Thousands in Berkeley Mobilize to Save Public Education in California

On Thursday, September 24^th, an estimated five thousand people attended a rally on Sproul Plaza at the University of California, Berkeley. The rally and subsequent march through campus and downtown Berkeley—scheduled to coincide with and planned in support of the University of California (UC) Faculty Walkout that took place on all ten UC campuses—brought together undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, university workers and alumni to protest the budget cuts at Berkeley and stand up for public education across California.

All in attendance protested the enrollment cuts, layoffs, faculty furloughs and threatened department cuts outlined in a plan pushed through by the UC administration this summer in the aftermath of a reduction in state educational funding to the tune of more than $637 million—or 20% of the 2009-2010 budget. But it is perhaps the already imposed 9.3% increase in student fees for the 2009-2010 school year, as well as the proposed 32% fee increase to be partially imposed mid-year that has invigorated the masses. Many feel these increased fees will effectively privatize California’s public schools, making higher education inaccessible to countless California residents—including those already enrolled in the system. One Berkeley first-year, Magali Flores, currently pays her own fees but expressed worries of having to ask her mother for help if the 32% increase proposal passes, help she is not sure her single mother of five will be able to provide.

Ricardo Gomez, a third-year at Berkeley, says the fee increases will not affect him personally because he receives scholarship; however, “I know for a fact that students will be priced out—particularly undocumented students.” Another student held a sign that said, “’UC’ me now…you won’t see me after 32%”.

After the proposed increase, fees will amount to over $10,000, before room and board. With such high costs, “the line between public and private blurs,” says Alex Tarr, a graduate student in geography at Berkeley and head steward of the Local 2865 UAW which represents 12,000 student employees, grad-student instructors, readers and tutors.

But it is not just students who have something to say about the fee hikes. Paul (who declined to give his last name), a Spectroscopist and member of the University Professional Technical Employee union (UPTE), expressed concern that the University was no longer following its mission, laid out in the 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education—specifically, the principle that higher education should be accessible to all regardless of one’s economic means. “The whole mission of the University of California was so anyone could come here, to a public university that was as good as Harvard or Yale. The irony is that it is cheaper now to go to either one of those schools than to one of the UC’s”—referring to the ability of many Ivy League schools to run needs-blind admission and finance the education of any admitted student who is unable to pay. Personally, he said, he has two children he hoped to send to the University of California system, but with rising costs he is exploring options in other states.

Tamar (who declined to give her last name), a Berkeley alum and an UPTE member (a union which chose to strike on the 24^th in solidarity with the Faculty Walkout after itself engaging in 19 months of negotiations with the University with no contract), wanted to bring greater awareness to the day-to-day changes brought on by these budget cuts. “Professors are being forced to furlough classes, to work harder in less time with less salary. Facilities and departments have fewer open hours or may close entirely. Essentially, students will be paying 32% in increased fees for reduced services.”

Tamar—and many others—argue that such drastic budget cuts are unnecessary. Many expressed a belief that the money is there, despite the reduction in state funding, but it is being allocated disproportionately to executive salaries for the Regents, the Cal football coach and especially President Mark Yudof, towards whom a great deal of the protesters’ ire was directed. (An objective observer may become sympathetic to such ire after reading Yudof’s snarky responses to Deborah Solomon’s questions in the September 24^thNew York Times interview.) Those who place most of the blame for the budget crisis on the University leadership demand budget transparency and democratization of the Board of Regents.

Others believe the blame for the current budget crisis should lie primarily on the state, whose priorities they question. They cite statistics that show that over the past 20 years, state expenditures on education have gone down from 17% to 7% while state expenditures on the prison system have gone up from 3% to 10%. As Ruben Canedo, a representative of the SOLIDARITY alliance and one of the organizers of the march, put it, “The message that the state is sending to kids is that it is more prepared to send you to the prison system than the education system.”

