Protest Turns to Ruckus at CSU Chancellor's Office; Hubbub Spills Over to OLB Encampment
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:26
Protesters break the front door of the CSU Office of the Chancellor. Photo credit.
8:00am | A protest organized by the ReFund California Coalition in response to (according to the group's Website) "[the] 200% increase in tuition for UC, CSU, and community college students since 2008, and now the looming $2.5 billion in additional cuts to education and public services, students, workers, and educators" became a full-blown ruckus earlier this afternoon, as protestors ejected from the CSU Board of Trustees meeting clash with police outside the Chancellor's office, resulting in at least one broken glass door, police use of pepper spray, and one officer being injured, needing medical attention, according to CSU spokesperson Liz Chapin.
Many of the roughly 300 protestors eventually migrated to the Occupy Long Beach encampment at the corner of Pacific Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, where well over a dozen Long Beach Police Department officers monitored the scene, along with a police helicopter circling overhead.
Chief McDonnell, who also arrived at the scene, told the Long Beach Post that the police presence at the encampment was related to the ruckus at the Chancellor's Office and not to Occupy Long Beach.
However, some OLBers were involved in the earlier protest. And as is clear from the words of Jono Shaffer, a ReFund California Coalition spokesperson, the protests relate to the same overarching issues.
"Our original plan was to protest there and then march over here to Wells Fargo Tower, a symbolic home of one of the big Wall Street banks that crashed the economy," said Shaffer. "The reality is that students didn't crash the economy, the taxpayers of California didn't crash this economy; one group of individuals and entities is responsible, and it's the Wall Street banks. Nobody even disputes that. And yet, they keep letting them off the hook and forcing everybody else to pay. And that's just not sustainable. It's not a sustainable solution for an economy that's in trouble."
Shaffer said that several weeks ago the group had sent the CSU Board of Trustees a letter encouraging them "to adopt a pledge to fight for fair funding for public education by taxing the wealthy and closing the loopholes on big corporations, … to work with us to achieve that." Because the group received no reply, they chartered several buses to bring in participants "from all over the Southland: Irvine, San Diego, Riverside, UCLA, Occupy L.A., Occupy Long Beach … to influence them to vote [a proposed 9 percent tuition increase] down. Unfortunately, they chose to side with the 1 percent and not the 99 [percent]."
Shaffer said that while emotions were very high on the protestors' side, police "escalated the situation. They could have deescalated it."
OLBers Jonathan Allen reports being pepper-sprayed by an Officer Vargas, and video shot by CSU Long Beach's Daily 49er clearly shows police using pepper spray on the crowd.
A good education is priceless . . . if they truly know what they want to learn, and want it with as much passion as they show here, they should go sell their cars, iPhones, iBooks, and iPads, and work part-time jobs and pay their own bills -- and then study as all of their tomorrows depended on it . . . and be glad they have the opportunity to learn and discover. I am saddened . . .
I'm assuming you went to school when, around 1970? In 1971-72, going to a UC cost $600 per year, and minimum wage was $2.00, meaning you could make about $4,160 a year, and pay $600, or 14% of your annual earnings, to get an education.
Now its going to cost students upward of $7,000 a year for school, and the minimum wage is $8.00, or $16,640 a year. This means students who are paying their way through school pay 42% of their yearly income to go to school.
I agree - a good education IS priceless, but you can't say that paying ones own way through school now is anything like it was 30 or 40 years ago.
Meanwhile, the Chancellor continues to get pay increases and lavish bonuses, and currently rakes in almost a half-million a year.
Source: http://www.calstate.edu/HRAdm/SalarySchedule/SalaryGrid.aspx?S1=1&F1=Chancellor&D1=0&Page=2&Recs=15
if you are majoring in education where the pay is lower and jobs less available-don't take on too much student debt. if you plan to work in healthcare- you'll have an easier time paying off your debt. remember, health care is the greater part of our GNP now. i guess we're a whole lot sicker than we used to be! my thoughts- let's be healthier, use less health care and make some other parts of the economy grow. and lower debt in general.
My kids had a better chance due to school loans and scholarships. My son could have had a full ride to most colleges, but chose to serve his country in the US Navy submarine service, and will now enjoy limited assistant to finish his education. In our family of six, we now have 4 MAs and another will earn hers soon, as she returns from serving in the Peace Corps -- and she will work her way through.
The difference is not only in the buying power of today's dollar, but in the tenacity of a generation that knows little of the level of sacrifice that my children have experienced as we traveled and served as overseas missionaries and in various ministry and corporate positions - as well as being self-employed for a time. My family recognizes that one must work for what one earns, whether in education or in vocation. Yes, things may be proporationaly more costly today, but the faucet of Uncle Sam's till flows with more funds today that I ever had available. But this can never excuse what these kids did today -- that is outright shameful. If one of them were my child, I would immediately cease any financial support.
