https://foundsf.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Joshhardman&feedformat=atomFoundSF - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T01:28:29ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.1https://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas&diff=26497UC Berkeley: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas2017-04-25T06:15:24Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 6 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:BPProtest1.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''An undergraduate student is arrested after pouring ‘fake oil’ on the ground in protest of the BP deal.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/04/18372601.php Indybay]''<br />
<br><br><br />
Though the contemporary image of UC Berkeley often invokes progressive elements of its recent history (epitomised by the on-campus Free Speech Movement Café), the conservative, repressive nature of the administration continues to rear its head. Berkeley has played a prominent role in the development of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), having negotiated sizeable monetary deals with pharmaceutical, agribusiness, and oil giants. It must be stated that GMOs are not ''inherently'' problematic, but rather it is the University’s solicitation of funds from large corporations that is of concern, along with the potential for academics to enable a monopolisation of GMOs, and to insulate GMO research from oversight in a similar fashion to the nuclear Labs. One of the most famous cases of the 2000s was that of Ignacio Chapela, an esteemed assistant professor of microbiology and chairman of the College of Natural Resources executive committee who, from 1998, questioned the ethical and economic implications of the $25 million deal between UC Berkeley and Novartis - a large drug and agri-business corporation. The terms of Novartis’ financial contribution to UC Berkeley included the disclosure of trade secrets to the corporation and first rights to licensing negotiations on around one third of the department’s discoveries, which would give the giant a competitive edge and a potential monopoly.<br />
<br />
Chapela was denied tenure in 2003, in spite of a 32-1 vote in his favour by colleagues in his faculty (Spring 2002), and an ad hoc tenure committee of five voting ''unanimously'' in his favour (October 2002). It was ultimately a five-member faculty Budget Committee that recommended against his tenure in November 2003, however one professor on this board - Jasper Rine - served on the advisory committee for the Novartis deal. While the Chancellor declared that there was no conflict of interest, Chapela’s supporters attributed his tenure denial to his vocal anti-Novartis stance [1]. In fact, an independent report of the Novartis deal published by Michigan State University in 2004 claimed “there is little doubt that the UCB-Novartis agreement played a role in [Chapela’s denial of tenure]” [2]. Due to conflicts within and between faculty and the administration, Chapela’s tenure review took far longer than usual (beginning in September 2001), which enabled his international and on-campus supporters to rally around his case. In one iconic act, Chapela lugged his desk outside and held his office hours in front of California Hall - a powerful public protest. Chapela was eventually awarded tenure in May 2005.<br />
<br />
[[image:Novartis-Chapela-Rally.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Students rally against the Novartis deal and Chapela’s tenure denial.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/BERKELEY-Students-support-tenure-for-professor-2629783.php SFGate]''<br />
<br />
Chapela’s tenure battle and the Novartis deal controversy were not the final incidents, for in 2007 a historic $500 million deal was struck between British Petroleum (BP), UC Berkeley, and the University of Illinois for a ten-year research contract. Berkeley faculty and graduate students were to help BP scientists design and implement genetically modified plants and microbes for use in the biofuel industry. Chapela, now tenured, and his colleague Miguel Altieri raised objections to the deal, arguing the project would displace farmland desperately needed for crops in poorer nations and substitute them for patented crops owned by large multinational corporations. Chapela and Altieri’s concerns were ignored by the administration, with the UC Regents signing the deal and initiating the building of a new research facility - the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) - which was named by BP. University officials described it as “the first public-private institution of this scale in the world” [3], eclipsing a $113 million contribution from the Hewlett Foundation and a $10 million research program by Dow Chemical, both of which were also finalised in 2007. The deal began to fracture in 2015, when BP utilised a contract clause to pull nearly a third of its projected funding for the year, citing plummeting oil prices and the cost of its clean-up operation following the calamitous 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico [4]. Thus, the sad irony is that the largest oil spill in history and plummeting oil prices have resulted in a substantial ''reduction'' in Berkeley’s funding for research into cleaner, renewable biofuels at a time when the need for alternatives to oil was most blatant. Obtaining funding from BP therefore not only raises ethical problems, but it also places essential, forward-thinking research in a fragile and volatile space, at the whims of market forces and the mutable corporate interests these produce [5].<br />
<br />
At the heart of these conflicts are the tensions that emerge from the convergence of university and corporate research agendas [6], and the threat to academic freedom this poses. Scientists are being forced to adopt a more entrepreneurial mindset, and universities are inclined to solicit ever-larger proportions of private investment due to cutbacks in government funding. In the fall of 1964, undergraduate student Mario Savio took to the steps of Sproul Hall to publicly denounce the university for going out of its way to “serve the need of American industry”, and argued it represented “a factory that turns out a certain product needed by industry” [7]. Savio’s damning critique of the bureaucratisation and corporatisation of UC Berkeley was punctuated in a number of speeches and publications such as the Radical Student Union’s ''The Uses of U.C. Berkeley: Research'' [8], and seems as relevant today as it was in the 1960s; all the more so with the election of President Trump who will continue to squeeze public university funding, especially in areas such as climate change [9].<br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:SavioSpeechSteps.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Mario Savio delivers a speech to students on campus, December 7th 1964 '''<br />
<br>''Photo: Robert W. Klein/AP''<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>Concluding Remarks and Questions</h4><br />
<br />
What lessons can we learn from this brief history? First and foremost, it should serve as a warning, or reminder, that we must not rely on the University administration to act justly, or to stave off further corporate capture of academia. Historically, the administration has proven its affiliations and has been at best complicit in, and at worst active agents of, this process and its acceleration. It has been the determined actions of committed faculty and students [10] – in spite of the repressive efforts of the University - that has generated friction in the gears of bureaucracy, and resulted in progressive change. We must continue this legacy, for if we fail to resist the tide of privatisation we stand to lose not only academic freedom and progressive research agendas, but also the fundamental ability of the University to play a positive role in the public sphere.<br />
<br />
Privatisation of the Public University has emerged hand-in-hand with government cutbacks to higher education funding, and we must assume this trajectory will continue. Ex-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s appointment as President of the University in 2013 further warrants this bleak outlook, with the graduate student union announcing: “We fear that this decision will further expand the privatization, mismanagement, and militarized repression of free speech that characterized Mark Yudof’s presidency and will threaten the quality and accessibility of education” [11]. Combine this with President Trump’s palpable threats to many research agendas, and his close ties with private interests despite an anti-establishment campaign platform, and it should be clear that this crisis will prevail. It is therefore of significant urgency that we defend the gains we have inherited, and fight back at the University’s dereliction of its responsibilities and repressive tendencies.<br />
<br />
It is not only corporate capture of the University that should be troubling, but also the powerful ideological influence of the administration [12]. The McCarthy era had far-reaching implications for the campus community, heightening and legitimising pre-existing anti-communist fervour among the administration and providing the space in which repression was deemed necessary. We should be keen to notice the persistent role of ideological influences in higher education, such as the threats to academic freedom since September 11 [13] born out of resurgent patriotism and Islamophobia.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, we must answer one question: what role do we want our public universities to play? Historically, UC Berkeley has provided the local community with harsh policing tactics, and the national community with suspect nuclear weapons schemes: exploiting the veil of the ivory tower. Now, we – as members of the public - must assume ownership of this question, and reclaim the college from the grips of private interests.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Thank you for reading.</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51 Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Closure_of_the_School_of_Criminology,_1976 Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Fighting_for_Tenure Part 4: Fighting for Tenure]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Whistleblowers Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas]<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] …along with an anti-GMO article later redacted by Nature magazine: Milius, Susan. 2016. "[http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/journal_disowns_transgene.html Journal Disowns Transgene Report]". Science News Online.<br />
<br>[2] Busch and Fairweather, et al.. 2004. External Review Of The Collaborative Research Agreement Between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. And The Regents Of The University Of California. ''Institute For Food And Agricultural Standards (IFAS)''. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 42<br />
<br>[3] Sanders, Robert. 2007. "[http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/11/14_ebisigning.shtml Energy Biosciences Institute Contract Signed]". Berkeley.Edu.<br />
<br>[4] Neumann, Erik. 2007. "[http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2015-02-20/not-so-fast-uc-berkeley-biofuel-research-takes-hit-bp-oil Not So Fast: At UC Berkeley, Biofuel Research Takes Hit As BP Oil Company Backs Away]". Cal Alumni Association.<br />
<br>[5] It would be amiss to not mention the battles fought by Chapela’s colleague Tyrone Hayes, who waged a formidable – and admittedly somewhat bizarre - battle against atrazine-manufacturer Syngenta. Hayes’ battle has been omitted from this history as the University didn’t have much involvement, however it offers a sobering insight into the efforts corporations are going through to discourage and silence critical research, with Syngenta representatives physically following Hayes around the world to disrupt his speaking engagements. A summary of the conflict can be found here: Slater, Dashka. 2012. "[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered The Frog Of War]". ''Mother Jones''.<br />
<br>[6] On this note, see the Atlantic’s long read on the Academic-Industrial Complex: Press, Eyal and Jennifer Washburn. 2000. "The Kept University". ''The Atlantic''.<br />
<br>[7] Mario Savio, An End To History speech, delivered 2nd December 1964, The University of California at Berkeley<br />
<br>[8] Radical Student Union,. 1969. ''The Uses Of U.C. Berkeley: Research''. Berkeley<br />
<br>[9] To learn more about the conservative’s assault on Higher Education funding in the United States, consider watching Steve Mims’ documentary ''Starving the Beast'', 2016<br />
<br>[10] Some of these individuals and communities were radicals, but many were not. The Loyalty Oath Controversy, for example, infuriated a huge contingent of faculty; many of who were otherwise somewhat ‘apolitical’.<br />
<br>[11] Bond-Graham, Darwin. 2013. "[http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/18/the-university-of-california-and-the-military-industrial-complex/ The University Of California And The Military Industrial Complex]". Counterpunch.<br />
<br>[12] Insofar as they can be understood as distinct from one another.<br />
<br>[13] Nocella, Anthony J, Steven Best, and Peter McLaren. 2010. ''Academic Repression''. 1st ed. Edinburgh: AK Press.<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:Schools]][[category:2000s]][[category:2010s]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Whistleblowers&diff=26496UC Berkeley: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers2017-04-25T05:13:33Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 5 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:ReaganWood.png]]<br />
<br>'''Ronald Reagan and Lowell Wood'''<br />
<br>''Illustration by Brad Hamann in Blum, Deborah. 1988. "Weird Science: Livermore's X-Ray Laser Flap". Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 44 (6), 9''<br />
<br><br><br />
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was founded in 1952 by the University of California, an addition to the pre-existing UC Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley. The Lab focussed on new weapon designs, with many of the warheads designed at Livermore being stationed and used throughout the Cold War, and has been the target of many protests, most notably those of the Livermore Action Group who organised mass nonviolent demonstrations between 1981 and 1984 [1]. There was also scrutiny from within the University community and among staff, demonstrated by the ad hoc group of around 12 Berkeley faculty members that took it upon themselves to keep the entire faculty up-to-date on the latest Lab-related scandals. This group, which included mathematician Keith Miller who fortunately preserved a personal archive of their communications, was active between 1986-1990, during which time the Lab, and the UC administration, was embroiled in multiple displays of dishonesty and deceit.<br />
<br><br><br />
[[image:LLNL-30-years-of-sabotage-demo.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Demonstration at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, 1982.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:LLNL-30-years-of-sabotage-demo.jpg FoundSF]'' <br />
<br><br><br />
[[image:Lll-nuclear-weapons-mean-certain-death-for-all-march-on-street.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Anti-nuclear protest on perimeter of the LLNL'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Lll-nuclear-weapons-mean-certain-death-for-all-march-on-street.jpg FoundSF]''<br />
<br><br />
<br />
The ad hoc committee of faculty sought to make public the dereliction of the University’s responsibilities in overseeing and regulating the Labs, in hope of making the administration more active in their management of both the Livermore and Los Alamos facilities. At the center of the controversies were Edward Teller and his protégé Lowell Wood, who headed the Strategic Defense Initiative efforts at LLNL, enchanting Reagan by stoking his Star Wars dreams with their glorified plans and designs. Keith Miller and the ad hoc committee exposed Teller’s fabrications and overselling of his ‘Super Excalibur’ X-ray laser, and the silencing of Roy Woodruff’s attempts to correct Teller’s extravagant claims. Woodruff, a well-respected researcher who had been at the Lab for 21 years and was director of Livermore’s weapons programs at the time, publicly questioned Star Wars’ feasibility, but was met with repression by the Labs and UC President David Gardner. Woodruff was punished for his whistleblowing through reassignment to a menial job [2] in a “windowless cubbyhole” [3], and ultimately resigned in October 1985 in protest of his silencing under Lab Director Batzel, taking up a new job at the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico: suggesting the situation at Berkeley’s LLNL was particularly dire.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:ReaganTeller.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Reagan awarding Teller the National Medal of Science, 1983'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_Teller_and_Ronald_Reagan.jpg Wikimedia Commons]''<br />
<br />
The power afforded to Edward Teller’s claims, and the repression of Roy Woodruff’s criticisms, alludes to the close relations between the Lab’s directorship, the UC administration, and the Reagan administration. The combination of the Lab’s geographic location half an hour southeast of Berkeley, its connection to the UC, and the emphatic backing of the Reagan administration all allowed the dubious and at times delusional programs of Teller and Wood to be insulated from public debate and scrutiny, resulting in an oversight vacuum in which programs were self-perpetuating in their momentum [4]. In this localised history of UC Berkeley, however, it is appropriate to avoid focusing too heavily on national players. For this broader narrative, William J. Broad’s ''Teller’s War'' [5] is seminal. Instead, our attention should be piqued by the substantial efforts of UC President Gardner’s office to silence Woodruff’s complaints and cover up the scandals, in spite of established grievance policies at the University and the California whistleblower statute.<br />