And still others believe the fact is there is simply not enough tax revenue to sustain public education in California. Those carrying signs that said, “Repeal Prop. 13” said the current state budget crisis was foreseen long ago. “Once Prop. 13 froze property taxes at 1970’s rates, a future budget crisis was inevitable,” said California State University, Monterey Bay campus Professor C. Menning. Originally intended to protect elderly residents from being taxed out of their homes, “it was the corporations who benefited most” from Proposition 13, Menning said. In 2004, in an attempt to preempt the public education crisis, Governor Schwarzenegger, then UC President Robert C. Dynes and CSU Chancellor Charles B. Reed created The Higher Education Compact that put forth a plan to mitigate the budget gaps by raising student fees and increasing private fundraising. This is the crux of the argument that California public higher education is being privatized. Or perhaps even the smoking gun.

Still, the September 24^th rally at Berkeley, along with the walkouts across California, illustrate the fact that thousands want to preserve public education. And the 24^th was just the beginning. Berkeley has held a general assembly and established committees to continue organizing in this fight. Conferences are being held to connect the UCs, CSUs, Community Colleges and K-12s within regions and eventually across the state. This is exciting: a new movement with inspiring leaders waiting in the wings. Thousands of leaders, in fact, ready to mobilize to protect the promise of an accessible education for all. “This is not a movement for a specific community or population,” said Canedo. “We stand in solidarity for education. We ask for your support.”

An estimated five thousand people gathered to rally on Sproul Plaza at the University of California, Berkeley.








































































































































































































































































Among the protesters was a contingent representing student-parents. They held a banner that asked, "Where's the affordability you promised us?"









Representatives from the Student Worker Action Team (SWAT) and the SOLIDARITY Alliance, among others, lead the march through the Berkeley campus and downtown Berkeley.










Marchers returned to campus via Bancroft road.









The marchers staged a sit-in at the intersection of Telegraph and Bancroft across from the Sproul Plaza entrance of the Berkeley campus.


Both UPTE (University Professional Technical Employees) and CUE (Coalition of University Employees) chose to strike in solidarity with the UC Faculty Walkouts on September 24th. Union members and supporters picketed at the Berkeley campus entrances throughout the day.







As night fell, a General Assembly was held for anyone who wanted to help organize to continue the fight to save public education.











Despite three relocations of the General Assembly due to a lack of open University facilities, hundreds moved together and finally settled in Lower Sproul Plaza on a chilly night to continue organizing.

Video Coverage of Anthem v Szakos

Written Coverage (from Tuesday, September 22nd article):

Joe Szakos, the Executive Director of the Virginia Organizing Project (VOP), appeared in court today, Tuesday September 22nd, in Henrico, VA. Mr. Szakos was arrested at Anthem's headquarters on July 24th while attempting to contact the insurance company regarding recent premium hikes. The VOP, as an employer, is a customer of Anthem and had received an email from the company asking the customers to urge their members of Congress to oppose health care reform.

The VOP provided us with a copy of the email that they received from Anthem. In it, Anthem states their opposition to the public option, and touts their claim to "strongly support reform that builds a strong, sustainable private-sector health care system." Anthem urged customers to sign up with the Health Action Network, who, coincidentally, supports building a "a strong, sustainable private-sector health care system." The email also asked customers to contact Congress, stating that "As our elected officials debate health care, they need to hear directly from you." The VOP received this email while Anthem was raising their premiums by 14%. Mr. Szakos was outraged that customers had to pay more, all while Anthem continues paying lobbyists to fight against the reforms proposed in Washington, DC.

The day ended with a continuance since the Commonwealth's main witness, Anthem's representative who ordered the police to arrest Mr. Szakos, was absent the state, although a subpoena had been issued. The key point argued today were subpoena's for Anthem CEO C. Burke Kind and Director of Public Relations Scott Golden to appear as witnesses. The defense argued that the CEO of Anthem had to answer for the actions of the company, specifically for arresting Mr. Szakos. Mr. Szakos' attorney also claimed that Mr. Golden has told him he was in the lobby during the event. The prosecution argued that the VOP was only calling the CEO for political reasons, as a form of protest. Mr. Szakos flat out rejected that accusation. Ultimately, the Judge accepted the motion to quash a subpoena for Mr. King to appear, but ordered Mr. Golden to obey his subpoena.