(BTW - I place my name on my posts so all can see who is making these statements . . . I wish more people put their name on their posts)
You totally ignored the three fold increase in the relative cost of college over the last generation, as if it is nothing that should concern anyone. Given that food, rent, and just about everything else has also increased, your disdain for the struggles of working people - especially coming from a "christian" reverend who runs a homeless shleter, boggles the mind. I wonder, are your residents only homeless because of character flaws? Or might global economic trends have some impact? Whaddya think?
I cant begin to express how out of touch you are.
California is one of the hightest taxed states in the nation. However, our legislators have never met a social program they didn't want to fund. With that, monies are cut from other programs (higher education among them).
Frankly, I don't see this a Wall Street Bank issue (as the OLB folks would like to make it) but a legislative one. Go after the budget makers, not the messengers.
Hmmm . . . no, I don't think it would make any difference, and I think I would be wasting my time trying to discuss this with a nameless poster. I will just keep applying what I have learned to developing better services for homeless persons and making a positive impact on my community by giving instead of taking. Oh, and maybe stop responding to nameless posters . . . or maybe not ;-)
This sort of behavior will not win those who are protesting much in the way of mainstream community support.
As I say over and over again to those protesting government cuts, who have you voted for in the past decade or more to represent you and if it has always been the same person or party then you are as much a part of the problem as those protest against. Same goes with our local elected officials who do the circular endorsements to continue individual, party and ideological incumbency in Sacramento.
The local pols keep endorsing their friends and fellow party members and then complain when they get less money from Sacramento. The students and faculty and administrators complain that they get less and less money from Sacramento. Yet election after election after election they contribute, support and vote for the same individuals and policies.
You get what you deserve as a result of your continued actions. Zero sympathy from me for the tuition increases and forthcoming cuts to the budgets of these institutions in light of the $3 billion budget shortfall that is no surprise due to once again Sacramento's failure to accurately estimate revenues--a purposeful failure so they could pass their budgets without cutting their sacred cows.
Watch in the coming elections as Lowenthals, Garcia, Schipske, Gabelich, Neal, Andrews, O'Donnell, Johnson, TALB, city employee unions, City & State College Faculties donate and endorse the same people to get the same offices and then expect different results in the budgets.
What a shame that the violent, notoriously trigger-happy LBPD had to escalate this from a lawful protest to the uninhibited use of chemical weapons against citizens exercising their First Ammendment rights!
This sort of behavior will not win the LBPD much in the way of mainstream community support.
PS: The thing you and everyone else seems to be missing is that the police pepper sprayed the crowd first, as a way of crowd control. The "property damage" you refer to (by which I assume you mean the broken door) happened AFTER the macing, as protesters who, remember, had just been pepper sprayed in the eyes in close quarters, fell and tumbled against each other, ultimately resulting in someone tumbling through the glass door.
Oh, and I hear one of your officers got a little boo-boo from some broken glass. Give him my regards.
The banks took the money, end of story. California was robbed by Enron, and then by Lehman Brothers, and then by AIG, and then by Chase et al. Those of you who dont get this are living in a glass bubble.
And Rev Lewis, you remain clueless. Liesurely as in, you made a choice. Liesurely as in, you had the money. Liesurely as in, you came of age during a period of vast economic expansion, not rampant decline. Liesurely as in you didnt have to scramble to finish before your loans ran out, because you were already working full time! You make it sound like everyone should just have a salaried job, why dont they?
clueless
Jim : I think it is fantastic you graduated and paid for your education, however what you are failing to recognize is that your situation is not the same as the situation our young students find themselves in. You stated you graduated at 57, so similar to my parents, I assume you purchased your home when its cost was probably close to what cars now sell for.
This is about spending power, and the lack thereof that young students have. This is not about maturity, that is a generalization if I have ever seen one.
I too graduated from a private instituion. I graduated from Stanford with an undergraduate degree in Political Science. I then went on to achieve an MBA from Northwestern (Kellogg). Both these schools are top 3 by most rankings, yet my spending power is a fraction of what yours is.
This is not to imply that I selected a profession that does not pay well, I am actually in Private Equity, but my spending power when compared to someone of similar profile is far less.
Please look at the statistics. In fact, Business Week recently had a write up about it. Young Americans today work more hours per week, make less, and have far less spending power than their parents did.
Now try to understand the frustration.
According to most recent Census Bureau data, from 2005 â€' 2009, average US household wealth declined by 28%. This represents a loss of $27,000 per household. Currently, at least 62 million Americans, 20% of US households, have zero or negative net worth.
