Sedition And UC Santa Cruz Go Hand In Hand
Michelle Malkin has the scoop on what could easily be called a seditious act on the campus of UC Santa Cruz! It seems that our military recruiters were forced from a job fair on campus. Keep in mind that this university received over $80 million in federal funding last year!
From the SFC:
Four military recruiters hastily fled a job fair Tuesday morning at UC Santa Cruz after a raucous crowd of student protesters blocked an entrance to the building where the Army and National Guard had set up information tables.
Members of Students Against War, who organized the counter-recruiting protest, loudly chanted “Don’t come back. Don’t come back” as the recruiters left the hilltop campus, escorted by several university police officers…
and
…University officials had been aware for weeks that Students Against War planned a protest to prevent military personnel from participating in the school’s biannual job fair held for students…Universities that receive federal funds are required to allow military recruiters on campus. But campus officials had worried that Tuesday’s protest would get out of hand as it had last April, when Students Against War protesters surrounded the table where military personnel sat, and hundreds of other demonstrators engaged in an angry protest outside. Some of the recruiters reported that their tires had been slashed and one employee at the career center was injured.
and
David Kliger, campus provost and executive vice chancellor, said the school was most concerned Tuesday about safety issues, but also wanted to preserve access to the recruiters for students who wanted to speak with them, while still allowing protesting students their right to free speech. Kliger said officials had tried to engage the anti-war student group in discussions in the weeks leading up to the fair. But when talks broke down, officials began privately hoping for rain and brought in extra police. The rain probably accounted for a decidedly smaller turnout — about 100 students compared with about 300 a year earlier.
Still, the Army’s Griffin said he sensed that some of the students were “looking for action” and decided to pack up their table before things got out of hand and someone got injured. Students Against War members said they were pleased that their counter-recruiting effort forced the military personnel off campus, at least for the time being.
“We’re saying it’s not OK to recruit on high school campuses, it’s not OK to recruit on university campuses,” Marla Zubel, a UC Santa Cruz senior and member of Students Against War, said. “In order to stop the war, you have to make it more difficult to wage war.”
The unhinged group behind the anti-troops movement at UC Santa Cruz is “Students Against War.” The leaders on campus, according to a SAW press release, are:
Sam Aranke – 714-458-2471 – saranke@ucsc.edu
David Zlutnick – 805-698-6228 – dzlutnic@ucsc.edu
Janine Carmona – 707-496-3530 – jgcarmon@ucsc.edu
The capitulationist chancellor’s contact info:
Denice D. Denton
Office of Chancellor
200 Clark Kerr Hall
University of California
Santa Cruz, California 95064
Assistant to the Chancellor:
Jessica Fiske Bailey
Phone: (831) 459-2058
Email: jfbailey@ucsc.edu
Others covering this:
Capital Region People
Church and State
Sister Toldjah
JunkYardBlog
You Big Mouth, You!
April 12, 2006 - 09:23 AM on April 12th, 2006
First of all I think a lesson in finance should be given to these students. Take away the $80 million and watch while the cost of going to that University increase exponentially to the amount of federal funding that was lost. Maybe then they will rethink their antics and anti war rhetoric.
April 12, 2006 - 09:51 AM on April 12th, 2006
They hate the military, but they’ll let a Taliban spokesman on campus. What gives?
April 12, 2006 - 10:34 AM on April 12th, 2006
Flood their e-mail inboxes. It’s idiots like this that make me so glad that I raised my hand, took an oath, picked up a weapon, stood a post and defended this country….so that A-holes like this has the freedong to be complete and utter fuckfaces.
April 12, 2006 - 10:54 AM on April 12th, 2006
How about finding out which company recruiters were there and asking them if they are going to continue recruiting here, since the U doesn’t support the military? Nothing like graduating from a university that get recruiters coming to it.
April 12, 2006 - 11:12 AM on April 12th, 2006
“Maybe then they will rethink their antics and anti war rhetoric.”
I think it’ll take something more than withholding money to get people to change their moral standings on certain issues, especially on something that people feel very strongly about, such as the War in Iraq.
“They hate the military, but they’ll let a Taliban spokesman on campus.”
Yeah, but, aren’t colleges supposed to be all about encountering different points of view and challenging the beliefs you already hold? Nobody is forcing these students to accept what they see or hear, but it’s good for their brains to keep those gears in motion.
I think “sedition” might be a bit over-the-top….
April 12, 2006 - 11:17 AM on April 12th, 2006
Yes, they are about experiencing different points of view..INCLUDING conservative..and YES, military.
what’s the beef?
April 12, 2006 - 11:24 AM on April 12th, 2006
4. IF they were experiencing different points of view. They are not however doing so. There is so much liberal bias going on in academia it would make you sick.