<br />
In the interest of being more concrete, the deliberate and repeated obstruction of the Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Commerce and Energy by the Lab should be briefly chronicled, for it offers a sobering insight into the extent of interference and collusion Gardner’s office was responsible for [6]. In January of 1989, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) x-ray laser report collapsed, with 5 out of the 8 scientists involved in the interviews claiming they were misrepresented. President Gardner refused to investigate the allegations or meet with Woodruff, and suspicions concerning conspiracy between the Labs and GAO auditors were somewhat vindicated when David Potter, one of the three men on the GAO inspection team, was hired by Livermore in 1989 for a substantial pay increase shortly after the GAO report was made public. Furthermore, documents acquired by the ad hoc committee of faculty via the California Information Practices Act reveal that a draft of the GAO report was circulated, pre-publication, to senior officials of the LLNL for comments, however Woodruff never received a copy, and Lowell Wood himself provided the most extensive comments.<br />
<br />
Following the collapse of the GAO report, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations launched a probe in March 1989, under the initiative of congressman John Dingell. Interviews were scheduled with 50 Lab, University, and Department of Energy (DoE) employees involved in the x-ray laser controversy, which sought to discover whether Teller and Wood’s laser had been oversold, and whether Woodruff had been punished for his whistleblowing efforts. The Subcommittee’s efforts were hampered by obstruction and contamination of interviews by the DoE and UC lawyers, which are explained further in a scathing letter from Dingell to DoE secretary James Watkins. Dingell chastised the University for its role in this obstruction of congressional oversight [7], which included using UC attorneys to ‘interview’ prospective informants before the Subcommittee was present.<br />
<br />
With their x-ray laser under scrutiny, Wood and Teller went back to the drawing board and devised ‘Brilliant Pebbles’: thousands of small orbiting rockets, each with a miniature computer programmed to detect and destroy “any behaviour that’s out of line” [8]. This new proposal kept the embers of Reagan’s Star Wars dream alive, with President Bush visiting the LLNL in February 1990 for briefings on the plans, declaring “In the 1990s strategic defense makes much more sense than ever before” [9]. UC President Gardner and UC Regents Chair Brophy were among those on stage for the post-briefing celebrations, in which Bush praised Teller emphatically for the new scheme, confirming that the close collaboration between the Labs, the University, and the government was not a uniquely Reagan phenomenon.<br />
<br />
The series of controversies at the LLNL, and the treatment of those who attempted to hold the University accountable to the appropriate management and oversight of the Labs, exemplifies UC Berkeley’s proximity to the wishes of the Reagan and early Bush administration during the 1980s and early 1990s. While Berkeley professes to be, and enjoys a reputation as, a public university, it was clearly abusing its power to actively shield the Lab’s programs from public scrutiny, using a host of legal and political manoeuvrings to do so. Thus, not only did the UC facilitate the overselling of infeasible and thus potentially hazardous nuclear technologies, but it also abdicated its responsibilities as a public institution, misusing its status for suspect ends.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51 Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Closure_of_the_School_of_Criminology,_1976 Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Fighting_for_Tenure Part 4: Fighting for Tenure]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Whistleblowers Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas]<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] Epstein, Barbara Leslie. 1993. ''Political Protest And Cultural Revolution''. 1st ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.<br />
<br>[2] Dye, Lee. 1990. "[http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-24/news/mn-299_1_star-wars Dissenter On 'Star Wars' Leaves Livermore Lab]". LA Times.<br />
<br>[3] Blum, Deborah. 1988. "Weird Science: Livermore's X-Ray Laser Flap". Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 44 (6): 7-13. Note: This article offers an excellent account of the controversy up to 1988, and includes primary sources.<br />
<br>[4] Bjork, Rebecca S. 1992. The Strategic Defense Initiative. 1st ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 89<br />
<br>[5] Broad, William J. 1992. ''Teller's War''. 1st ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.<br />
<br>[6] Note: the following details are drawn from primary documents obtained from Keith Miller (Professor of Mathematics and member of the ad hoc committee), with earlier events corroborated by Blum, 1988. "Weird Science: Livermore's X-Ray Laser Flap". Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists.<br />
<br>[7] Blum, Deborah. May 21st, 1989. "UC Lawyers Target Of Protest: They Hampered Probe Of Livermore Lab, House Staffers Say". Sacramento Bee.<br />
<br>[8] Letter obtained from Keith Miller, ''A Brief History of Our Disillusionment'', sent to faculty by the ad hoc committee on March 2, 1990.<br />
<br>[9] Smith, Kathie. February 8th, 1990. "BUSH PRAISES WORK AT LIVERMORE". ''Modesto Bee''.<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1980s]][[category:1990s]][[category:Schools]][[category:Anti-nuclear]][[category:Bay Area Social Movements]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Fighting_for_Tenure&diff=26495UC Berkeley: Fighting for Tenure2017-04-25T05:13:02Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 4 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:HarryEdwardswiththeBPs.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''John Carlos and Harry Edwards, flanked by H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael of the Black Panthers at a 1968 press conference.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://johnnyspin.blogspot.com/2013/08/american-legacy-magazine-moments-gesture.html American Legacy, Spring 2008]''<br />
<br><br><br />
Throughout the second half of the 20th Century there were a string of tenure battles at Berkeley, some of which are discussed here. It should be acknowledged that the allegations made by those denied tenure are not always verifiable, and some of the disputes mentioned were settled out of court, meaning the University did not admit guilt. Nonetheless, the tenure disputes discussed below offer some insight into the climate at Berkeley during this period.<br />
<br />
One of the most noteworthy tenure battles was that of Harry Edwards, a prominent actor in the Civil Rights Movement and professor of Sociology of Sport at Berkeley, who sought to illuminate the racial inequities faced by black athletes and situate them within the frame of broader race relations [1]. Edwards was also the founder of the Olympic Project for Human Rights, pushed for a boycott of the 1968 Games, and was the stimulus behind the notorious Black Power Salute [2]. A divisive figure, Edwards’ courses were some of the largest and most popular on campus, and his works had an international audience with three books, over fifty articles, and lectures at more than 300 colleges and universities worldwide [3]. Despite this, Edwards was denied tenure in January 1977, with the committee arguing that “he needed one or two more articles in established journals” [4]. Accusing the Department of Sociology of racism, the campus community and beyond protested the decision, with thousands of students signing a petition, letters being sent by leading civil rights activists and organisations, and both the black graduate student caucus and all 13 tenured Black faculty members publically denouncing the decision. It was only ''after'' this negative publicity that Chancellor Bowker reversed the decision. In later interviews, Bowker speaks candidly of his pragmatic reasons for ultimately supporting Edwards’ case for tenure, claiming that Edwards was ‘useful’ in keeping black athletes ‘in line’ – perhaps revealing Bowker’s idea of race relations. [5]<br />
<br />
In the same year, celebrated African American poet and novelist Ishmael Reed of the English Department was denied tenure. Reed himself urges us not to compare his case with Edwards’, arguing the only similarity is that “We’re both black… that’s all it is.” [6]. Despite this, Reed admitted to a news reporter that he believed “racism was a factor” [7], noting that his unorthodox (in the context of his departmental colleagues) literary style was labelled as ‘temperamental’ and ‘surly’ by colleagues; both of which, he argues, are classic charges against black people who deviate from the white status quo [8]. One of the main reasons proffered for Reed’s tenure denial was his abrupt cancellation of a course in 1968, contributing to the accusations of his ‘temperamental’ disposition. However, in later interviews Reed explains that he cancelled the course in response to the militarized repression of the People’s Park Protests ordered by Reagan – the same protests that the radical wing of the School of Criminology were fiercely criticising. Reed portrays the repression as a “bombing of campus” [9], citing the use of helicopters to drop airborne tear gas, which he notes is categorised by the Geneva Convention as a chemical warfare agent. Reed writes, on cancelling the course: “My contract did not say anything about war or being trained for combat, so I cancelled one summer course.” [10] Thus, despite no admission of racism on behalf of the department or administration, and Reed’s hesitancy to focus on racial influences - “I’m not into black-confrontation politics” [11] - it seems difficult to imagine the absence of ''any'' racial undercurrents in the department’s tenure review process, or at least an aversion to his writings that challenged dominant political culture and his act of protest in cancelling his 1968 course.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[image:Teargas-copter.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Helicopter sprays demonstrators with teargas on May 20, 1969.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://picturethis.museumca.org/pictures/helicopter-sprays-tear-gas-demonstrators-university-california-berkeley-campus Oakland Museum of California]''<br />
<br />
The 1980s and 90s saw a string of sex/gender-based discrimination cases filed against UC Berkeley, who never admitted any wrongdoing, instead agreeing to monetary settlements or decision reversals regarding tenure. Merle Woo, a Chinese-American socialist feminist lecturing in the Asian American Studies Department, was victim of multiple firings and rehirings beginning June 1982 despite being a nationally acclaimed writer [12]. Woo fought back: “I tacked a big note over my desk which read, “I shall return”” [13]. She went on to charge the UC with discrimination on the grounds of her politics, sex, sexuality, race, and her public criticism of the Department’s policies [14]. With the support of other leading academics such as Angela Davis, the San Francisco City Supervisor Harry Britt, and prominent figures like poet Cherríe Moraga, Woo won reinstatement in February 1984, plus nearly $49,000 in settlement and $25,000 in court fees. However, Woo was fired again in June 1986 from her teaching position in the Graduate School of Education, without a review of her teaching ever taking place. Along with a University Council-American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT) representative, Woo filed a grievance regarding the University’s continuing retaliation and unjust treatment since her first victory in 1984 [15]. Despite the grievance procedure being enshrined as a right of every lecturer, Woo was denied access to it in July 1986. Public pressure led to the UC conceding to a hearing in June 1987, from which time the UC-AFT, the Merle Woo defense council, and Woo herself pushed the grievance to its final stage. Finally, an outside arbitrator declared Woo’s dismissal ‘unreasonable’ in March 1989, requiring the University to reinstate her with full back pay, seniority, and benefits. Woo’s battle resulted in two landmark court rulings which set the stage for future gender and sex-based discrimination cases, and her struggle was situated in, and inherited from, an era of broader battles for multicultural education at Berkeley that begun in the late 1960s. [16]<br />
<br />
[[image:MeleWoo.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Merle Woo'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://zinnedproject.org/materials/asian-americans-and-moments-in-peoples-history/ Zinn Education Project]''<br />
<br />
Following Woo’s arduous and precedent-setting cases, there were five other cases of gender/sex discrimination lodged by Berkeley teaching staff. The first was by Eleanor Swift of the Berkeley Law School, who was denied tenure in 1987 prompting her to initiate a suit against the University on the basis of sex discrimination. The suit resulted in an agreement to form an outside independent review committee of academics, who unanimously voted in favour of her tenure in August 1989. Swift went on to receive multiple teaching awards, and wrote about the tenure dispute in Berkeley Women’s Law Journal [17]. The next concession by the administration came in 1992, when Art Professor Margaretta Lovell reached a settlement following a two-year state court battle. Lovell was ''also'' suing the University on the accusation that they denied her second review as an act of retaliation for her public opposition to what she saw as higher standards being applied to female faculty during tenure reviews [18].<br />
<br />
Jenny Harrison of the mathematics department waged a legal battle following tenure denial in 1986, which eventually resulted in an outside committee recommending her tenure in 1993 [19]. Similarly, 1996 saw a major financial settlement to the tune of $1 million, which was awarded to Marcy Wang, an assistant professor of architecture since 1979 who claimed her tenure was denied in 1986 and again in 1989 due to her being an Asian woman. Wang claimed that the University did “everything to discredit, destroy, and spread negative reports” about her, noting that she “had no idea how entrenched the university was in protecting itself or extensions of itself no matter how reprehensible the behaviour was” [20]. The closing case in this string of battles was that of Maribeth Graybill, assistant professor of art history from 1981-1990. In 1997 Graybill received $113,000 in back pay for her denial of tenure and subsequent dismissal, in a settlement reached between the Department of Justice and UC Berkeley. While Berkeley officials deny any wrongdoing, it is of significant weight that the Justice Department found sufficient merit to file the lawsuit and carry it through a lengthy court battle. Furthermore, despite Berkeley’s rebuttals, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached the verdict that University employees did discriminate based on Graybill’s gender. In the words of Graybill herself: "What is hard for all of us to believe is that discrimination can occur in a place with that kind of reputation," she explained, "…but the EEOC said it did.” [21]<br />
<br />
As with all of the aforementioned tenure battles, the lack of confession by UC Berkeley makes it difficult to assert categorical charges against the university. Nonetheless, the fact that the Department of Justice fought cases such as Maribeth Graybill’s, and the support for many of these battles from the campus community and beyond, demonstrates the concerns of many regarding discrimination in Berkeley’s tenure review process. Further, it is striking that both Graybill and Wang expressed feelings of surprise regarding just how entrenched discrimination, repression of whistleblowing, and retaliation, was at Berkeley, versus its outwardly enlightened reputation.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51 Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Closure_of_the_School_of_Criminology,_1976 Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Fighting_for_Tenure Part 4: Fighting for Tenure]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Whistleblowers Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas]<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br><br />
[1] Edwards, Harry. 1969. The Revolt Of The Black Athlete. 1st ed. New York: Free Press. Note: In this book, Edwards situates ‘revolts’ by Black athletes within a larger spirit of revolt among black citizens, arguing spectacles such as Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ 1968 Olympics black power salute were “[just] as legitimate as the sit-ins, the freedom rides, or any other manifestation of Afro-American efforts to gain freedom” – p.38<br />
<br>[2] "[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3535000/3535348.stm BBC ON THIS DAY | 17 | 1968: Black Athletes Make Silent Protest]". 2016.<br />
<br>[3] Edwards, Harry. 1977. "Edwards Vs The University Of California". ''The Black Scholar'' 8 (7): 32-34. doi:10.1080/00064246.1977.11413909.<br />
<br>[4] Wiggins, David K. 2014. "‘ The Struggle That Must Be ’: Harry Edwards, Sport And The Fight For Racial Equality". ''The International Journal Of The History Of Sport'' 31 (7): 760-777. doi:10.1080/09523367.2014.890431, 766 Note: See also Edward’s autobiography ‘The Struggle That Must Be’, 1980<br />
