And non affiliates once again given the stage of upper Sproul?
Take a look at: "Statement reaffirming campus’s commitment to free speech" from UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof:
[Mogulof paints one picture of campus but it omits this: story that began the current academic year and apparently is still being litigated, and the campus never received updates, resolutions to this :story either. Those stories, along with the Title IX issues around UC Berkeley can leave an impression that some things are not handled well. Also, when Title IX complainants have told media of their experiences and then the faculty advisor to the Chancellor on Title IX characterizes those problems as 'media presuppositions' in robotic and long tome wordy and not directly responsive opinion pieces - that repeatedly refuses to directly acknowledge complainants' experiences, that refuses to acknowledge in detail the facts that led to UC Berkeley being under DOEd review for years and then found by DOEd to be out of compliance-and instead plays rewording games in attempts to gloss over- that approach highlights the problems further.
And when "campus conversations"- a venue where C.Christ's non diverse cabinet members answer questions posed solely by Mogulof sometimes in front of an audience- and are lacking in full representation of all staff members, where staff questions are submitted and promises from Moguloff are made that "answers will be posted on the campus conversations website "--and yet several months later those answers to those questions still remain not posted, unresponded to -that can also look like a problem.
So, the view of what campus looks like should be comprehensive and not just through the lens of the rose colored glasses of high salary PR admin viewpoints...it can look like a less than honest assessment, response.
If things are going wrong in multiple areas, or critically important areas and administratively mismanaged, or there is a repeated lack of promised transparency or failure of safeguards --it can make it difficult to make the argument that everything - or 'most things'- are handled well when non affiliates arrive at campus and a problem ensues.]
-if what Mogulof writes is as it transpired, -- the 'bad actor' non affiliate should be the focus of any criticism in any legitimate commentary..Those who are peacefully tabling should not be subjected to that- and pedestrians and cross traffic should also not be bothered by those tabling...
That seems general consensus...
Now also recall:
- large major events weren't the only things to be addressed, it also was to deal with behavior and planning for all types of traffic on upper Sproul as well.
Thought there was to be greater oversight on Upper Sproul so those tabling could inform campus quickly of issues, disturbances they were encountering...and that those tabling were required to be affiliates and that those tabling go through some campus process prior to tabling etc. And/or that non-
affiliates who want to stage or table were to use west crescent/west circle?
Why are 'non-affiliates' allowed to table at all?
Thought changes were made to reduce the nonsense behavior that non-affiliates might bring to areas where UC affiliates are trying to do University work in areas like Upper Sproul etc.
And - thought that was part of the new planned mitigation??
Here's some of the coverage:
Trump suggests man assaulted at UC Berkeley sue the campus, California
UC Berkeley says it is not biased against conservative students and the right is distorting its actions
President Trump vows to issue executive order barring research funds to colleges that don't support free speech
Inside Higher Ed
Trump Says He'll Sign Order Requiring Colleges to Protect Free Speech
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Earlier in the week there was:
Michael Cohen testifies that Trump threatened colleges over any release of his grades - Michael Cohen releases letter sent to university the president attended and notes that Trump earlier had called on Obama to release his grades. President's grades have never come out, but those of past candidates have. - Inside Higher Ed
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- John A. Pérez
- Richard Sherman
- Charlene Zettel
- Maria Anguiano
- Lark Park
- Alumni, Ex Officio, Student UC Regents .And advisors, reps, designates
- Ellen Tauscher
- H. Peter Guber
- Cecilia Estolano
- Michael Cohen
- Laphonza Butler
- J. Sures appointed
- Richard Leib
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)