April 12, 2006 - 11:25 AM on April 12th, 2006
Why are you so afraid to have conservatives on campus? Isn’t that what “diversity” is supposed to be? are your beliefs so fragile that the presence of a few conservatives would shatter the whole liberal worldview being indoctrinated into these students?
April 12, 2006 - 11:58 AM on April 12th, 2006
If the Federal Government withheld 80 million dollars, you better believe the school would do more to assure that the recruiters are welcomed on the campus!
April 12, 2006 - 12:04 PM on April 12th, 2006
San Fran….it’s called tolerance. For allowing United States military recruiters on campus you get $80 million in federal funds. That’s a bargain. Of course, without that money you could raise tuition. After all, liberals can afford it, right?
April 12, 2006 - 12:10 PM on April 12th, 2006
“are your beliefs so fragile that the presence of a few conservatives would shatter the whole liberal worldview being indoctrinated into these students”
Not even close.
April 12, 2006 - 12:13 PM on April 12th, 2006
“If the Federal Government withheld 80 million dollars, you better believe the school would do more to assure that the recruiters are welcomed on the campus!”
Sure, but doing so STILL wouldn’t help change anyones point of view on the war, and certainly won’t get anyone over from the anti-war side to the pro-war side…deeply held moral beliefs are very hard to change.
Can any of you just turn pro-choice?
I didn’t think so….
April 12, 2006 - 12:16 PM on April 12th, 2006
“There is so much liberal bias going on in academia it would make you sick.”
Well, why do you think they call them “institutions of higher learning” ???
April 12, 2006 - 12:18 PM on April 12th, 2006
11- Who gives a shit if it changes someones mind? This is about the fact that the left only wants freedom of speech protected if it coincides with their way of thinking!
April 12, 2006 - 12:30 PM on April 12th, 2006
13. The weed?
April 12, 2006 - 12:42 PM on April 12th, 2006
“Well, why do you think they call them “institutions of higher learning”???”
Wow; that was on par with something Sean Hanity or Ann Coulter might use.
April 12, 2006 - 12:46 PM on April 12th, 2006
Again, it reminds me of Yale. At Yale, the military is accused of being anti-gay and anti-woman, so they can’t have recruiters. Yet a Taliban spokesman, whose goons killed gays and women, is allowed on campus. ARE YOU STILL OUTRAGED, PEOPLE?
April 12, 2006 - 12:50 PM on April 12th, 2006
Mike Kilo…
April 12, 2006 - 12:57 PM on April 12th, 2006
“At Yale, the military is accused of being anti-gay and anti-woman, so they can’t have recruiters. Yet a Taliban spokesman, whose goons killed gays and women, is allowed on campus.”
Rocky, again…it’s the various view points that add richness to the learning experience. I don’t think it’s as much an attempt to influence peoples political beliefs so much as it is an attempt to challenge them and make you think. That’s kind of what college is all about. You know; the whole “thinking” thing…
UC Santa Cruz obviously wasn’t trying to turn students into the Taliban, but was trying to present different points of view for study. Not for affirmation, but for knowledge.
There is a BIG difference.
April 12, 2006 - 01:03 PM on April 12th, 2006
18. Let me get this straight. Kicking military recruiters off campus is presenting a whole different view? How is that?
As far as other things, it’s not happening. In fact some even rewrite history and are trying to make these kids think it’s the truth. It’s disgusting and NOT a different point of view but a biased point of view.
April 12, 2006 - 01:04 PM on April 12th, 2006
You said “higher” education.
April 12, 2006 - 01:22 PM on April 12th, 2006
18- how is it adding richness to the education process when you set standards for the student body and potential student body, yet don’t hold to the principals that you claim to stand for?
How many A students were turned away for this b- student? How many gays and women died because of this b- student?
What exactly is the lesson that the kids are to learn by the acceptance of a high ranking Taliban member?
April 12, 2006 - 01:30 PM on April 12th, 2006
22. Diversity!!! don’t you know, peejz?
he was there to share his thoughts on “women’s rights” with the campus feminists.
too bad the campus feminists only concept of “women’s rights” consists of ensuring the maximum number of dismembered babies possible.
April 12, 2006 - 01:54 PM on April 12th, 2006
Where in this story does it mention that the official university policy restricted the recruiters? It seems that the university did their best to safely host the recruiters.
The recruiters left because of students exercising their right to free speech. How is that in any way grounds for withdrawing federal funding for the university?
April 12, 2006 - 01:58 PM on April 12th, 2006
The difference is, “question all”..universities establish “safe zones” and “free speech” zones where leftist groups like NOW, NARAL, etc. are allowed to disseminate their messages without obstacle.. even racist organizations like the NAACP, or “Black student unions” are protected by the universities
Why is it that recruiters cannot be afforded the same protections?
Would the univeristy tolerate a protest that shut down a meeting of the “Black Student Senate”…I’m doubting it.
it’s a glaring double standard, that even the a leftist has to notice.