The officers involved here were not LBPD officers, they were CSU police officers.
Just as your attempts to insult Jim Lewis failed miserably, so also have your attempts in this regard.
Nice (and thoroughly ignorant) try though.
I suppose YOU believe that whatever cops do, we should submit to, or whatever happens next is our fault. You're probably one of those "small government" patriots who by "small government" means "let me keep all my profit in my business, and dont give any help to the poor" but certainly doesnt mean that "cops should be restrained" or, heaven forbid, resisted, when they use extra-legal force, which they did, or that citizens actually have a right to stand up to the police. No, for your, police misbehavior isnt "big government" it's either "an unfortuante tragedy that couldnt be avoided" or "entirely justified" or some such nonsense.
So when cops push, use pepper spray, and hit with clubs, no one calls them "violent", but when a few students push back with bare hands, they are "violent" and out of control.
NO, sorry - trying to stand your ground when being attacked by thugs in uniform isnt violence, it's FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY in action. Get a clue!
I stand corrected, they were indeed Cal State Police and not LBPD.
However, that does not change the fact that a member of the law enforcement used chemical weapons against students. The Cal State Police would have done better to exercise a bit of proportional response, instead of attacking a group who were fighting for the right to have their voices heard.
Also, When did I attempt to insult Jim Lewis? Based on what I know of him, I made an assumption about when he went to school that turned out to be incorrect. I believe in my original statement I said that I was "assuming". I'm not sure how that's insulting. Furthermore, I find the Reverend's holier-than-thou attitude to be insulting. Isn't it somewhere in the bible that one should "judge not, lest ye be judged"? The Good Reverend seems to be laying the judgment on these young students pretty thick, if you ask me.
And none of this makes my overarching point any less valid - that it costs 32% more now, proportional to income, to go to school than it did for our parents' generation. Yet all we hear from the older folks in positions of power is "oh, when I was your age, I worked and went to school and walked uphill both ways in the snow." Essentially we're being asked to "suck it up and take it", when none of you seem to have a clue what we're being asked to "take".
The realities of starting out as a young adult now are nothing like they were 20 or 30 years ago.
http://www.daily49er.com/news/students-clash-with-police-as-csu-raises-tuition-1.2672480
I'll dispute it.
No one was forced to take a bad loan. Banks didn't make anyone refinance in order to buy a new car or take a vacation. Yes, Jono, U.S. residents did this by free will and should take part in the blame. Banks did get a bail out, which I disagree with but some economist thought this would soften the blow to the economy. We will never know.
The CSU is State funded. The CSU did not raise tuition by choice; Jerry Brown and the legislature did with cuts to education. Oh, then he made college free for some non tax payers (illegals). Get off the streets and take your protests to the polls and replace the incumbents.
And Marc, the reality is that those who took out loans they couldnt afford are a small minority of Americans, while nearly ALL AMERICANS are suffering from the financial crisis. And that cannot be blamed on the borrowers.
It can, without doubt, be blamed on Wall St. Wall st KNEW the subprime bundles were WORHTLESS but they LIED and said they were AAA. That's fraud. It is this that caused global meltdown. Without the fraudalently sold bundles, the subprime defaults would have been a tiny blip on the global economic radar, not the catastrophe they were.
We in American actually ADMIRE the wall st pirates who got the money. It doesnt matter that they lied and destroyed the global economy; they were making a buck, so good for them!
The working people who mistakenly believed loan officers who said "you can afford this" and who failed to read the extremely complicated fine print that was INTENDED TO FOOL THEM ANYWAY - them we have only contempt for. Suckers. You might be honest, you might be hard working, but you're suckers because you got swindled. And the swindlers are - what? - heroic?
You people who blame honest but gullible homeowners for a global meltdown have ZERO understanding of economics and a DERANGED need to identify with the rich, whom you seem by nature incapable of criticizing. You are fools.
As to KJ: peaceful protests doesnt change anything? Come again?
How did women get the right to vote? Peaceful protest. How did African Americans end segregation? peaceful protest. Why did the vietnam war wind down, instead of ending with the nuking of hanoi? peaceful protest.
Vote? For who? Tweedle dee or tweedle dum? The party of big business, or the party of bigger business? THe party who starts wars? Or the party who doesnt stop them?
Voting is a joke. Protest is the ONLY thing that is left.
You people need to read a history book, seriously.
You seem outraged that the CSU officers resorted to less-than-lethal force. I personally think that with better planning that might have been prevented, however I am not at all outraged by it.
Under the circumstances the officers had a mission (to keep the peace and maintain order during the meeting) and the crowd outside the doors seemed entirely unwilling to cooperate.
Would you have preferred that they started shooting beanbag rounds or rubber bullets? Zapping people with tazers? Striking about with police batons?
Bottom line, the chemical agent worked and got the violent antagonists away from the door the police officers had apparently been instructed to secure.
Here's a novel idea: When given a lawful order by a police officer, how about complying and finding some other lawful way to make your voice heard? How about not pounding and beating on fragile glass doors and then trying to wrestle with police officers for control of them?
How about acting like courteous, respectful, and law-abiding adults rather than spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum?
I think peaceful protest can be an effective tactic, but it must be strategic to call forth public sympathies, and it must be long term and cumulative.
For example, ending segregation was the result of a complicated mixture of violent and non-violent tactics. Non-violence in the anti-segregation movement was successful because of a variety of things that accompanied it--to name a few, the gruesome images of Emmett Till, the murder of Viola Liuzo (a white woman fighting to end segregation), attack dogs chewing up the bodies of protesters, fire hoses being turned on protestors, the murder of Medgar Evers in his driveway, the bombings of Black churches, etc. Same with Vietnam and the Kent St. massacres, women being force fed in the suffrage movement, etc.
My point is that while peaceful protest may bring about change in future tuition rates, it would have unlikely changed the decision about tuition rates yesterday. And, because people are suffering and change is slow, frustration grows. When frustration grows, we see incidents like breaking glass. When people are included in the process, frustration has a higher chance of being lessened.
Look to the core of the problem. Money in politics, and the on going corruption. See the 60 minutes show about insider trading done by politicians. Any politician with a lot of special interests money needs a good examination. In the local area look to out of town donations for signs about whom is bought. Look to the canidates with the large amounts of corporate and union money. A part time city council run should not require the amount of money that it does. Local politics would be an area where concerned citizens could make a real difference.It's not all that hard if voters would take the time.
The kids whose parents are rich and paying for their education could not care less about a tuition hike. It is the ones already being crushed by student loans and looking at graduation in a few years with no job prospects due to an economy ruined by wealthy gamblers who lost - then got the government to empty its pockets bailing them out so they could stay rich. All while the government "leaders" made sure not to increase taxes on these wealthy folks who might want to contribute heavily to their campaigns. Yeah, this could make someone a bit angry.
http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2011/11/phantom-4-billion-haunts-the-budget/
Hopefully we can, however, agree that these student had a right to be outraged. They have a right to be outraged that they were kicked out of a meeting in which THEIR financial future was being determined by a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats.
What if, during the next election, police barred you from entering your polling place? What would you do to defend your right to participate in the decisions that directly effect your life?
I, personally, don't think that voting holds much water anymore, but I would think someone such as yourself, with a more classical view of government, would hold your right to vote very dear. Would you become aggressive to protect that right?
Outrage I get. Disrupting a public meeting to the degree that no business can be conducted, I do not. As mentioned, there are better and more effective ways to register one's complaints.
All these protesters managed to accomplish was to get tossed out of the room and then the building and then *rightly* denied re-entry.
And for what?
The vote was held anyway, and it did not go the way they wanted, did it?
Their violent and disruptive behavior hardly makes a whole lot of sense given that it ultimately did not help them achieve their aims.
I will not be barred from my polling place during the next election because I wont be screaming and pounding on doors and disrupting the business of the polling place while I am there. I will be conducting myself as a respectful and responsible citizen, quite unlike the CSU protesters in question.
You're skirting my point. Regardless of the protesters' behavior, both in and outside of the building, their point of view was not being taken into consideration. A decision was being made that directly effected each and every one of them where it hurts (in the wallet). No amount of patience and civility, and no amount of "kicking and screaming" was going to make those trustees say "you know what? I guess I don't really -need- a raise this year. Let's give the kids a break". No, that tuition hike was going to be levied come hell or high water. And, understandably, the students were enraged, and rightly so.
So again I ask: if you were being stonewalled, and barred from having a voice in decisions which would directly effect you, to what lengths would you go to make your voice heard?
I understand the students' frustration and anger. I simply disagree with the manner in which they chose to voice those in this particular case.
I have often felt I have been stone-walled by my government representatives, like when I wrote to my Congresspersons and asked them to not pass Obamacare, and like when I wrote to our Council and asked them to not enact that ever-so-foolish plastic bag ban.
In each case I was very frustrated and angry. In neither case did I intentionally and maliciously disrupt public meetings, or once rightly ejected, damage property and engage in physical altercations with police officers who were just trying to do their jobs.
In short, I did not throw a tantrum like some spoiled and petulant child. And neither should those protesters who were involved in this unfortunate incident.