<br>[5] Bowker, interviewed by Harriet Nathan, University History Series. Note: Bowker suggests that Edwards was hired in a tokenistic manner, saying “[the Sociology Department] wanted a kind of New Left minority sociologist, I guess.” He goes on to say that “The campus was in a conservative mood” at the time of Edwards tenure case, and Bowker surprisingly asserts that he did want to award tenure to Edwards, but “the faculty establishment… probably didn’t”. (p.166). However, Bowker refers to Edwards in terms of his ‘usefulness’ as a role model for black athletes; in one instance, for example, Bowker recalls that Edwards “straightened them out” when they “ran up big bills” at a bookstore p.167. Thus, the Chancellor’s interest in supporting Edwards’ tenure case seemed to be more instrumental and rooted in bigoted notions of his paternalistic role on other black athletes than the result of respect for Edward’s counter-hegemonic critiques.<br />
<br>[6] Reed, Ishmael, Bruce Dick, and Amritjit Singh. 1995. ''Conversations With Ishmael Reed''. 1st ed. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 112<br />
<br>[7] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[8] ''Ibid.'', 113<br />
<br>[9] ''Ibid.'', 115<br />
<br>[10] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[11] ''Ibid.'', 112<br />
<br>[12] Brodine, Karen. 1983. "[https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/freedom-socialist/v08n03-summer-1983-FS.pdf Merle Woo's Labor/Civil Rights Case: From Campus To Courtroom]". Freedom Socialist. Note: Woo was a leader in the Freedom Socialist Party, with this front-page story offering insight into the uproar the first firing and court case caused.<br />
<br>[13] Merle Woo’s 1984 Victory Speech in Ridinger, Robert B. Marks. 2004. ''Speaking For Our Lives''. 1st ed. New York: Harrington Park Press, 436<br />
<br>[14] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[15] Wong, Nellie. 2015. ''Talking Back: Voices Of Color''. 1st ed.<br />
<br>[16] Stryker, Susan and Jim Van Buskirk. 1996. ''Gay By The Bay''. 1st ed. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 106<br />
<br>[17] Swift, Eleanor. 1989. "[http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=bglj Becoming A Plaintiff]". Berkeley Women's Law Journal 4 (2): 245-250.<br />
<br>[18] Kearl, Holly. 2016. "[http://www.aauw.org/resource/lovell-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california-et-al/ Court Case: Lovell V. Regents Of The University Of California, Et Al.]". AAUW: Empowering Women Since 1881. Accessed December 10.<br />
<br>[19] Jackson, Allyn. 1994. "Fighting For Tenure: The Jenny Harrison Case Opens Pandora's Box Of Issues About Tenure, Discrimination, And The Law". Notices Of The American Mathematical Society 41 (3): 187-194.<br />
<br>[20] Marcy Wang, interviewed by Deborah Woo, in Woo, Deborah. 2000. Glass Ceilings And Asian Americans. 1st ed. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press, 137<br />
<br>[21] Weiss, Kenneth R. 1997. "[http://articles.latimes.com/1997-01-08/news/mn-16523_1_uc-berkeley UC Berkeley To Pay $113,000 In Bias Case]". LA Times.<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1970s]][[category:1980s]][[category:1990s]][[category:Power and Money]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Closure_of_the_School_of_Criminology,_1976&diff=26494UC Berkeley: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 19762017-04-25T05:12:51Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 3 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Vollmerandsproul1936.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Vollmer and Sproul, 1936'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf4w1008bn/?brand=oac4 Online Archive of California]''<br />
<br><br><br />
The Berkeley School of Criminology was the mission of Berkeley Police Department’s first Chief - August Vollmer - who hoped to professionalise California’s police force via the teaching of “police science” [1]. The first full-session criminology program was offered in 1931, and focused on training police officers in practical skills such as psychiatry, microbiology and toxicology. The School itself was created in 1947 in the face of opposition, due to the lack of a clearly articulated vision. It is important to note that the successful formation of the School was due in part to Sproul’s sympathy to the proposal, and in part to legitimisation by groups outside of the University - notably the Berkeley Police Department. It was this fragile balance of legitimisation from both inside and outside the University that enabled the School of Criminology to exist despite the tensions and direct challenges [2] that occurred throughout the next few decades.<br />
<br />
Having adhered to the status quo throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, Berkeley’s School of Criminology began to house a faction of radical criminologists in the late 1960s. This was surely a symptom of the “dramatic political upheavals” [3] and activation of the Berkeley campus during this period, through events such as the Free Speech Movement and Vietnam War Protests. This new, radical wing of the School manifested itself via the application of Marxist theories, support for efforts such as community control and monitoring of the police, prisoner solidarity movements, and the publication of counter-hegemonic works [4]. This new radical clique, led by charismatic faculty members such as Tony Platt and Herman Schwendinger, disrupted the bases of internal and external legitimisation the School precariously existed on. Steeped in a radical Marxist lens that was both a product of, and nourished by, the climate in Berkeley at this time, the radical school forcefully rejected the notions of objectivity professed by their peers and colleagues in the school, with a small group of students and teachers forming a Union of Radical Criminologists in 1972 [5]. The radical School drew the ire of Ronald Reagan by condemning the Governor’s heavy-handedness in the People’s Park demonstrations of 1969. The subsequent appointment of Chancellor Bowker in 1971 - supported by Attorney Meese who served under Reagan – paved the way for the inevitable ruin of the School [6].<br />
<br />
As the administration began to engineer the closure of the School, there was an outburst of support and resistance [7] from both within the campus community and from academics across the world. Protests were widely advertised and well attended, with the Black Panther newspaper running stories on the demonstrations [8]. However, it was the lack of support from the professional community, on which the School had relied on throughout its turbulent past [9], that precipitated the death of the School. Having strayed from its origins as a “professional” program toward a more academic and critical focus, the School was no longer able to solicit legitimacy from its historical sources, and on the wishes of the Berkeley administration it was closed on July 15th, 1976, with the surviving faculty being placed “under the ideological guardianship of the Law School” [10]. The closure of the School can be understood as a process of, and interaction between, institutional change and personal disputes, which resulted in multiple periods of uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of the School’s existence. Until the mid-1960s, each period of uncertainty had been quelled by concerted support from outside sources, though it was the lack of such support, and the wishes of the administration to repress the radical critiques advanced by the new faction, that led to the School’s closure. The events that culminated in the school’s dissolution demonstrate how crucial Berkeley’s administration perceived the soliciting of support, prestige and legitimacy from external institutions to be: in this case the Berkeley Police Department played a pivotal role.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51 Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Closure_of_the_School_of_Criminology,_1976 Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Fighting_for_Tenure Part 4: Fighting for Tenure]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Whistleblowers Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas]<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] Koehler, Johann. 2015. "Development And Fracture Of A Discipline: Legacies Of The School Of Criminology At Berkeley". Criminology 53 (4): 513-544. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12081.<br />
<br>[2] Such as the Master Plan, which aimed to place all vocational programs under the purview of the California Community College system.<br />
<br>[3] "[https://www.socialjusticejournal.org/SJEdits/06Edit-1.html Editorial: Berkeley's School Of Criminology, 1950-1976]". 1976. Crime And Social Justice 6.<br />
<br>[4] Shank, Gregory. 2008. "[https://www.socialjusticejournal.org/SJEdits/Takagi-Paul.html Paul T. Takagi Honored]". Social Justice 35 (2).<br />
<br>[5] Shank, Gregory. 1999. "[http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/shankcrimin.html Looking Back: Radical Criminology And Social Movements]". History Is A Weapon.<br />
<br>[6] Bowker, Albert H., interviewed by Harriet Nathan, University History Series, Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, 1991. Note: Bowker speaks bluntly about various events mentioned in this history, most notably the School of Criminology and Harry Edward’s tenure case.<br />
<br>[7] ''Ibid.'' Note: Bowker took a firm stance on these demonstrations, ordering police to clear out the occupation of the criminology building while he and his wife retreated to a motel. Bowker chillingly recalls “I remember that practically all of my senior officers, the president of the student body, and everybody were there saying, "No, don't do it; there will be bloodshed."”, to which he responded “Sometimes you have to crack a few heads.”… “It was quite bloody…”, 19<br />
<br>[8] Shank, ''Looking Back'', 1999<br />
<br>[9] Bowker, interviewed by Harriet Nathan, University History Series. Note: This series of interviews with Bowker elaborates on the centrality of external support and legitimization for the School’s survival, noting “Clark Kerr had once or twice tried to abolish the School of Criminology… and had failed because the establishment of police and public safety complained so much…” p. 16.<br />
<br>[10] Platt, Tony. 2014. "[http://www.socialjusticejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/131-132Intro.pdf Editor’s Introduction: Legacies Of Radical Criminology In The United States]". Social Justice Journal 40 (1), 3<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1970s]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51&diff=26493UC Berkeley: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-512017-04-25T05:12:44Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 2 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:TenneyCommittee.jpeg]]<br />
<br>'''Tenney Committee members, state senators Louis Sutton, Hugh Burns, Clyde Watson, Jack B. Tenney, 1947'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://lit250v.library.ucla.edu/islandora/object/edu.ucla.library.specialCollections.losAngelesDailyNews%3A192 Los Angeles Daily News Negatives]''<br />
<br><br><br />
The context of a right wing, reactionary administration was fertile ground for the anti-communist hysteria that swept the nation in the McCarthy era. In early 1949 Harold Laski, a prominent left-wing member of the British Labour Party, had his speaking engagements at UCLA and Berkeley cancelled [1], illustrating the level of paranoia and contempt for those perceived by the administration as Communist sympathisers. In this Cold War climate, far-right regents such as John Francis Neylan were able to exercise great agency over the University’s response to McCarthyism, which culminated in the introduction of what has been dubbed the ‘Loyalty Oath’ in 1949.<br />
<br />
The Oath was imposed by the Board of Regents, and required all University employees to pledge their loyalty to the state constitution, and to deny membership in, or belief in, organisations promoting the overthrow of the US government: the clear emphasis being on Communist organisations. Sproul pushed for the Loyalty Oath at Berkeley, which was pre-emptive as the Oath for state employees [2] did not extend to employees of the University of California at the time. Chairman of the California Committee on Un-American Activities (the California State Assembly’s ‘little HUAC’) Jack B. Tenney supposedly threatened to withhold the university’s budget if it did not “deal with its communist problem”, which perhaps explains what Professor Benjamin Lehman described as a “momentary failure of insight” [3] by Sproul.<br />
<br />
The Oath was met with resistance by some faculty members, with non-signers at Berkeley organising under the leadership of Professors Edward Tolman and Frank Newman in the first half of 1950 [4]. Following a series of standoffs, deadline deferrals, and an ultimatum, a compromise gave non-signers the option of a hearing in front of the Privilege and Tenure Committee to defend their employment. On June 23rd 1950, the Board of Regents voted to fire 157 employees, both academic and non-academic, for their refusal to sign the Oath. This number was soon reduced to 31, as many decided to sign the Oath after the Regents made their tenacity clear, and others were spared by the subsequent actions of individual Regents. Charles Muscatine was one of these thirty-one professors, and in a later interview cited violations of the US constitution and threats to academic freedom as his motivations for refusing to honour the Oath [5]. Other members of staff and faculty resigned in protest of the mass-firings, such as Wolfgang Panofsky; a physics professor and researcher at Ernest Lawrence’s Radiation Laboratory. Lawrence, annoyed at the prospect of losing a promising young scientist such as Panofsky, demonstrated just how out-of-touch many University officials were throughout the controversy by inviting the physicist to an “out of channels” [6] meeting at Regent Neylan’s home. As Birge writes: “if there was anyone at the time for whom Panofsky felt utter disdain it was Neylan” [7], for Neylan was the orchestrator of the Oath, and a supporter of the far-right faction of the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
<br>[[image:DailyCalLoyaltyOath.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Daily Californian cartoon, July 7th, 1949.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/loyaltyoath/images_dailycal.html Daily Californian Archives]''<br />
<br><br><br />
In a landmark victory in April 1951 at the California Court of Appeal [8], the University was ordered to reinstate the academics fired for their refusal to sign, and it was made clear that employees of the University could not be subjected to any narrower oath than that set out by the statewide Levering Act. Thus, the dismissals were reversed, and a number of lawsuits for back pay were lodged; but the damage was done. It was supposedly Tenney’s threats of defunding the university that led Sproul to allow the Oath to pass [9]; a measure that surpassed the anti-communist measures being voted ''down'' in the legislature. Nonetheless, the Loyalty Oath was evidently the brainchild of staunchly anti-communist, right wing members of the Board of Regents and administration; which called into question the university’s commitment to academic freedom, exemplified their lack of empathy for staff’s ethical concerns, and provided grievances that contributed to the eruption of the Free Speech Movement a decade later.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51 Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Closure_of_the_School_of_Criminology,_1976 Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Fighting_for_Tenure Part 4: Fighting for Tenure]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Whistleblowers Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas]<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] Academic Senate, Southern Section,. 1949. [http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb309nb51n&brand=lo&chunk.id=meta Resolution Passed By The Academic Senate], April 19, 1949. Academic Freedom--California. Los Angeles. <br />
<br>[2] The oath for state employees became the Levering Act in 1950 following the inclusion of the disavowal of radical beliefs, with the help of Earl Warren.<br />
<br>[3] Benjamin H. Lehman, interviewed by Suzanne B. Riess, [https://archive.org/details/lehmanrecollecti00lehmrich Recollections and reminiscences of life in the Bay Area from 1920 onward], University of California Libraries, Bancroft Library, 1969, 276. Note: See also, more generally, 254-290 for oral history on the Oath Crisis.<br />
<br>[4] [http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/loyaltyoath/timeline_retreat.html "The California Loyalty Oath Digital Collection"]. 2007. Bancroft.Berkeley.Edu. Note: This Digital Collection from the Bancroft Library contains oral histories and links to additional resources such as digitised primary sources.<br />
<br>[5] Charles Muscatine, interviewer unknown, Stifling Academic Freedom, [http://www.trackedinamerica.org/timeline/mccarthy_era/muscatine/ Tracked In America], n.d. Note: The ‘Tracked in America’ project is a documentary website of oral histories related to surveillance in America.<br />
<br>[6] Jackson, John David. 2009. "Panofsky Agonistes: The 1950 Loyalty Oath At Berkeley". Physics Today 62 (1): 41-47. doi:10.1063/1.3074262., 8. Note: This short document provides an interesting insight into how pervasive the moral/ethical crises triggered by the Oath, and how Regents and University officials attempted to coerce nonsigners.<br />
<br>[7] Birge, Raymond Thayer. 1968. ''History Of The Physics Department''. 1st ed. Berkeley: University of California, Chapter XVIII, 33 Note: This is referenced in Jackson’s 2009 account of Panofsky’s entanglement in the Loyalty Oath Crisis, page 8.<br />
<br>[8] Edward C. Tolman et al., Petitioners, v. Robert M. Underhill, as Secretary and Treasurer of Regents of University of California, et al., Respondents. 1951 Concerning the Special Loyalty Declaration at the University of California, Civ. No. 7946 3. The District Court of Appeal, State of California, Third Appellate District.<br />