Mr. Szakos returns to court on November 23rd.

Dereje Tessema: How This Happened

On Saturday, September 13th, Dereje Tessema sat down with a group of Grow the Hope volunteers to introduce them to his new book, How this Happened. In the book, Dereje discusses how the combination of emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and sound project management propelled President Obama's 2008 campaign.




Dereje:

Dereje B. Tessema is a Senior Project Manager working for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). He has extensive experience implementing, supporting and managing complex and critical enterprise systems at different capacities. He obtained his Bachelors degree from Ethiopia; Masters Degrees from Germany and the US; and various professional certifications including Master Certificate in Project Management, Certified Federal Enterprise Architect; and Certified Project Management Professional (PMP). He is working on his PhD. at Walden University with research focusing in the areas of Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership in Project Management. He is also actively involved in community services and volunteer support and outreach programs. Dereje lives with his wife and three children in Rockville, Maryland.

Dereje volunteered for the Obama campaign in Bethesda, where he developed the idea for this book. We all know, and knew at the time, that President Obama had done something different, something unique, and something important with his campaign. Dereje appears to be one of the early experts to define that "something different," and to explain it in an easy to digest manner.

Anthem v Szakos

Joe Szakos, the Executive Director of the Virginia Organizing Project (VOP), appeared in court today, Tuesday September 22nd, in Henrico, VA. Mr. Szakos was arrested at Anthem's headquarters on July 24th while attempting to contact the insurance company regarding recent premium hikes. The VOP, as an employer, is a customer of Anthem and had received an email from the company asking the customers to urge their members of Congress to oppose health care reform.

The VOP provided us with a copy of the email that they received from Anthem. In it, Anthem states their opposition to the public option, and touts their claim to "strongly support reform that builds a strong, sustainable private-sector health care system." Anthem urged customers to sign up with the Health Action Network, who, coincidentally, supports building a "a strong, sustainable private-sector health care system." The email also asked customers to contact Congress, stating that "As our elected officials debate health care, they need to hear directly from you." The VOP received this email while Anthem was raising their premiums by 14%. Mr. Szakos was outraged that customers had to pay more, all while Anthem continues paying lobbyists to fight against the reforms proposed in Washington, DC.

The day ended with a continuance since the Commonwealth's main witness, Anthem's representative who ordered the police to arrest Mr. Szakos, was absent the state, although a subpoena had been issued. The key point argued today were subpoena's for Anthem CEO C. Burke Kind and Director of Public Relations Scott Golden to appear as witnesses. The defense argued that the CEO of Anthem had to answer for the actions of the company, specifically for arresting Mr. Szakos. Mr. Szakos' attorney also claimed that Mr. Golden has told him he was in the lobby during the event. The prosecution argued that the VOP was only calling the CEO for political reasons, as a form of protest. Mr. Szakos flat out rejected that accusation. Ultimately, the Judge accepted the motion to quash a subpoena for Mr. King to appear, but ordered Mr. Golden to obey his subpoena.

Mr. Szakos returns to court on November 23rd. We will post our video coverage of Tuesday's press conference outside the court house just as soon as it is ready.

Why Ned Lamont may be the Most Important Name in 2009 Politics

Yes, Ned Lamont may be the most important name in 2009 politics. Right now, it may be a more important name than Barack Obama. Let me explain.

The fight for health care reform comes closer than it has ever been before, and the Republican party continues to demonstrate that no compromise, not even tort reform, will draw a single Republican vote. At this point, the last thing standing between us and a strong health care bill is conservative or moderate Democrats. The progressive blogosphere has drawn a line in the sand. And I am reminded of 2006, and the Lieberman vs Lamont primary. I am reminder that when progressives draw a line in the sand on the most important issue to voters, they will follow through on holding politicians accountable.

It is because of that 2006 primary, that there is absolutely no logic for dropping the public option. It was the netrooots against the inertia of the Democratic status-quo. Since then, the netroots has become an even larger source of funds, a larger source of volunteers, a larger source of support, a larger source of press. And we have demonstrated our ability to launch you from the party, and critically injure your political career.

But Senator Lieberman won in the end, right? I mean, he did get reelected. Yes. But it was his last reelection. I doubt he will run again. He will not be winning any Democratic primary. And if he runs for the Democratic nomination, he will have to commit to not running as an independent should he lose. I remember working a mayoral primary in '07, every candidate had to commit to that to even be seriously considered. The reverberations of the '06 primary were felt on every ballot in CT. Senator Lieberman would be forced to make that promise. Then again, we all know how Lieberman is on campaign promises, especially about party affiliation. And he cannot run on the Connecticut for Lieberman party again. I mean that literally. He cannot run on that party line. I am not saying the politics forbids it, I am not saying that the Secretary of State might finally get bothered by Sen. Lieberman's repeated use of a fake party he has no intention of joining, I am saying that the party itself will forbid it. Senator Lieberman's campaign screwed up the process for taking control of the party, essentially no one actually registered for the party. John Orman noticed this and decided to register and submit party rules himself. Later, he made the party real. They endorsed President Obama in the 2008 election, pretty much for every reason they do not like Sen. Lieberman. The notion of Sen. Lieberman running against the Connecticut for Lieberman party, who will be eligible to cross endorse* the Democrat on every ballot in the state during the general election, is painfully hilarious for us, but a political dissaster for Sen. Lieberman.

That election was about one major issue, the war. Progressives, especially in the netroots, decided that there was going to be a line in the sand. We made the threats, against the advice of main stream democrats, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and President Barack Obama. We took a stand, and while we ultimately lost the election, we landed a major, lasting injury.

And now, we are confronted again with a line in the sand. The progressive netroots have clearly staked out their position on the public option. The Republicans have demonstrated that no compromise on earth will draw a single vote. The Progressive Caucus in the house has made it clear that a bill without a public option will not pass. We are faced with two options, and two options only. 1) We can attempt to force just over a dozen blue dog Senators to support cloture, and an even smaller number to eventually support the bill. Or 2) We can attempt to sway over 50 progressive Representatives, not to mention a large number of progressive Senators, to support a bill without a public option. Which one sounds harder to you?

Add on the fact that the netroots has demonstrated its ability to throw carrots and sticks around. Carrots being large sources of funds, sticks being a difficult and damaging primary. I think we all understand what is at stake. We all know what a dark and depressing the political landscape will feel like if we lose this fight for the public option. None of us want that. Yet we learned from the fight for Medicare that sometimes you have to fight the good fight as many times as it takes, and never give up. Had we compromised on Medicare the way we are being asked to compromise now, there would be no public option for seniors today. It is easy to forget that, especially when you consider the many great reforms other than the public option in the bill. We deeply the fear the notion of taking a loss on this and having to go around taking out candidates that we agree with on many other issues. So when we make the threats to primary people, we do it with a horrible fear in our stomach. Yet we do it knowing full well that we intend to follow through. And we have demonstrated that we will. So, to all the blue dogs who are considering killing the public option, I have two words for you: Ned Lamont.

*Cross endorsement is when a party endorses another party's candidate for office, and the candidate appears on the ballot on both party lines. Fusion voting, or electoral fusion is the name for the process. And fusion voting is the reason that David Sirota called the Working Families Party (WFP) the most powerful third party in the country, even though they only operate in a handfull of states. When a candidate appears on two party lines, the vote goes to the candidate all the same, but the votes for each party are tallied separately. If a third party, like the WFP, manages to get more than the margin of victory, it gives them a powerful tool to put pressure on that candidate on key issues to the party. In Connecticut, if a political party runs their own candidate for office and receives something like 1% of the vote, they will be eligible to cross endorse candidates on every ballot where that office appears. In other words, The Connecticut for Lieberman party received well over 1% of the vote for Senator Lieberman's seat last time it was up for election. The next time it is up for election, the Connecticut for Lieberman Party will have met the requirements to be eligible to cross endorse for any office on every ballot that the Senator's seat is on. Since it is a US Senate seat, it will be on every ballot in the state. Therefore, the Connecticut for Lieberman Party will actually be able to cross endorse in every race, on every ballot in the state. Fusion voting is only legal in a handfull of states, and only practiced on large scale in even fewer.

President Obama Speaks at College Park

Today, I was lucky enough to see President Obama speak at the University of Maryland. I was not attending this event as a Sum of Change reporter by any means, I merely went to hear the President speak. I did, however, catch a few pictures with my blackberry storm. Like many other progressives, I have been somewhat frustrated throughout this fight. Frankly, I just will not settle for less than the public option. Ideally, I support single payer, but I am willing to compromise if, and only if, there is a robust public option to compete with private insurance. And I absolutely will not stand for a mandate without a strong public option.

So I came into today hopeful, yet frustrated at what the debate has become. Frustrated with just over a dozen Senators holding the public

option hostage. As usual, however, I am coming out of today fired up, and ready to go. I will be making calls with OFA 2.0 later tonight. It is time, once again to lay it all on the table. As David Hart, the founder of Grow the Hope, would say, "Electing a smart and moral man as our President was an important first step, but it is not enough."

This is Just Too Good

UPDATE: It appears that this was no joke. The American Thinker Blog has removed the link. Where is says "Dan Bana, is quoted as saying" the word "quoted" used to link to this story. As you can see, this article, dated January 22nd 2009, is clearly about the inauguration. As you can see, they both use the exact same wording for the quote.

I believe they must have gotten the original story from someone else, reposted without checking the facts. After commenters pointed it out they must have realized the mistake. Rather than deleting the story, they just got rid of the quote. Which actually puts them in violation of plagiarism.

Here is how the moderator responded to someone's comment about the link:

Moderator's note: Please see my other note below. Someone copied the wrong quote with the wrong link. We're working to get it fixed as quickly as possible. Thank you for your concern. --Anton

Rather than admit their wrongdoing, they are out searching for evidence to back up their bogus claim. This is called a celebration of ignorance. A complete and utter disregard for reality.

We'll keep up with this one. Back to our original blog on the story...

I have to hand to the people at the American Thinker Blog. They played what is possibly one of the funniest jokes I have seen in a while.

Here's what they did. The wrote up a blog, claiming that the 9/12 teabagger protest was the largest event ever held in DC. In it, they even quoted the National Park Service:

The truth will out. Despite mainstream media attempts to characterize turnout as in the thousands, a spokesman for the National Park Service, Dan Bana, is quoted as saying "It is a record.... We believe it is the largest event held in Washington, D.C., ever."

They linked to the sources of the quotes, like any halfway decent blogger would. All they had to do was sit back and watch, as countless teabaggers ready to believe anything would neglect to check those links. What ensued was hilarity.

Teabaggers loved the notion that they had set a record, even if it flew in the face of all logic ever known to man. I mean, half a moron would immediately guess that the Inauguration was larger than this right? Yes. In fact, the quotes used in the American Thinker Blog were all from the inauguration.

It was truly fun. I mean, check out this conversation between myself and a #tcot'er:

Starts out...

"9/12 demonstration a record DC turnout: National Park Service http://ff.im/-84d9e"
By @freedom4USA

To which, I respond...

"Record? Hahahahaha! RT @Furrystoat: RT @freedom4USA 9/12 demo a record DC turnout..."
By @SumofChange

And she replies with...

"Record? Hahahahaha! RT @freedom4USA 9/12 demo a record DC turnout... (@SumOfChange ◄Apparently you can't read or didn't comprehend?#tcot #p2"
By @freedom4USA

You'll notice the attack on my ability to read!

At this point, I had yet to check the sources, just assuming the claim was garbage based on, what was it I referenced before? Oh right, based on logic. But I decided to take a quick glance, and then responded...

"@freedom4USA Can you read? The quote from the National Park Service is about the Inauguration. Someone is playing a joke on you."
By @SumofChange