April 12, 2006 - 02:08 PM on April 12th, 2006
23- Why was there no action taken against the students that caused the threatening situation? The recruiters left so that the potentially violent situation was avoided.
April 12, 2006 - 02:17 PM on April 12th, 2006
Because the university does not care to protect the speech of the recruiters, only leftist, communist, racist fringe groups.
April 12, 2006 - 02:24 PM on April 12th, 2006
Yeah, the PC police on campus are supposed to ensure that no students feel threatened.
I guess that dosen’t apply to students who may actually commit the unpardonable sin of…gasp…supporting our military!!!!
oh no!!!
April 12, 2006 - 02:24 PM on April 12th, 2006
My point was — why threaten to pull federal funding from a school because 100 students protested.
There are several mentions in the story above about the university’s safety concerns. Which I’m sure they have for anyone on their campus.
It ultimately was the recruiters decision to leave based on their senses. There was no violence – which would have clearly made it criminal. As far as I know a non-violent protest is not criminal.
April 12, 2006 - 02:38 PM on April 12th, 2006
28-why allow 100 students put you in a position of losing 80 million? The school only hoped for rain. That was their plan. They did nothing to curb the actions of the protestors, and it was not all peaceful as you say. The protestors blocked people from entering, therefore cutting off their contitutional right to enter the exhibit!
What part of this don’t you get?
Kliger said officials had tried to engage the anti-war student group in discussions in the weeks leading up to the fair. But when talks broke down, officials began privately hoping for rain and brought in extra police.
April 12, 2006 - 02:53 PM on April 12th, 2006
No – What part of this don’t you get?
University officials recognized the threat and wanted the recruiters to meet with those who wanted to meet them.
“David Kliger, campus provost and executive vice chancellor, said the school was most concerned Tuesday about safety issues, but also wanted to preserve access to the recruiters for students who wanted to speak with them…”
They had additional security available if the the protest turned violent and hoped for weather events that would keep the protest as small as possible.
“officials began privately hoping for rain and brought in extra police.”
If laws were broken they had police in place to handle the situation. Short of forbidding free speech it appears that they covered their bases. How would their official actions require funds to be withdrawn?
April 12, 2006 - 03:04 PM on April 12th, 2006
Nicely done, question all.
Use facts to fight conservative fiction.
April 12, 2006 - 03:15 PM on April 12th, 2006
Question should the protest have turned violent for you to get it? People’s rights were being trampled upon based on the fact that they were prohibited from getting to the recruiters:roll:
Mike, I think I found the child left behind!
April 12, 2006 - 03:35 PM on April 12th, 2006
Thanks – I try and debate and you call me dumb.
From the Santa Cruz Sentinel:
UC police had lined up extra officers in anticipation of Tuesday’s event from UC Berkeley. The extra officers, though, were not needed and stayed out of sight…Despite one arrest, both students and administrators said the protest was more peaceful than the one last April when students stormed through a narrow entrance way, shutting down the job fair and angering fellow students looking to meet with recruiters.
Clearly the university recognized an earlier problem and made improvements of access to the recruiters.
So I’ll ask again – how does this suggest that their federal funding should be withdrawn?
April 12, 2006 - 04:58 PM on April 12th, 2006
Had the university done their job, the recruiters would not have found it necessary to leave! The recruiters left because they saw the threat of violence. Take the $80 million and give it to a school that can assure that the recruiters can be represented at a campus affair from start to finish!
April 12, 2006 - 05:21 PM on April 12th, 2006
The event last year was not physically violent. Why would the recruiters assume that they would be this year when there was even better security?
Everything I’ve read about the university’s actions show them actively working to balance the freedoms involved.
Apparently free speech costs $80,000,000.
April 12, 2006 - 05:41 PM on April 12th, 2006
But campus officials had worried that Tuesday’s protest would get out of hand as it had last April, when Students Against War protesters surrounded the table where military personnel sat, and hundreds of other demonstrators engaged in an angry protest outside. Some of the recruiters reported that their tires had been slashed and one employee at the career center was injured.
According to the university, last year included violence.
Mike brought up a good point:
The difference is, “question allâ€..universities establish “safe zones”and “free speech”zones where leftist groups like NOW, NARAL, etc. are allowed to disseminate their messages without obstacle.. even racist organizations like the NAACP, or “Black student unions”are protected by the universities
Why is it that recruiters cannot be afforded the same protections?
Like I said, withhold the $80 million and you better believe that the school will go out of its way to assure that the recruiters aren’t bothered!
April 12, 2006 - 05:47 PM on April 12th, 2006
Based on this, it appears legal action will take place over this incident and it appears that the suit will ask that all federal funds be withheld!
Looks like a fine organization to donate money too:wink:
April 13, 2006 - 08:25 AM on April 13th, 2006
Shut off all their money and that inclueds tuition and student loans and lets see how these little crap heads like getting a job and getting them off their fat spolied little rears:mad: