[2 articles] UC Berkeley tree-sitters end their protest
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-trees10-2008sep10,0,4831440.story Four men come down from a redwood after reaching an agreement to end the long-running protest. Campus police Chief Victoria Harrison negotiated with them while dangling in a basket lifted by a crane. By Richard C. Paddock, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 10, 2008 BERKELEY -- Four tree-sitters who had hoped to save a grove of trees at UC Berkeley ended their long-running protest Tuesday and gave up their perch at the top of a 90-foot redwood after workers erected a scaffold to bring them down. The protesters surrendered to police at the top of the seven-story scaffold, where they were handcuffed and escorted down the structure's stairs to the applause of hundreds of onlookers, some of whom voiced support for the four men's cause and some of whom appeared happy that the 21-month protest was finally over. Hours later, the redwood was cut down, paving the way for construction of a $125-million athletic training facility on the site next to the campus' Memorial Stadium. "We are extremely pleased that this tree-sit has ended," said Vice Chancellor Nathan Brostrom. "Today's operation was brilliant both in the design and the execution." Protesters had occupied trees in the 1.5-acre grove since December 2006 in an effort to block the university's plans to build on the site. Over the course of the protest, hundreds of people spent time in the trees, some for days, some for months. Those involved argued that the trees, many of them 85-year-old oaks, should be preserved because the grove was one of the few natural areas on the campus. After a state appeals court ruled Thursday that construction could go forward, the university moved quickly to cut down more than 40 trees, isolating the four remaining tree-sitters in the redwood. On Tuesday morning, a company hired by the university began erecting the scaffold and by early afternoon it had reached the tree-sitters' platform about 70 feet off the ground. The four men then climbed even higher on the tree as workers and campus police dismantled the platform and threw the men's bedding and other possessions to the ground. Meanwhile, UC Berkeley Police Chief Victoria Harrison rode up in a basket suspended from a crane to speak with the men. Harrison said later that she had encouraged them to end their protest peacefully and walk down the scaffold, rather than endanger themselves and the police by resisting arrest at the top of the tree. "I talked to them a lot about coming down with some dignity," she said. If the protesters had not surrendered, Harrison said, workers would have continued building the scaffold until police were able to seize them. The police chief said that the four were easy to talk to and that by the end they were bantering back and forth with her. She described them as "very skilled individuals" who knew how to maneuver in the treetops. On the ground, protest leader Eric Eisenberg, who goes by the name Ayr, announced that the protesters had reached an agreement with the university and said officials had committed themselves to finding new ways to work with the community on land use issues. But Brostrom, who spoke to the tree-sitters by cellphone, said later that the university had made no such deal. The university is already committed to improving relations with the community, he said. The four tree-sitters will be charged with trespassing and violating a court order. At least one may be charged with battery for allegedly assaulting a worker during an earlier tree-trimming operation. Police identified the four as Michael Schuck, 26, who went by the name Shem; Armando Resendez, 20; Ernesto Trevino, 18; and Raul Colocho, 27, who went by Huck. None of the men are students at the university, officials said. At least six other demonstrators outside the fenced-off grove were also arrested Tuesday. With the occupation of the grove ended, protesters on the street said they were glad they had made their stand and raised public awareness about the university's actions. "We gave it a good fight," said Ayr, who was arrested twice during protests over the last week. "It's unfortunate that the death culture marches forward, but we're going to keep fighting for life." University officials praised the patience of the campus police, saying they had been subjected to considerable abuse during the long protest, including having human waste dumped on them by some tree-sitters during earlier operations. "I think the forbearance of the police was just remarkable," Brostrom said. "Fortunately we are a campus that has decades of experience with protests." Some supporters of the athletic center had criticized the university for being too tolerant of the protesters. But Brostrom said the university's hands were tied by the lawsuit filed by homeowners, environmentalists and the city of Berkeley. The tree-sitters' protest was the most visible symbol of opposition to the project, but university officials said an injunction in the case is what prevented them from cutting down the trees and starting construction. "What was holding us up was not the tree-sit," Brostrom said. "It was the lawsuit." The long-running drama at the grove brought out relatively few student supporters over the months, but Tuesday's final act drew a different crowd, including many who cheered the arrests. Some joked about the possibility of a protester falling to the ground and one man held up a sign saying, "Free Firewood." A student who gave his name as Nakul said the protest was misguided in focusing so much energy on 40 trees that had been part of a landscaping project, rather than on such global environmental issues as the destruction of the rain forest in the Amazon basin. "They brought shame to the name of Berkeley, which is famous for the Free Speech Movement and protests against the Vietnam War," the computer science student said. "It's an outrage. The university should have been harsher and brought them down faster." -- richard.paddock @latimes.com . -------- 21-Month Tree-Sit's End Makes National News http://www.dailycal.org/article/102594/21-month_tree-sit_s_end_makes_national_news Campus Community, Media Professionals Reflect On Reasons For Protest's News Coverage By Emily Grospe Contributing Writer Friday, September 12, 2008 From the Los Angeles Times to The Washington Post, the tree-sit ordeal has garnered significant media attention, especially in the closing days of the protest. Long after the throng of media reporters left their posts on Piedmont Avenue, the vast amount of coverage has brought its impact on UC Berkeley's reputation into question. Based on phone calls, e-mails and responses posted on various newspaper Web sites, Dan Mogulof, the campus's executive director of public affairs, said he does not believe the protest harmed UC Berkeley's image. "We firmly believe that no damage has been done to the university's reputation given the fact that we successfully worked our ways through all those complexities," he said. However, Mogulof said that he is also aware that a part of the Berkeley community continues to regard the campus with some mistrust and anger. "While we don't believe that they represent a majority of Berkeley residents, they're very passionate, vocal and well-organized," he said. "We believe that in going forward, we have to find new and innovative ways of including the community in future land use decisions." But John Searle, a philosophy professor and participant in the Free Speech Movement, said that the tree-sit was a crude parody of the movement and did not fit in with UC Berkeley's history. "(The tree-sit) was an unusual combination of stupid and evil," Searle said. "Stupid because the trees were of no great ecological importance and evil in the enormous amount of money that this cost the university that could have been spent benefitting our students." The protest, which was the longest urban tree-sit in history, lasted 21 months and cost the campus $1.5 million in security expenses. Jesse McKinley, San Francisco bureau chief the New York Times, said he decided to cover the tree-sit, which was on the front page of nytimes.com, because UC Berkeley stands out as one of the traditional centers of activism. He said the protest received significant coverage because of its unusual circumstances. "It was about this very peculiar conflict between a UC and a bunch of people in the trees," McKinley said. "In general, it attracted media attention because of the amount of time they were up there," he added. The story was also featured in several collegiate newspapers, including the University of Texas at Austin's The Daily Texan, which ran a brief. The Daily Texan Managing Editor Adrienne Lee said that the story was covered because of similar construction on their campus in the past year. "We've did a huge expansion to our football stadium, but we didn't have the same controversy that (UC Berkeley) did," Lee said. "Since we've had that kind of construction before, we thought our students would be interested in reading something like that from another large state school." Mogulof said that because the litigation and laws of this issue were complicated, the media very frequently reported the basic facts incorrectly, influencing public opinion. Among the falsely reported facts Mogulof cited were reports that the athletic center was funded by taxpayer money when it is actually funded by private donors. In addition, delays reported to be caused by protesters were actually stopped by an Alameda County Superior Court injunction. "Despite that, because of our ability to use the Web, we're engaged in getting the facts directly to the public and believe that by large it succeeded," he said. Mogulof said that, as a public institution, UC Berkeley has an obligation to ensure that taxpayers and students have a full understanding of the actions the campus takes and the reasons behind those actions. "We have to be ready to answer tough questions, remain committed to being transparent and communicating in an honest and forthright fashion," he said. "If we continue to do that, we will continue to protect and preserve one of the most important things that we have - our reputation." . --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sixties-L" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sixties-l?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
