been incredibly effective at stalling university plans.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
I repeat: They own the property.
Do you believe in private property, or don't you?
And if you believe it's alright to violate the right of property because there are a few trees on it, why don't we enshrine that principle in law? The "We Can Fuck With Your Land If There Are Trees On It Act of 2007"?
I'm sorry, I know you're not exactly cheerleading for them, but equivocating like "I'm not convinced the protestors have a legal case, but their protest method has been incredibly effective at stalling university plans" isn't good enough. These guys need to be condemned in the strongest terms possible.
In my opinion, a lot of the costs were completely unnecessary (ie. the second fence). The one good thing that came out of this ordeal is that now the Oak Grove has so many lights that at night it's as bright as day. This means that students walking by at night no longer need to worry about tripping on the sidewalk.