<br>[9] Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 67<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1940s]][[category:1950s]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century&diff=26492UC Berkeley: The Early 20th Century2017-04-25T05:12:15Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 1 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Earl-Warren-Bohemina-Club.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Earl Warren (Left) becoming potentate at the Bohemian Club'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf2g5005d0/?layout=metadata&brand=oac4 Online Archive of California]''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Addressing-injustice.png|left]]<br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | '''This brief six-part history seeks to disrupt the popular imaginary that esteems UC Berkeley as a progressive, even radical, institution. Such a characterization is ahistorical, for the administration has proven itself a bastion of conservatism, repressive of counter-hegemonic scholarship, and certainly ''not'' a vehicle for progressive change. Instead, the radical aura of the college should be credited to the immense efforts of committed members of the Berkeley community – both on-campus and in the city at large - many of whom were activated by the 1934 San Francisco general strike, and the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. This broad stroke historical survey, which is by no means exhaustive, focuses specifically on 20th century conflicts between ''faculty'' [1] and the administration of UC Berkeley [2]. It reveals the administration’s true nature as a force for conservatism, adept in using bureaucratic manoeuvrings to maintain the status quo at Berkeley through close ties with government actors and corporate interests. As a public institution, this ‘status quo’ has included the instruction of tough policing tactics, the hyping of nuclear weapon technologies and simultaneous suppression of their critics, and the enabling of corporate hegemony over genetically modified organisms.'''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The actions and alignments of Berkeley’s administration during the two World Wars offers fruitful context for issues discussed later, but also exemplifies just how historically conservative - at times exhibiting far-right elements - the administration has been. In ''The Goose-Step'' [3] - a seminal text for those wishing to understand the political climate of American Universities during this era - Upton Sinclair invokes the mafia to describe Berkeley as ‘The University of the Black Hand’ [4], providing myriad examples of collusion between right wing, imperialist political actors and the conservative, hegemonic UC regents (the “grand dukes of plutocracy” [5]). Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President of the UC system until 1919, was a good friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He nominated the German Emperor for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1911 [6], and hung a “fine photograph” of the Kaiser in his office [7]. However, this camaraderie became a sticking point by 1918 when anti-German hysteria was rife in America. All degree candidates were now required to sign a pledge attesting to their Americanism, and three professors were fired on dubious charges of disloyalty [8]. This should be regarded as the first Loyalty Oath at Berkeley, foreshadowing the anti-communist Oath of the 1950s.<br />
<br />
A second symptom of this hysteria was Wheeler’s succession by David Prescott Barrows, a Colonel who served as assistant chief of staff in the American Expeditionary Forces [9]. He fought in the bloody conflicts in Siberia alongside General Semenoff, a particularly brutal commander of the White Russian forces, as part of a loose coalition of anti-communist interventionist forces who sought to prevent the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution [10]. In a 1939 hearing, Barrows argued that communists are violent by nature [11]; ignoring the fact that the Revolution only became bloody when the White Russian forces and their allies, of which he was a member, invaded. It makes sense, then, that Sinclair refers to Barrows as “The Dean of Imperialism” [12], a “real red-blooded, two-fisted man of action” [13]. Unsurprisingly, Barrows was a powerful accomplice in the crackdown on the American Left, and made ultrapatriotism and anti-communism priorities of the new American Legion of which he was commander [14]. These actions reflect deep ideological convictions, corroborated by his memoirs in which he labels the 1934 San Francisco General Strike as a “prelude for a Communist overthrow” [15], and brands union leader Harry Bridges a communist conspirator.<br />
<br><br><br />
[[image:General-Barrows-Armistice-Day.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''General Barrows speaking at Armistice Day observance, 1926'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://lit250v.library.ucla.edu/islandora/object/edu.ucla.library.specialCollections.latimes%3A7237 LA Times Photographs Collection]''<br><br><br />
<br />
During the strike, Barrows – while still teaching at Berkeley - was head of the National Guard for the Western region, commanding the ''military'' crackdown on the strike while UC regent John Francis Neylan orchestrated the ''political'' crackdown through his close ties to the press. Following the General Strike, University Regulation 5 was enacted, banning Communist Party members (or suspected members) from campus on the grounds that Communism was contradictory to “Free Speech” and “academic freedom” [16]. It is telling that no policy was ever enforced to defend these tenets from fascism, despite Regulation 5 acknowledging the university was just as threatened by reactionaries on the Right. Instead, the administration fired Kenneth May from Berkeley’s math department in 1940 - the first politically motivated dismissal of a member of teaching staff since 1874 [17] - and maintained a strict policy on not hiring those deemed to be Communists.<br />
<br />
By 1933, Roosevelt’s New Deal had prompted a rightward shift amongst many of the UC’s regents. Despite the professed purpose of the Regents as representatives of the people of California, in reality most were agents of business interests such as oil and gas tycoons and agribusiness giants. George Stewart, a Berkeley English Professor, argued that the board was “an expensive gentlemen’s club” without one “person of broad intellectual stature” [18]. Prior to the Loyalty Oath Controversy, Robert Gordon Sproul, President of the UC from 1930–1958, was “the most popular president in the history of the University of California” [19]. Sproul typifies the close linkages between the administration and political and business interests, most notably through his close friendship Republican Governor Earl Warren; the two were fishing buddies and members of the secretive Bohemian Club [20]. Through his many roles in California’s political arena, Warren helped Sproul suppress the Left at Berkeley throughout the 1930s and ‘40s. In his capacity as attorney general of Alameda County in the 1930s, Warren provided Sproul with intelligence on Berkeley’s left-wing students; as California’s attorney general in 1940, he forced Governor Culbert Olson to withdraw his nomination of Max Radin, a highly regarded Berkeley Law professor, on the grounds that he was too radical [21]; in 1944 he appointed John Francis Neylan - a key orchestrator of the Loyalty Oath Crisis, and a member of the right-wing faction of the Republican Party - to another 16-year term on the Board of Regents. Furthermore, Sproul’s knack in garnering support from wealthy alumni and private actors in the form of financial and social capital afforded him great political clout, which he used to suppress the Left at Berkeley and contour the future of the College through high-level appointments and dismissals.<br />
<br />
The relations between Warren and Sproul exemplify the level of collusion between political actors and the University’s administration in repressing faculty, and the Left more broadly, at Berkeley. It also demonstrates the importance of acknowledging the intersections of microhistories and biographies, for the Warren-Sproul collaboration operates on a local, interpersonal level, showing that it is untrue that the UC administration was merely ''complicit'' in the wishes of the government, but that members of the administration were in fact friends, confidantes, and ''active supporters'' of key governmental orchestrators, with some moving fluidly between these spheres. In the early 20th Century, Berkeley was a hotbed for right wing, militarised, reactionary thought and practice [22], and the UC administration was closely aligned with the ideology, programs, and whims of the government.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51 Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Closure_of_the_School_of_Criminology,_1976 Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Fighting_for_Tenure Part 4: Fighting for Tenure]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Whistleblowers Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas]<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] There is a good deal of history on the disputes and confrontations between the student body and the administration at UC Berkeley. This article therefore seeks to chart new territory by chronicling the disputes between academic staff and administrative staff, and thus seemingly obvious flashpoints of repression have been omitted, such as the Free Speech Movement.<br />
<br>[2] Including, necessarily, the Regents of the University of California.<br />
<br>[3] Sinclair, Upton. ''The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education''. Pasadena, CA: Author, 1923.<br />
<br>[4] ''Ibid.'', 135<br />
<br>[5] ''Ibid.'', 132<br />
<br>[6] Emmerson, Charles. 2013. 1913. 1st ed. London: Bodley Head, 77<br />
<br>[7] Clifford, J. Garry. 1972. ''The Citizen Soldiers''. 1st ed. [Lexington]: University Press of Kentucky, 19<br />
<br>[8] Blauner, Bob. 2009. ''Resisting McCarthyism''. 1st ed. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 19. Note: This book offers a comprehensive history of the UC Loyalty Oath.<br />
<br>[9] ''Federal Writers Project of the Works Progress Administration'', 2011, "San Francisco in the 1930s: The WPA Guide to the City By the Bay" (1st ed., p. 401). University of California Press.<br />
<br>[10] Smith, G., [https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/winter/us-army-in-russia-1.html Guarding the Railroad, Taming the Cossacks. The U.S. Army in Russia], 1918-1920. ''Prologue Magazine'', (Vol. 34 No. 4), 2002<br />
<br>[11] David P. Barrows Papers, 1890-1954, Collection no. BANC MSS C-B 1005, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br>[12] Sinclair, ''The Goose-Step'', 137<br />
<br>[13] ''Ibid.'', 139<br />
<br>[14] On the American Legion’s commitments to anticommunism, see Schrecker, Ellen. 2002. ''The Age Of McCarthyism''. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave.<br />
<br>[15] David Barrows, Memoirs, Bancroft Library, University of California, 222<br />
<br>[16] Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 26<br />
<br>[17] ''Ibid.'', xvii. Note: from the whole UC, not just Berkeley.<br />
<br>[18] ''Ibid.'', 21<br />
<br>[19] ''Ibid.'', 228.<br />
<br>[20] As were “Virtually all of UC’s important people”, according to Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 18<br />
<br>[21] ''Ibid.'',11<br />
<br>[22] Perhaps the most telling sign of the political climate at UC Berkeley in the first half of the 20th Century is a question on the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) - which was compulsory until 1962 - final exam in 1936, which asked students how they would deploy the ROTC and National Guard to quell future labour insurrections and demonstrations. See Cohen, Robert. 1993. ''When The Old Left Was Young''. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 199<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1910s]][[category:1920s]][[category:1930s]][[category:1940s]][[category:1934 General Strike]][[category: Power and Money]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas&diff=26491UC Berkeley: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas2017-04-25T05:11:33Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 6 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:BPProtest1.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''An undergraduate student is arrested after pouring ‘fake oil’ on the ground in protest of the BP deal.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/04/18372601.php Indybay]''<br />
<br><br><br />
Though the contemporary image of UC Berkeley often invokes progressive elements of its recent history (epitomised by the on-campus Free Speech Movement Café), the conservative, repressive nature of the administration continues to rear its head. Berkeley has played a prominent role in the development of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), having negotiated sizeable monetary deals with pharmaceutical, agribusiness, and oil giants. It must be stated that GMOs are not ''inherently'' problematic, but rather it is the University’s solicitation of funds from large corporations that is of concern, along with the potential for academics to enable a monopolisation of GMOs, and to insulate GMO research from oversight in a similar fashion to the nuclear Labs. One of the most famous cases of the 2000s was that of Ignacio Chapela, an esteemed assistant professor of microbiology and chairman of the College of Natural Resources executive committee who, from 1998, questioned the ethical and economic implications of the $25 million deal between UC Berkeley and Novartis - a large drug and agri-business corporation. The terms of Novartis’ financial contribution to UC Berkeley included the disclosure of trade secrets to the corporation and first rights to licensing negotiations on around one third of the department’s discoveries, which would give the giant a competitive edge and a potential monopoly.<br />
<br />
Chapela was denied tenure in 2003, in spite of a 32-1 vote in his favour by colleagues in his faculty (Spring 2002), and an ad hoc tenure committee of five voting ''unanimously'' in his favour (October 2002). It was ultimately a five-member faculty Budget Committee that recommended against his tenure in November 2003, however one professor on this board - Jasper Rine - served on the advisory committee for the Novartis deal. While the Chancellor declared that there was no conflict of interest, Chapela’s supporters attributed his tenure denial to his vocal anti-Novartis stance [1]. In fact, an independent report of the Novartis deal published by Michigan State University in 2004 claimed “there is little doubt that the UCB-Novartis agreement played a role in [Chapela’s denial of tenure]” [2]. Due to conflicts within and between faculty and the administration, Chapela’s tenure review took far longer than usual (beginning in September 2001), which enabled his international and on-campus supporters to rally around his case. In one iconic act, Chapela lugged his desk outside and held his office hours in front of California Hall - a powerful public protest. Chapela was eventually awarded tenure in May 2005.<br />
<br />
[[image:Novartis-Chapela-Rally.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Students rally against the Novartis deal and Chapela’s tenure denial.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/BERKELEY-Students-support-tenure-for-professor-2629783.php SFGate]''<br />
<br />
Chapela’s tenure battle and the Novartis deal controversy were not the final incidents, for in 2007 a historic $500 million deal was struck between British Petroleum (BP), UC Berkeley, and the University of Illinois for a ten-year research contract. Berkeley faculty and graduate students were to help BP scientists design and implement genetically modified plants and microbes for use in the biofuel industry. Chapela, now tenured, and his colleague Miguel Altieri raised objections to the deal, arguing the project would displace farmland desperately needed for crops in poorer nations and substitute them for patented crops owned by large multinational corporations. Chapela and Altieri’s concerns were ignored by the administration, with the UC Regents signing the deal and initiating the building of a new research facility - the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) - which was named by BP. University officials described it as “the first public-private institution of this scale in the world” [3], eclipsing a $113 million contribution from the Hewlett Foundation and a $10 million research program by Dow Chemical, both of which were also finalised in 2007. The deal began to fracture in 2015, when BP utilised a contract clause to pull nearly a third of its projected funding for the year, citing plummeting oil prices and the cost of its clean-up operation following the calamitous 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico [4]. Thus, the sad irony is that the largest oil spill in history and plummeting oil prices have resulted in a substantial ''reduction'' in Berkeley’s funding for research into cleaner, renewable biofuels at a time when the need for alternatives to oil was most blatant. Obtaining funding from BP therefore not only raises ethical problems, but it also places essential, forward-thinking research in a fragile and volatile space, at the whims of market forces and the mutable corporate interests these produce [5].<br />
<br />
At the heart of these conflicts are the tensions that emerge from the convergence of university and corporate research agendas [6], and the threat to academic freedom this poses. Scientists are being forced to adopt a more entrepreneurial mindset, and universities are inclined to solicit ever-larger proportions of private investment due to cutbacks in government funding. In the fall of 1964, undergraduate student Mario Savio took to the steps of Sproul Hall to publicly denounce the university for going out of its way to “serve the need of American industry”, and argued it represented “a factory that turns out a certain product needed by industry” [7]. Savio’s damning critique of the bureaucratisation and corporatisation of UC Berkeley was punctuated in a number of speeches and publications such as the Radical Student Union’s ''The Uses of U.C. Berkeley: Research'' [8], and seems as relevant today as it was in the 1960s; all the more so with the election of President Trump who will continue to squeeze public university funding, especially in areas such as climate change [9].<br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:SavioSpeechSteps.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Mario Savio delivers a speech to students on campus, December 7th 1964 '''<br />
<br>''Photo: Robert W. Klein/AP''<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>Concluding Remarks and Questions</h4><br />
<br />
What lessons can we learn from this brief history? First and foremost, it should serve as a warning, or reminder, that we must not rely on the University administration to act justly, or to stave off further corporate capture of academia. Historically, the administration has proven its affiliations and has been at best complicit in, and at worst active agents of, this process and its acceleration. It has been the determined actions of committed faculty and students [10] – in spite of the repressive efforts of the University - that has generated friction in the gears of bureaucracy, and resulted in progressive change. We must continue this legacy, for if we fail to resist the tide of privatisation we stand to lose not only academic freedom and progressive research agendas, but also the fundamental ability of the University to play a positive role in the public sphere.<br />
<br />
Privatisation of the Public University has emerged hand-in-hand with government cutbacks to higher education funding, and we must assume this trajectory will continue. Ex-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s appointment as President of the University in 2013 further warrants this bleak outlook, with the graduate student union announcing: “We fear that this decision will further expand the privatization, mismanagement, and militarized repression of free speech that characterized Mark Yudof’s presidency and will threaten the quality and accessibility of education” [11]. Combine this with President Trump’s palpable threats to many research agendas, and his close ties with private interests despite an anti-establishment campaign platform, and it should be clear that this crisis will prevail. It is therefore of significant urgency that we defend the gains we have inherited, and fight back at the University’s dereliction of its responsibilities and repressive tendencies.<br />
<br />
It is not only corporate capture of the University that should be troubling, but also the powerful ideological influence of the administration [12]. The McCarthy era had far-reaching implications for the campus community, heightening and legitimising pre-existing anti-communist fervour among the administration and providing the space in which repression was deemed necessary. We should be keen to notice the persistent role of ideological influences in higher education, such as the threats to academic freedom since September 11 [13] born out of resurgent patriotism and Islamophobia.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, we must answer one question: what role do we want our public universities to play? Historically, UC Berkeley has provided the local community with harsh policing tactics, and the national community with suspect nuclear weapons schemes: exploiting the veil of the ivory tower. Now, we – as members of the public - must assume ownership of this question, and reclaim the college from the grips of private interests.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Thank you for reading.</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51 Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Closure_of_the_School_of_Criminology,_1976 Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Fighting_for_Tenure Part 4: Fighting for Tenure]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Whistleblowers Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers]<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas]<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] …along with an anti-GMO article later redacted by Nature magazine: Milius, Susan. 2016. "[http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/journal_disowns_transgene.html Journal Disowns Transgene Report]". Science News Online.<br />
<br>[2] Busch and Fairweather, et al.. 2004. External Review Of The Collaborative Research Agreement Between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. And The Regents Of The University Of California. ''Institute For Food And Agricultural Standards (IFAS)''. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 42<br />
<br>[3] Sanders, Robert. 2007. "[http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/11/14_ebisigning.shtml Energy Biosciences Institute Contract Signed]". Berkeley.Edu.<br />
<br>[4] Neumann, Erik. 2007. "[http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2015-02-20/not-so-fast-uc-berkeley-biofuel-research-takes-hit-bp-oil Not So Fast: At UC Berkeley, Biofuel Research Takes Hit As BP Oil Company Backs Away]". Cal Alumni Association.<br />
<br>[5] It would be amiss to not mention the battles fought by Chapela’s colleague Tyrone Hayes, who waged a formidable – and admittedly somewhat bizarre - battle against atrazine-manufacturer Syngenta. Hayes’ battle has been omitted from this history as the University didn’t have much involvement, however it offers a sobering insight into the efforts corporations are going through to discourage and silence critical research, with Syngenta representatives physically following Hayes around the world to disrupt his speaking engagements. A summary of the conflict can be found here: Slater, Dashka. 2012. "[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered The Frog Of War]". ''Mother Jones''.<br />
<br>[6] On this note, see the Atlantic’s long read on the Academic-Industrial Complex: Press, Eyal and Jennifer Washburn. 2000. "The Kept University". ''The Atlantic''.<br />
<br>[7] Mario Savio, An End To History speech, delivered 2nd December 1964, The University of California at Berkeley<br />
<br>[8] Radical Student Union,. 1969. ''The Uses Of U.C. Berkeley: Research''. Berkeley<br />
<br>[9] To learn more about the conservative’s assault on Higher Education funding in the United States, consider watching Steve Mims’ documentary ''Starving the Beast'', 2016<br />
<br>[10] Some of these individuals and communities were radicals, but many were not. The Loyalty Oath Controversy, for example, infuriated a huge contingent of faculty; many of who were otherwise somewhat ‘apolitical’.<br />
<br>[11] Bond-Graham, Darwin. 2013. "[http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/18/the-university-of-california-and-the-military-industrial-complex/ The University Of California And The Military Industrial Complex]". Counterpunch.<br />
<br>[12] Insofar as they can be understood as distinct from one another.<br />
<br>[13] Nocella, Anthony J, Steven Best, and Peter McLaren. 2010. ''Academic Repression''. 1st ed. Edinburgh: AK Press.</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_21st_Century:_GMOs_and_Corporate_Agendas&diff=26490UC Berkeley: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas2017-04-25T05:09:48Z<p>Joshhardman: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' <br> ''by Josh Hardman'' <br> '''Part 6 of 6 in ''A History of Repressi..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 6 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:BPProtest1.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''An undergraduate student is arrested after pouring ‘fake oil’ on the ground in protest of the BP deal.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/04/18372601.php Indybay]''<br />
<br><br><br />
Though the contemporary image of UC Berkeley often invokes progressive elements of its recent history (epitomised by the on-campus Free Speech Movement Café), the conservative, repressive nature of the administration continues to rear its head. Berkeley has played a prominent role in the development of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), having negotiated sizeable monetary deals with pharmaceutical, agribusiness, and oil giants. It must be stated that GMOs are not ''inherently'' problematic, but rather it is the University’s solicitation of funds from large corporations that is of concern, along with the potential for academics to enable a monopolisation of GMOs, and to insulate GMO research from oversight in a similar fashion to the nuclear Labs. One of the most famous cases of the 2000s was that of Ignacio Chapela, an esteemed assistant professor of microbiology and chairman of the College of Natural Resources executive committee who, from 1998, questioned the ethical and economic implications of the $25 million deal between UC Berkeley and Novartis - a large drug and agri-business corporation. The terms of Novartis’ financial contribution to UC Berkeley included the disclosure of trade secrets to the corporation and first rights to licensing negotiations on around one third of the department’s discoveries, which would give the giant a competitive edge and a potential monopoly.<br />
<br />
Chapela was denied tenure in 2003, in spite of a 32-1 vote in his favour by colleagues in his faculty (Spring 2002), and an ad hoc tenure committee of five voting ''unanimously'' in his favour (October 2002). It was ultimately a five-member faculty Budget Committee that recommended against his tenure in November 2003, however one professor on this board - Jasper Rine - served on the advisory committee for the Novartis deal. While the Chancellor declared that there was no conflict of interest, Chapela’s supporters attributed his tenure denial to his vocal anti-Novartis stance [1]. In fact, an independent report of the Novartis deal published by Michigan State University in 2004 claimed “there is little doubt that the UCB-Novartis agreement played a role in [Chapela’s denial of tenure]” [2]. Due to conflicts within and between faculty and the administration, Chapela’s tenure review took far longer than usual (beginning in September 2001), which enabled his international and on-campus supporters to rally around his case. In one iconic act, Chapela lugged his desk outside and held his office hours in front of California Hall - a powerful public protest. Chapela was eventually awarded tenure in May 2005.<br />
<br />
[[image:Novartis-Chapela-Rally.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Students rally against the Novartis deal and Chapela’s tenure denial.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/BERKELEY-Students-support-tenure-for-professor-2629783.php SFGate]''<br />
<br />
Chapela’s tenure battle and the Novartis deal controversy were not the final incidents, for in 2007 a historic $500 million deal was struck between British Petroleum (BP), UC Berkeley, and the University of Illinois for a ten-year research contract. Berkeley faculty and graduate students were to help BP scientists design and implement genetically modified plants and microbes for use in the biofuel industry. Chapela, now tenured, and his colleague Miguel Altieri raised objections to the deal, arguing the project would displace farmland desperately needed for crops in poorer nations and substitute them for patented crops owned by large multinational corporations. Chapela and Altieri’s concerns were ignored by the administration, with the UC Regents signing the deal and initiating the building of a new research facility - the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) - which was named by BP. University officials described it as “the first public-private institution of this scale in the world” [3], eclipsing a $113 million contribution from the Hewlett Foundation and a $10 million research program by Dow Chemical, both of which were also finalised in 2007. The deal began to fracture in 2015, when BP utilised a contract clause to pull nearly a third of its projected funding for the year, citing plummeting oil prices and the cost of its clean-up operation following the calamitous 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico [4]. Thus, the sad irony is that the largest oil spill in history and plummeting oil prices have resulted in a substantial ''reduction'' in Berkeley’s funding for research into cleaner, renewable biofuels at a time when the need for alternatives to oil was most blatant. Obtaining funding from BP therefore not only raises ethical problems, but it also places essential, forward-thinking research in a fragile and volatile space, at the whims of market forces and the mutable corporate interests these produce [5].<br />
<br />
At the heart of these conflicts are the tensions that emerge from the convergence of university and corporate research agendas [6], and the threat to academic freedom this poses. Scientists are being forced to adopt a more entrepreneurial mindset, and universities are inclined to solicit ever-larger proportions of private investment due to cutbacks in government funding. In the fall of 1964, undergraduate student Mario Savio took to the steps of Sproul Hall to publicly denounce the university for going out of its way to “serve the need of American industry”, and argued it represented “a factory that turns out a certain product needed by industry” [7]. Savio’s damning critique of the bureaucratisation and corporatisation of UC Berkeley was punctuated in a number of speeches and publications such as the Radical Student Union’s ''The Uses of U.C. Berkeley: Research'' [8], and seems as relevant today as it was in the 1960s; all the more so with the election of President Trump who will continue to squeeze public university funding, especially in areas such as climate change [9].<br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:SavioSpeechSteps.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Mario Savio delivers a speech to students on campus, December 7th 1964 '''<br />
<br>''Photo: Robert W. Klein/AP''<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>Concluding Remarks and Questions</h4><br />
<br />
What lessons can we learn from this brief history? First and foremost, it should serve as a warning, or reminder, that we must not rely on the University administration to act justly, or to stave off further corporate capture of academia. Historically, the administration has proven its affiliations and has been at best complicit in, and at worst active agents of, this process and its acceleration. It has been the determined actions of committed faculty and students [10] – in spite of the repressive efforts of the University - that has generated friction in the gears of bureaucracy, and resulted in progressive change. We must continue this legacy, for if we fail to resist the tide of privatisation we stand to lose not only academic freedom and progressive research agendas, but also the fundamental ability of the University to play a positive role in the public sphere.<br />
<br />
Privatisation of the Public University has emerged hand-in-hand with government cutbacks to higher education funding, and we must assume this trajectory will continue. Ex-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s appointment as President of the University in 2013 further warrants this bleak outlook, with the graduate student union announcing: “We fear that this decision will further expand the privatization, mismanagement, and militarized repression of free speech that characterized Mark Yudof’s presidency and will threaten the quality and accessibility of education” [11]. Combine this with President Trump’s palpable threats to many research agendas, and his close ties with private interests despite an anti-establishment campaign platform, and it should be clear that this crisis will prevail. It is therefore of significant urgency that we defend the gains we have inherited, and fight back at the University’s dereliction of its responsibilities and repressive tendencies.<br />
<br />
It is not only corporate capture of the University that should be troubling, but also the powerful ideological influence of the administration [12]. The McCarthy era had far-reaching implications for the campus community, heightening and legitimising pre-existing anti-communist fervour among the administration and providing the space in which repression was deemed necessary. We should be keen to notice the persistent role of ideological influences in higher education, such as the threats to academic freedom since September 11 [13] born out of resurgent patriotism and Islamophobia.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, we must answer one question: what role do we want our public universities to play? Historically, UC Berkeley has provided the local community with harsh policing tactics, and the national community with suspect nuclear weapons schemes: exploiting the veil of the ivory tower. Now, we – as members of the public - must assume ownership of this question, and reclaim the college from the grips of private interests.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Thank you for reading.</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51<br />
<br>Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976<br />
<br>Part 4: Fighting for Tenure<br />
<br>Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers<br />
<br>Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] …along with an anti-GMO article later redacted by Nature magazine: Milius, Susan. 2016. "[http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/journal_disowns_transgene.html Journal Disowns Transgene Report]". Science News Online.<br />
<br>[2] Busch and Fairweather, et al.. 2004. External Review Of The Collaborative Research Agreement Between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. And The Regents Of The University Of California. ''Institute For Food And Agricultural Standards (IFAS)''. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 42<br />
<br>[3] Sanders, Robert. 2007. "[http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/11/14_ebisigning.shtml Energy Biosciences Institute Contract Signed]". Berkeley.Edu.<br />
<br>[4] Neumann, Erik. 2007. "[http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2015-02-20/not-so-fast-uc-berkeley-biofuel-research-takes-hit-bp-oil Not So Fast: At UC Berkeley, Biofuel Research Takes Hit As BP Oil Company Backs Away]". Cal Alumni Association.<br />
<br>[5] It would be amiss to not mention the battles fought by Chapela’s colleague Tyrone Hayes, who waged a formidable – and admittedly somewhat bizarre - battle against atrazine-manufacturer Syngenta. Hayes’ battle has been omitted from this history as the University didn’t have much involvement, however it offers a sobering insight into the efforts corporations are going through to discourage and silence critical research, with Syngenta representatives physically following Hayes around the world to disrupt his speaking engagements. A summary of the conflict can be found here: Slater, Dashka. 2012. "[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered The Frog Of War]". ''Mother Jones''.<br />
<br>[6] On this note, see the Atlantic’s long read on the Academic-Industrial Complex: Press, Eyal and Jennifer Washburn. 2000. "The Kept University". ''The Atlantic''.<br />
<br>[7] Mario Savio, An End To History speech, delivered 2nd December 1964, The University of California at Berkeley<br />
<br>[8] Radical Student Union,. 1969. ''The Uses Of U.C. Berkeley: Research''. Berkeley<br />
<br>[9] To learn more about the conservative’s assault on Higher Education funding in the United States, consider watching Steve Mims’ documentary ''Starving the Beast'', 2016<br />
<br>[10] Some of these individuals and communities were radicals, but many were not. The Loyalty Oath Controversy, for example, infuriated a huge contingent of faculty; many of who were otherwise somewhat ‘apolitical’.<br />
<br>[11] Bond-Graham, Darwin. 2013. "[http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/18/the-university-of-california-and-the-military-industrial-complex/ The University Of California And The Military Industrial Complex]". Counterpunch.<br />
<br>[12] Insofar as they can be understood as distinct from one another.<br />
<br>[13] Nocella, Anthony J, Steven Best, and Peter McLaren. 2010. ''Academic Repression''. 1st ed. Edinburgh: AK Press.</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:SavioSpeechSteps.jpg&diff=26489File:SavioSpeechSteps.jpg2017-04-25T05:04:27Z<p>Joshhardman: Mario Savio delivers a speech to students on campus, December 7th 1964</p>
<hr />
<div>Mario Savio delivers a speech to students on campus, December 7th 1964</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Novartis-Chapela-Rally.jpg&diff=26488File:Novartis-Chapela-Rally.jpg2017-04-25T05:01:55Z<p>Joshhardman: Students rally against the Novartis deal and Chapela’s tenure denial.</p>
<hr />
<div>Students rally against the Novartis deal and Chapela’s tenure denial.</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:BPProtest1.jpg&diff=26487File:BPProtest1.jpg2017-04-25T04:58:48Z<p>Joshhardman: Undergraduate student is arrested after pouring ‘fake oil’ on the ground in protest of the BP deal</p>
<hr />
<div>Undergraduate student is arrested after pouring ‘fake oil’ on the ground in protest of the BP deal</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Nuclear_Weapons_and_Whistleblowers&diff=26486UC Berkeley: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers2017-04-25T04:55:43Z<p>Joshhardman: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' <br> ''by Josh Hardman'' <br> '''Part 5 of 6 in ''A History of Repressi..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 5 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:ReaganWood.png]]<br />
<br>'''Ronald Reagan and Lowell Wood'''<br />
<br>''Illustration by Brad Hamann in Blum, Deborah. 1988. "Weird Science: Livermore's X-Ray Laser Flap". Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 44 (6), 9''<br />
<br><br><br />
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was founded in 1952 by the University of California, an addition to the pre-existing UC Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley. The Lab focussed on new weapon designs, with many of the warheads designed at Livermore being stationed and used throughout the Cold War, and has been the target of many protests, most notably those of the Livermore Action Group who organised mass nonviolent demonstrations between 1981 and 1984 [1]. There was also scrutiny from within the University community and among staff, demonstrated by the ad hoc group of around 12 Berkeley faculty members that took it upon themselves to keep the entire faculty up-to-date on the latest Lab-related scandals. This group, which included mathematician Keith Miller who fortunately preserved a personal archive of their communications, was active between 1986-1990, during which time the Lab, and the UC administration, was embroiled in multiple displays of dishonesty and deceit.<br />
<br><br><br />
[[image:LLNL-30-years-of-sabotage-demo.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Demonstration at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, 1982.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:LLNL-30-years-of-sabotage-demo.jpg FoundSF]'' <br />
<br><br><br />
[[image:Lll-nuclear-weapons-mean-certain-death-for-all-march-on-street.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Anti-nuclear protest on perimeter of the LLNL'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Lll-nuclear-weapons-mean-certain-death-for-all-march-on-street.jpg FoundSF]''<br />
<br><br />
<br />
The ad hoc committee of faculty sought to make public the dereliction of the University’s responsibilities in overseeing and regulating the Labs, in hope of making the administration more active in their management of both the Livermore and Los Alamos facilities. At the center of the controversies were Edward Teller and his protégé Lowell Wood, who headed the Strategic Defense Initiative efforts at LLNL, enchanting Reagan by stoking his Star Wars dreams with their glorified plans and designs. Keith Miller and the ad hoc committee exposed Teller’s fabrications and overselling of his ‘Super Excalibur’ X-ray laser, and the silencing of Roy Woodruff’s attempts to correct Teller’s extravagant claims. Woodruff, a well-respected researcher who had been at the Lab for 21 years and was director of Livermore’s weapons programs at the time, publicly questioned Star Wars’ feasibility, but was met with repression by the Labs and UC President David Gardner. Woodruff was punished for his whistleblowing through reassignment to a menial job [2] in a “windowless cubbyhole” [3], and ultimately resigned in October 1985 in protest of his silencing under Lab Director Batzel, taking up a new job at the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico: suggesting the situation at Berkeley’s LLNL was particularly dire.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[image:ReaganTeller.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Reagan awarding Teller the National Medal of Science, 1983'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edward_Teller_and_Ronald_Reagan.jpg Wikimedia Commons]''<br />
<br />
The power afforded to Edward Teller’s claims, and the repression of Roy Woodruff’s criticisms, alludes to the close relations between the Lab’s directorship, the UC administration, and the Reagan administration. The combination of the Lab’s geographic location half an hour southeast of Berkeley, its connection to the UC, and the emphatic backing of the Reagan administration all allowed the dubious and at times delusional programs of Teller and Wood to be insulated from public debate and scrutiny, resulting in an oversight vacuum in which programs were self-perpetuating in their momentum [4]. In this localised history of UC Berkeley, however, it is appropriate to avoid focusing too heavily on national players. For this broader narrative, William J. Broad’s ''Teller’s War'' [5] is seminal. Instead, our attention should be piqued by the substantial efforts of UC President Gardner’s office to silence Woodruff’s complaints and cover up the scandals, in spite of established grievance policies at the University and the California whistleblower statute.<br />
<br />
In the interest of being more concrete, the deliberate and repeated obstruction of the Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Commerce and Energy by the Lab should be briefly chronicled, for it offers a sobering insight into the extent of interference and collusion Gardner’s office was responsible for [6]. In January of 1989, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) x-ray laser report collapsed, with 5 out of the 8 scientists involved in the interviews claiming they were misrepresented. President Gardner refused to investigate the allegations or meet with Woodruff, and suspicions concerning conspiracy between the Labs and GAO auditors were somewhat vindicated when David Potter, one of the three men on the GAO inspection team, was hired by Livermore in 1989 for a substantial pay increase shortly after the GAO report was made public. Furthermore, documents acquired by the ad hoc committee of faculty via the California Information Practices Act reveal that a draft of the GAO report was circulated, pre-publication, to senior officials of the LLNL for comments, however Woodruff never received a copy, and Lowell Wood himself provided the most extensive comments.<br />
<br />
Following the collapse of the GAO report, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations launched a probe in March 1989, under the initiative of congressman John Dingell. Interviews were scheduled with 50 Lab, University, and Department of Energy (DoE) employees involved in the x-ray laser controversy, which sought to discover whether Teller and Wood’s laser had been oversold, and whether Woodruff had been punished for his whistleblowing efforts. The Subcommittee’s efforts were hampered by obstruction and contamination of interviews by the DoE and UC lawyers, which are explained further in a scathing letter from Dingell to DoE secretary James Watkins. Dingell chastised the University for its role in this obstruction of congressional oversight [7], which included using UC attorneys to ‘interview’ prospective informants before the Subcommittee was present.<br />
<br />
With their x-ray laser under scrutiny, Wood and Teller went back to the drawing board and devised ‘Brilliant Pebbles’: thousands of small orbiting rockets, each with a miniature computer programmed to detect and destroy “any behaviour that’s out of line” [8]. This new proposal kept the embers of Reagan’s Star Wars dream alive, with President Bush visiting the LLNL in February 1990 for briefings on the plans, declaring “In the 1990s strategic defense makes much more sense than ever before” [9]. UC President Gardner and UC Regents Chair Brophy were among those on stage for the post-briefing celebrations, in which Bush praised Teller emphatically for the new scheme, confirming that the close collaboration between the Labs, the University, and the government was not a uniquely Reagan phenomenon.<br />
<br />
The series of controversies at the LLNL, and the treatment of those who attempted to hold the University accountable to the appropriate management and oversight of the Labs, exemplifies UC Berkeley’s proximity to the wishes of the Reagan and early Bush administration during the 1980s and early 1990s. While Berkeley professes to be, and enjoys a reputation as, a public university, it was clearly abusing its power to actively shield the Lab’s programs from public scrutiny, using a host of legal and political manoeuvrings to do so. Thus, not only did the UC facilitate the overselling of infeasible and thus potentially hazardous nuclear technologies, but it also abdicated its responsibilities as a public institution, misusing its status for suspect ends.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51<br />
<br>Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976<br />
<br>Part 4: Fighting for Tenure<br />
<br>Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers<br />
<br>Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] Epstein, Barbara Leslie. 1993. ''Political Protest And Cultural Revolution''. 1st ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.<br />
<br>[2] Dye, Lee. 1990. "[http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-24/news/mn-299_1_star-wars Dissenter On 'Star Wars' Leaves Livermore Lab]". LA Times.<br />
<br>[3] Blum, Deborah. 1988. "Weird Science: Livermore's X-Ray Laser Flap". Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 44 (6): 7-13. Note: This article offers an excellent account of the controversy up to 1988, and includes primary sources.<br />
<br>[4] Bjork, Rebecca S. 1992. The Strategic Defense Initiative. 1st ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 89<br />
<br>[5] Broad, William J. 1992. ''Teller's War''. 1st ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.<br />
<br>[6] Note: the following details are drawn from primary documents obtained from Keith Miller (Professor of Mathematics and member of the ad hoc committee), with earlier events corroborated by Blum, 1988. "Weird Science: Livermore's X-Ray Laser Flap". Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists.<br />
<br>[7] Blum, Deborah. May 21st, 1989. "UC Lawyers Target Of Protest: They Hampered Probe Of Livermore Lab, House Staffers Say". Sacramento Bee.<br />
<br>[8] Letter obtained from Keith Miller, ''A Brief History of Our Disillusionment'', sent to faculty by the ad hoc committee on March 2, 1990.<br />
<br>[9] Smith, Kathie. February 8th, 1990. "BUSH PRAISES WORK AT LIVERMORE". ''Modesto Bee''.<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1980s]][[category:1990s]][[category:Schools]][[category:Anti-nuclear]][[category:Bay Area Social Movements]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:ReaganTeller.jpg&diff=26485File:ReaganTeller.jpg2017-04-25T04:50:53Z<p>Joshhardman: Reagan awarding Teller the National Medal of Science, 1983</p>
<hr />
<div>Reagan awarding Teller the National Medal of Science, 1983</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:ReaganWood.png&diff=26484File:ReaganWood.png2017-04-25T04:40:57Z<p>Joshhardman: Illustration by Brad Hamann depicting Ronald Reagan and Lowell Wood</p>
<hr />
<div>Illustration by Brad Hamann depicting Ronald Reagan and Lowell Wood</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_Fighting_for_Tenure&diff=26483UC Berkeley: Fighting for Tenure2017-04-25T04:34:12Z<p>Joshhardman: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' <br> ''by Josh Hardman'' <br> '''Part 4 of 6 in ''A History of Repressi..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 4 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:HarryEdwardswiththeBPs.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''John Carlos and Harry Edwards, flanked by H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael of the Black Panthers at a 1968 press conference.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://johnnyspin.blogspot.com/2013/08/american-legacy-magazine-moments-gesture.html American Legacy, Spring 2008]''<br />
<br><br><br />
Throughout the second half of the 20th Century there were a string of tenure battles at Berkeley, some of which are discussed here. It should be acknowledged that the allegations made by those denied tenure are not always verifiable, and some of the disputes mentioned were settled out of court, meaning the University did not admit guilt. Nonetheless, the tenure disputes discussed below offer some insight into the climate at Berkeley during this period.<br />
<br />
One of the most noteworthy tenure battles was that of Harry Edwards, a prominent actor in the Civil Rights Movement and professor of Sociology of Sport at Berkeley, who sought to illuminate the racial inequities faced by black athletes and situate them within the frame of broader race relations [1]. Edwards was also the founder of the Olympic Project for Human Rights, pushed for a boycott of the 1968 Games, and was the stimulus behind the notorious Black Power Salute [2]. A divisive figure, Edwards’ courses were some of the largest and most popular on campus, and his works had an international audience with three books, over fifty articles, and lectures at more than 300 colleges and universities worldwide [3]. Despite this, Edwards was denied tenure in January 1977, with the committee arguing that “he needed one or two more articles in established journals” [4]. Accusing the Department of Sociology of racism, the campus community and beyond protested the decision, with thousands of students signing a petition, letters being sent by leading civil rights activists and organisations, and both the black graduate student caucus and all 13 tenured Black faculty members publically denouncing the decision. It was only ''after'' this negative publicity that Chancellor Bowker reversed the decision. In later interviews, Bowker speaks candidly of his pragmatic reasons for ultimately supporting Edwards’ case for tenure, claiming that Edwards was ‘useful’ in keeping black athletes ‘in line’ – perhaps revealing Bowker’s idea of race relations. [5]<br />
<br />
In the same year, celebrated African American poet and novelist Ishmael Reed of the English Department was denied tenure. Reed himself urges us not to compare his case with Edwards’, arguing the only similarity is that “We’re both black… that’s all it is.” [6]. Despite this, Reed admitted to a news reporter that he believed “racism was a factor” [7], noting that his unorthodox (in the context of his departmental colleagues) literary style was labelled as ‘temperamental’ and ‘surly’ by colleagues; both of which, he argues, are classic charges against black people who deviate from the white status quo [8]. One of the main reasons proffered for Reed’s tenure denial was his abrupt cancellation of a course in 1968, contributing to the accusations of his ‘temperamental’ disposition. However, in later interviews Reed explains that he cancelled the course in response to the militarized repression of the People’s Park Protests ordered by Reagan – the same protests that the radical wing of the School of Criminology were fiercely criticising. Reed portrays the repression as a “bombing of campus” [9], citing the use of helicopters to drop airborne tear gas, which he notes is categorised by the Geneva Convention as a chemical warfare agent. Reed writes, on cancelling the course: “My contract did not say anything about war or being trained for combat, so I cancelled one summer course.” [10] Thus, despite no admission of racism on behalf of the department or administration, and Reed’s hesitancy to focus on racial influences - “I’m not into black-confrontation politics” [11] - it seems difficult to imagine the absence of ''any'' racial undercurrents in the department’s tenure review process, or at least an aversion to his writings that challenged dominant political culture and his act of protest in cancelling his 1968 course.<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[image:Teargas-copter.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Helicopter sprays demonstrators with teargas on May 20, 1969.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://picturethis.museumca.org/pictures/helicopter-sprays-tear-gas-demonstrators-university-california-berkeley-campus Oakland Museum of California]''<br />
<br />
The 1980s and 90s saw a string of sex/gender-based discrimination cases filed against UC Berkeley, who never admitted any wrongdoing, instead agreeing to monetary settlements or decision reversals regarding tenure. Merle Woo, a Chinese-American socialist feminist lecturing in the Asian American Studies Department, was victim of multiple firings and rehirings beginning June 1982 despite being a nationally acclaimed writer [12]. Woo fought back: “I tacked a big note over my desk which read, “I shall return”” [13]. She went on to charge the UC with discrimination on the grounds of her politics, sex, sexuality, race, and her public criticism of the Department’s policies [14]. With the support of other leading academics such as Angela Davis, the San Francisco City Supervisor Harry Britt, and prominent figures like poet Cherríe Moraga, Woo won reinstatement in February 1984, plus nearly $49,000 in settlement and $25,000 in court fees. However, Woo was fired again in June 1986 from her teaching position in the Graduate School of Education, without a review of her teaching ever taking place. Along with a University Council-American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT) representative, Woo filed a grievance regarding the University’s continuing retaliation and unjust treatment since her first victory in 1984 [15]. Despite the grievance procedure being enshrined as a right of every lecturer, Woo was denied access to it in July 1986. Public pressure led to the UC conceding to a hearing in June 1987, from which time the UC-AFT, the Merle Woo defense council, and Woo herself pushed the grievance to its final stage. Finally, an outside arbitrator declared Woo’s dismissal ‘unreasonable’ in March 1989, requiring the University to reinstate her with full back pay, seniority, and benefits. Woo’s battle resulted in two landmark court rulings which set the stage for future gender and sex-based discrimination cases, and her struggle was situated in, and inherited from, an era of broader battles for multicultural education at Berkeley that begun in the late 1960s. [16]<br />
<br />
[[image:MeleWoo.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Merle Woo'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://zinnedproject.org/materials/asian-americans-and-moments-in-peoples-history/ Zinn Education Project]''<br />
<br />
Following Woo’s arduous and precedent-setting cases, there were five other cases of gender/sex discrimination lodged by Berkeley teaching staff. The first was by Eleanor Swift of the Berkeley Law School, who was denied tenure in 1987 prompting her to initiate a suit against the University on the basis of sex discrimination. The suit resulted in an agreement to form an outside independent review committee of academics, who unanimously voted in favour of her tenure in August 1989. Swift went on to receive multiple teaching awards, and wrote about the tenure dispute in Berkeley Women’s Law Journal [17]. The next concession by the administration came in 1992, when Art Professor Margaretta Lovell reached a settlement following a two-year state court battle. Lovell was ''also'' suing the University on the accusation that they denied her second review as an act of retaliation for her public opposition to what she saw as higher standards being applied to female faculty during tenure reviews [18].<br />
<br />
Jenny Harrison of the mathematics department waged a legal battle following tenure denial in 1986, which eventually resulted in an outside committee recommending her tenure in 1993 [19]. Similarly, 1996 saw a major financial settlement to the tune of $1 million, which was awarded to Marcy Wang, an assistant professor of architecture since 1979 who claimed her tenure was denied in 1986 and again in 1989 due to her being an Asian woman. Wang claimed that the University did “everything to discredit, destroy, and spread negative reports” about her, noting that she “had no idea how entrenched the university was in protecting itself or extensions of itself no matter how reprehensible the behaviour was” [20]. The closing case in this string of battles was that of Maribeth Graybill, assistant professor of art history from 1981-1990. In 1997 Graybill received $113,000 in back pay for her denial of tenure and subsequent dismissal, in a settlement reached between the Department of Justice and UC Berkeley. While Berkeley officials deny any wrongdoing, it is of significant weight that the Justice Department found sufficient merit to file the lawsuit and carry it through a lengthy court battle. Furthermore, despite Berkeley’s rebuttals, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached the verdict that University employees did discriminate based on Graybill’s gender. In the words of Graybill herself: "What is hard for all of us to believe is that discrimination can occur in a place with that kind of reputation," she explained, "…but the EEOC said it did.” [21]<br />
<br />
As with all of the aforementioned tenure battles, the lack of confession by UC Berkeley makes it difficult to assert categorical charges against the university. Nonetheless, the fact that the Department of Justice fought cases such as Maribeth Graybill’s, and the support for many of these battles from the campus community and beyond, demonstrates the concerns of many regarding discrimination in Berkeley’s tenure review process. Further, it is striking that both Graybill and Wang expressed feelings of surprise regarding just how entrenched discrimination, repression of whistleblowing, and retaliation, was at Berkeley, versus its outwardly enlightened reputation.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51<br />
<br>Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976<br />
<br>Part 4: Fighting for Tenure<br />
<br>Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers<br />
<br>Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br><br />
[1] Edwards, Harry. 1969. The Revolt Of The Black Athlete. 1st ed. New York: Free Press. Note: In this book, Edwards situates ‘revolts’ by Black athletes within a larger spirit of revolt among black citizens, arguing spectacles such as Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ 1968 Olympics black power salute were “[just] as legitimate as the sit-ins, the freedom rides, or any other manifestation of Afro-American efforts to gain freedom” – p.38<br />
<br>[2] "[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_3535000/3535348.stm BBC ON THIS DAY | 17 | 1968: Black Athletes Make Silent Protest]". 2016.<br />
<br>[3] Edwards, Harry. 1977. "Edwards Vs The University Of California". ''The Black Scholar'' 8 (7): 32-34. doi:10.1080/00064246.1977.11413909.<br />
<br>[4] Wiggins, David K. 2014. "‘ The Struggle That Must Be ’: Harry Edwards, Sport And The Fight For Racial Equality". ''The International Journal Of The History Of Sport'' 31 (7): 760-777. doi:10.1080/09523367.2014.890431, 766 Note: See also Edward’s autobiography ‘The Struggle That Must Be’, 1980<br />
<br>[5] Bowker, interviewed by Harriet Nathan, University History Series. Note: Bowker suggests that Edwards was hired in a tokenistic manner, saying “[the Sociology Department] wanted a kind of New Left minority sociologist, I guess.” He goes on to say that “The campus was in a conservative mood” at the time of Edwards tenure case, and Bowker surprisingly asserts that he did want to award tenure to Edwards, but “the faculty establishment… probably didn’t”. (p.166). However, Bowker refers to Edwards in terms of his ‘usefulness’ as a role model for black athletes; in one instance, for example, Bowker recalls that Edwards “straightened them out” when they “ran up big bills” at a bookstore p.167. Thus, the Chancellor’s interest in supporting Edwards’ tenure case seemed to be more instrumental and rooted in bigoted notions of his paternalistic role on other black athletes than the result of respect for Edward’s counter-hegemonic critiques.<br />
<br>[6] Reed, Ishmael, Bruce Dick, and Amritjit Singh. 1995. ''Conversations With Ishmael Reed''. 1st ed. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 112<br />
<br>[7] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[8] ''Ibid.'', 113<br />
<br>[9] ''Ibid.'', 115<br />
<br>[10] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[11] ''Ibid.'', 112<br />
<br>[12] Brodine, Karen. 1983. "[https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/freedom-socialist/v08n03-summer-1983-FS.pdf Merle Woo's Labor/Civil Rights Case: From Campus To Courtroom]". Freedom Socialist. Note: Woo was a leader in the Freedom Socialist Party, with this front-page story offering insight into the uproar the first firing and court case caused.<br />
<br>[13] Merle Woo’s 1984 Victory Speech in Ridinger, Robert B. Marks. 2004. ''Speaking For Our Lives''. 1st ed. New York: Harrington Park Press, 436<br />
<br>[14] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[15] Wong, Nellie. 2015. ''Talking Back: Voices Of Color''. 1st ed.<br />
<br>[16] Stryker, Susan and Jim Van Buskirk. 1996. ''Gay By The Bay''. 1st ed. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 106<br />
<br>[17] Swift, Eleanor. 1989. "[http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=bglj Becoming A Plaintiff]". Berkeley Women's Law Journal 4 (2): 245-250.<br />
<br>[18] Kearl, Holly. 2016. "[http://www.aauw.org/resource/lovell-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california-et-al/ Court Case: Lovell V. Regents Of The University Of California, Et Al.]". AAUW: Empowering Women Since 1881. Accessed December 10.<br />
<br>[19] Jackson, Allyn. 1994. "Fighting For Tenure: The Jenny Harrison Case Opens Pandora's Box Of Issues About Tenure, Discrimination, And The Law". Notices Of The American Mathematical Society 41 (3): 187-194.<br />
<br>[20] Marcy Wang, interviewed by Deborah Woo, in Woo, Deborah. 2000. Glass Ceilings And Asian Americans. 1st ed. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press, 137<br />
<br>[21] Weiss, Kenneth R. 1997. "[http://articles.latimes.com/1997-01-08/news/mn-16523_1_uc-berkeley UC Berkeley To Pay $113,000 In Bias Case]". LA Times.<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1970s]][[category:1980s]][[category:1990s]][[category:Power and Money]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:MeleWoo.jpg&diff=26482File:MeleWoo.jpg2017-04-25T04:09:25Z<p>Joshhardman: Merle Woo</p>
<hr />
<div>Merle Woo</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Teargas-copter.jpg&diff=26481File:Teargas-copter.jpg2017-04-25T04:05:19Z<p>Joshhardman: Helicopter sprays demonstrators at Berkeley with teargas on May 20, 1969</p>
<hr />
<div>Helicopter sprays demonstrators at Berkeley with teargas on May 20, 1969</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:HarryEdwardswiththeBPs.jpg&diff=26480File:HarryEdwardswiththeBPs.jpg2017-04-25T04:01:41Z<p>Joshhardman: John Carlos and Harry Edwards, flanked by H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael of the Black Panthers at a 1968 press conference</p>
<hr />
<div>John Carlos and Harry Edwards, flanked by H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael of the Black Panthers at a 1968 press conference</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Closure_of_the_School_of_Criminology,_1976&diff=26470UC Berkeley: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 19762017-04-25T01:03:38Z<p>Joshhardman: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' <br> ''by Josh Hardman'' <br> '''Part 3 of 6 in ''A History of Repressi..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 3 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Vollmerandsproul1936.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Vollmer and Sproul, 1936'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf4w1008bn/?brand=oac4 Online Archive of California]''<br />
<br><br><br />
The Berkeley School of Criminology was the mission of Berkeley Police Department’s first Chief - August Vollmer - who hoped to professionalise California’s police force via the teaching of “police science” [1]. The first full-session criminology program was offered in 1931, and focused on training police officers in practical skills such as psychiatry, microbiology and toxicology. The School itself was created in 1947 in the face of opposition, due to the lack of a clearly articulated vision. It is important to note that the successful formation of the School was due in part to Sproul’s sympathy to the proposal, and in part to legitimisation by groups outside of the University - notably the Berkeley Police Department. It was this fragile balance of legitimisation from both inside and outside the University that enabled the School of Criminology to exist despite the tensions and direct challenges [2] that occurred throughout the next few decades.<br />
<br />
Having adhered to the status quo throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, Berkeley’s School of Criminology began to house a faction of radical criminologists in the late 1960s. This was surely a symptom of the “dramatic political upheavals” [3] and activation of the Berkeley campus during this period, through events such as the Free Speech Movement and Vietnam War Protests. This new, radical wing of the School manifested itself via the application of Marxist theories, support for efforts such as community control and monitoring of the police, prisoner solidarity movements, and the publication of counter-hegemonic works [4]. This new radical clique, led by charismatic faculty members such as Tony Platt and Herman Schwendinger, disrupted the bases of internal and external legitimisation the School precariously existed on. Steeped in a radical Marxist lens that was both a product of, and nourished by, the climate in Berkeley at this time, the radical school forcefully rejected the notions of objectivity professed by their peers and colleagues in the school, with a small group of students and teachers forming a Union of Radical Criminologists in 1972 [5]. The radical School drew the ire of Ronald Reagan by condemning the Governor’s heavy-handedness in the People’s Park demonstrations of 1969. The subsequent appointment of Chancellor Bowker in 1971 - supported by Attorney Meese who served under Reagan – paved the way for the inevitable ruin of the School [6].<br />
<br />
As the administration began to engineer the closure of the School, there was an outburst of support and resistance [7] from both within the campus community and from academics across the world. Protests were widely advertised and well attended, with the Black Panther newspaper running stories on the demonstrations [8]. However, it was the lack of support from the professional community, on which the School had relied on throughout its turbulent past [9], that precipitated the death of the School. Having strayed from its origins as a “professional” program toward a more academic and critical focus, the School was no longer able to solicit legitimacy from its historical sources, and on the wishes of the Berkeley administration it was closed on July 15th, 1976, with the surviving faculty being placed “under the ideological guardianship of the Law School” [10]. The closure of the School can be understood as a process of, and interaction between, institutional change and personal disputes, which resulted in multiple periods of uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of the School’s existence. Until the mid-1960s, each period of uncertainty had been quelled by concerted support from outside sources, though it was the lack of such support, and the wishes of the administration to repress the radical critiques advanced by the new faction, that led to the School’s closure. The events that culminated in the school’s dissolution demonstrate how crucial Berkeley’s administration perceived the soliciting of support, prestige and legitimacy from external institutions to be: in this case the Berkeley Police Department played a pivotal role.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51<br />
<br>Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976<br />
<br>Part 4: Fighting for Tenure<br />
<br>Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers<br />
<br>Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] Koehler, Johann. 2015. "Development And Fracture Of A Discipline: Legacies Of The School Of Criminology At Berkeley". Criminology 53 (4): 513-544. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12081.<br />
<br>[2] Such as the Master Plan, which aimed to place all vocational programs under the purview of the California Community College system.<br />
<br>[3] "[https://www.socialjusticejournal.org/SJEdits/06Edit-1.html Editorial: Berkeley's School Of Criminology, 1950-1976]". 1976. Crime And Social Justice 6.<br />
<br>[4] Shank, Gregory. 2008. "[https://www.socialjusticejournal.org/SJEdits/Takagi-Paul.html Paul T. Takagi Honored]". Social Justice 35 (2).<br />
<br>[5] Shank, Gregory. 1999. "[http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/shankcrimin.html Looking Back: Radical Criminology And Social Movements]". History Is A Weapon.<br />
<br>[6] Bowker, Albert H., interviewed by Harriet Nathan, University History Series, Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, 1991. Note: Bowker speaks bluntly about various events mentioned in this history, most notably the School of Criminology and Harry Edward’s tenure case.<br />
<br>[7] ''Ibid.'' Note: Bowker took a firm stance on these demonstrations, ordering police to clear out the occupation of the criminology building while he and his wife retreated to a motel. Bowker chillingly recalls “I remember that practically all of my senior officers, the president of the student body, and everybody were there saying, "No, don't do it; there will be bloodshed."”, to which he responded “Sometimes you have to crack a few heads.”… “It was quite bloody…”, 19<br />
<br>[8] Shank, ''Looking Back'', 1999<br />
<br>[9] Bowker, interviewed by Harriet Nathan, University History Series. Note: This series of interviews with Bowker elaborates on the centrality of external support and legitimization for the School’s survival, noting “Clark Kerr had once or twice tried to abolish the School of Criminology… and had failed because the establishment of police and public safety complained so much…” p. 16.<br />
<br>[10] Platt, Tony. 2014. "[http://www.socialjusticejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/131-132Intro.pdf Editor’s Introduction: Legacies Of Radical Criminology In The United States]". Social Justice Journal 40 (1), 3<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1970s]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Vollmerandsproul1936.jpg&diff=26468File:Vollmerandsproul1936.jpg2017-04-25T00:58:26Z<p>Joshhardman: Vollmer and Sproul, 1936</p>
<hr />
<div>Vollmer and Sproul, 1936</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century&diff=26466UC Berkeley: The Early 20th Century2017-04-25T00:53:04Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 1 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Earl-Warren-Bohemina-Club.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Earl Warren (Left) becoming potentate at the Bohemian Club'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf2g5005d0/?layout=metadata&brand=oac4 Online Archive of California]''<br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | ''This brief six-part history seeks to disrupt the popular imaginary that esteems UC Berkeley as a progressive, even radical, institution. Such a characterization is ahistorical, for the administration has proven itself a bastion of conservatism, repressive of counter-hegemonic scholarship, and certainly ''not'' a vehicle for progressive change. Instead, the radical aura of the college should be credited to the immense efforts of committed members of the Berkeley community – both on-campus and in the city at large - many of whom were activated by the 1934 San Francisco general strike, and the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. This broad stroke historical survey, which is by no means exhaustive, focuses specifically on 20th century conflicts between ''faculty'' [1] and the administration of UC Berkeley [2]. It reveals the administration’s true nature as a force for conservatism, adept in using bureaucratic manoeuvrings to maintain the status quo at Berkeley through close ties with government actors and corporate interests. As a public institution, this ‘status quo’ has included the instruction of tough policing tactics, the hyping of nuclear weapon technologies and simultaneous suppression of their critics, and the enabling of corporate hegemony over genetically modified organisms.'''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The actions and alignments of Berkeley’s administration during the two World Wars offers fruitful context for issues discussed later, but also exemplifies just how historically conservative - at times exhibiting far-right elements - the administration has been. In ''The Goose-Step'' [3] - a seminal text for those wishing to understand the political climate of American Universities during this era - Upton Sinclair invokes the mafia to describe Berkeley as ‘The University of the Black Hand’ [4], providing myriad examples of collusion between right wing, imperialist political actors and the conservative, hegemonic UC regents (the “grand dukes of plutocracy” [5]). Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President of the UC system until 1919, was a good friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He nominated the German Emperor for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1911 [6], and hung a “fine photograph” of the Kaiser in his office [7]. However, this camaraderie became a sticking point by 1918 when anti-German hysteria was rife in America. All degree candidates were now required to sign a pledge attesting to their Americanism, and three professors were fired on dubious charges of disloyalty [8]. This should be regarded as the first Loyalty Oath at Berkeley, foreshadowing the anti-communist Oath of the 1950s.<br />
<br />
A second symptom of this hysteria was Wheeler’s succession by David Prescott Barrows, a Colonel who served as assistant chief of staff in the American Expeditionary Forces [9]. He fought in the bloody conflicts in Siberia alongside General Semenoff, a particularly brutal commander of the White Russian forces, as part of a loose coalition of anti-communist interventionist forces who sought to prevent the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution [10]. In a 1939 hearing, Barrows argued that communists are violent by nature [11]; ignoring the fact that the Revolution only became bloody when the White Russian forces and their allies, of which he was a member, invaded. It makes sense, then, that Sinclair refers to Barrows as “The Dean of Imperialism” [12], a “real red-blooded, two-fisted man of action” [13]. Unsurprisingly, Barrows was a powerful accomplice in the crackdown on the American Left, and made ultrapatriotism and anti-communism priorities of the new American Legion of which he was commander [14]. These actions reflect deep ideological convictions, corroborated by his memoirs in which he labels the 1934 San Francisco General Strike as a “prelude for a Communist overthrow” [15], and brands union leader Harry Bridges a communist conspirator.<br />
<br><br><br />
[[image:General-Barrows-Armistice-Day.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''General Barrows speaking at Armistice Day observance, 1926'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://lit250v.library.ucla.edu/islandora/object/edu.ucla.library.specialCollections.latimes%3A7237 LA Times Photographs Collection]''<br><br><br />
<br />
During the strike, Barrows – while still teaching at Berkeley - was head of the National Guard for the Western region, commanding the ''military'' crackdown on the strike while UC regent John Francis Neylan orchestrated the ''political'' crackdown through his close ties to the press. Following the General Strike, University Regulation 5 was enacted, banning Communist Party members (or suspected members) from campus on the grounds that Communism was contradictory to “Free Speech” and “academic freedom” [16]. It is telling that no policy was ever enforced to defend these tenets from fascism, despite Regulation 5 acknowledging the university was just as threatened by reactionaries on the Right. Instead, the administration fired Kenneth May from Berkeley’s math department in 1940 - the first politically motivated dismissal of a member of teaching staff since 1874 [17] - and maintained a strict policy on not hiring those deemed to be Communists.<br />
<br />
By 1933, Roosevelt’s New Deal had prompted a rightward shift amongst many of the UC’s regents. Despite the professed purpose of the Regents as representatives of the people of California, in reality most were agents of business interests such as oil and gas tycoons and agribusiness giants. George Stewart, a Berkeley English Professor, argued that the board was “an expensive gentlemen’s club” without one “person of broad intellectual stature” [18]. Prior to the Loyalty Oath Controversy, Robert Gordon Sproul, President of the UC from 1930–1958, was “the most popular president in the history of the University of California” [19]. Sproul typifies the close linkages between the administration and political and business interests, most notably through his close friendship Republican Governor Earl Warren; the two were fishing buddies and members of the secretive Bohemian Club [20]. Through his many roles in California’s political arena, Warren helped Sproul suppress the Left at Berkeley throughout the 1930s and ‘40s. In his capacity as attorney general of Alameda County in the 1930s, Warren provided Sproul with intelligence on Berkeley’s left-wing students; as California’s attorney general in 1940, he forced Governor Culbert Olson to withdraw his nomination of Max Radin, a highly regarded Berkeley Law professor, on the grounds that he was too radical [21]; in 1944 he appointed John Francis Neylan - a key orchestrator of the Loyalty Oath Crisis, and a member of the right-wing faction of the Republican Party - to another 16-year term on the Board of Regents. Furthermore, Sproul’s knack in garnering support from wealthy alumni and private actors in the form of financial and social capital afforded him great political clout, which he used to suppress the Left at Berkeley and contour the future of the College through high-level appointments and dismissals.<br />
<br />
The relations between Warren and Sproul exemplify the level of collusion between political actors and the University’s administration in repressing faculty, and the Left more broadly, at Berkeley. It also demonstrates the importance of acknowledging the intersections of microhistories and biographies, for the Warren-Sproul collaboration operates on a local, interpersonal level, showing that it is untrue that the UC administration was merely ''complicit'' in the wishes of the government, but that members of the administration were in fact friends, confidantes, and ''active supporters'' of key governmental orchestrators, with some moving fluidly between these spheres. In the early 20th Century, Berkeley was a hotbed for right wing, militarised, reactionary thought and practice [22], and the UC administration was closely aligned with the ideology, programs, and whims of the government.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
Part 1: The Early 20th Century<br />
<br>[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51 Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51]<br />
<br>Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976<br />
<br>Part 4: Fighting for Tenure<br />
<br>Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers<br />
<br>Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] There is a good deal of history on the disputes and confrontations between the student body and the administration at UC Berkeley. This article therefore seeks to chart new territory by chronicling the disputes between academic staff and administrative staff, and thus seemingly obvious flashpoints of repression have been omitted, such as the Free Speech Movement.<br />
<br>[2] Including, necessarily, the Regents of the University of California.<br />
<br>[3] Sinclair, Upton. ''The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education''. Pasadena, CA: Author, 1923.<br />
<br>[4] ''Ibid.'', 135<br />
<br>[5] ''Ibid.'', 132<br />
<br>[6] Emmerson, Charles. 2013. 1913. 1st ed. London: Bodley Head, 77<br />
<br>[7] Clifford, J. Garry. 1972. ''The Citizen Soldiers''. 1st ed. [Lexington]: University Press of Kentucky, 19<br />
<br>[8] Blauner, Bob. 2009. ''Resisting McCarthyism''. 1st ed. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 19. Note: This book offers a comprehensive history of the UC Loyalty Oath.<br />
<br>[9] ''Federal Writers Project of the Works Progress Administration'', 2011, "San Francisco in the 1930s: The WPA Guide to the City By the Bay" (1st ed., p. 401). University of California Press.<br />
<br>[10] Smith, G., [https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/winter/us-army-in-russia-1.html Guarding the Railroad, Taming the Cossacks. The U.S. Army in Russia], 1918-1920. ''Prologue Magazine'', (Vol. 34 No. 4), 2002<br />
<br>[11] David P. Barrows Papers, 1890-1954, Collection no. BANC MSS C-B 1005, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br>[12] Sinclair, ''The Goose-Step'', 137<br />
<br>[13] ''Ibid.'', 139<br />
<br>[14] On the American Legion’s commitments to anticommunism, see Schrecker, Ellen. 2002. ''The Age Of McCarthyism''. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave.<br />
<br>[15] David Barrows, Memoirs, Bancroft Library, University of California, 222<br />
<br>[16] Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 26<br />
<br>[17] ''Ibid.'', xvii. Note: from the whole UC, not just Berkeley.<br />
<br>[18] ''Ibid.'', 21<br />
<br>[19] ''Ibid.'', 228.<br />
<br>[20] As were “Virtually all of UC’s important people”, according to Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 18<br />
<br>[21] ''Ibid.'',11<br />
<br>[22] Perhaps the most telling sign of the political climate at UC Berkeley in the first half of the 20th Century is a question on the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) - which was compulsory until 1962 - final exam in 1936, which asked students how they would deploy the ROTC and National Guard to quell future labour insurrections and demonstrations. See Cohen, Robert. 1993. ''When The Old Left Was Young''. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 199<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1910s]][[category:1920s]][[category:1930s]][[category:1940s]][[category:1934 General Strike]][[category: Power and Money]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Loyalty_Oath_Controversy,_1949-51&diff=26465UC Berkeley: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-512017-04-25T00:52:15Z<p>Joshhardman: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' <br> ''by Josh Hardman'' <br> '''Part 2 of 6 in ''A History of Repressi..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 2 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:TenneyCommittee.jpeg]]<br />
<br>'''Tenney Committee members, state senators Louis Sutton, Hugh Burns, Clyde Watson, Jack B. Tenney, 1947'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://lit250v.library.ucla.edu/islandora/object/edu.ucla.library.specialCollections.losAngelesDailyNews%3A192 Los Angeles Daily News Negatives]''<br />
<br><br><br />
The context of a right wing, reactionary administration was fertile ground for the anti-communist hysteria that swept the nation in the McCarthy era. In early 1949 Harold Laski, a prominent left-wing member of the British Labour Party, had his speaking engagements at UCLA and Berkeley cancelled [1], illustrating the level of paranoia and contempt for those perceived by the administration as Communist sympathisers. In this Cold War climate, far-right regents such as John Francis Neylan were able to exercise great agency over the University’s response to McCarthyism, which culminated in the introduction of what has been dubbed the ‘Loyalty Oath’ in 1949.<br />
<br />
The Oath was imposed by the Board of Regents, and required all University employees to pledge their loyalty to the state constitution, and to deny membership in, or belief in, organisations promoting the overthrow of the US government: the clear emphasis being on Communist organisations. Sproul pushed for the Loyalty Oath at Berkeley, which was pre-emptive as the Oath for state employees [2] did not extend to employees of the University of California at the time. Chairman of the California Committee on Un-American Activities (the California State Assembly’s ‘little HUAC’) Jack B. Tenney supposedly threatened to withhold the university’s budget if it did not “deal with its communist problem”, which perhaps explains what Professor Benjamin Lehman described as a “momentary failure of insight” [3] by Sproul.<br />
<br />
The Oath was met with resistance by some faculty members, with non-signers at Berkeley organising under the leadership of Professors Edward Tolman and Frank Newman in the first half of 1950 [4]. Following a series of standoffs, deadline deferrals, and an ultimatum, a compromise gave non-signers the option of a hearing in front of the Privilege and Tenure Committee to defend their employment. On June 23rd 1950, the Board of Regents voted to fire 157 employees, both academic and non-academic, for their refusal to sign the Oath. This number was soon reduced to 31, as many decided to sign the Oath after the Regents made their tenacity clear, and others were spared by the subsequent actions of individual Regents. Charles Muscatine was one of these thirty-one professors, and in a later interview cited violations of the US constitution and threats to academic freedom as his motivations for refusing to honour the Oath [5]. Other members of staff and faculty resigned in protest of the mass-firings, such as Wolfgang Panofsky; a physics professor and researcher at Ernest Lawrence’s Radiation Laboratory. Lawrence, annoyed at the prospect of losing a promising young scientist such as Panofsky, demonstrated just how out-of-touch many University officials were throughout the controversy by inviting the physicist to an “out of channels” [6] meeting at Regent Neylan’s home. As Birge writes: “if there was anyone at the time for whom Panofsky felt utter disdain it was Neylan” [7], for Neylan was the orchestrator of the Oath, and a supporter of the far-right faction of the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
<br>[[image:DailyCalLoyaltyOath.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Daily Californian cartoon, July 7th, 1949.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/loyaltyoath/images_dailycal.html Daily Californian Archives]''<br />
<br><br><br />
In a landmark victory in April 1951 at the California Court of Appeal [8], the University was ordered to reinstate the academics fired for their refusal to sign, and it was made clear that employees of the University could not be subjected to any narrower oath than that set out by the statewide Levering Act. Thus, the dismissals were reversed, and a number of lawsuits for back pay were lodged; but the damage was done. It was supposedly Tenney’s threats of defunding the university that led Sproul to allow the Oath to pass [9]; a measure that surpassed the anti-communist measures being voted ''down'' in the legislature. Nonetheless, the Loyalty Oath was evidently the brainchild of staunchly anti-communist, right wing members of the Board of Regents and administration; which called into question the university’s commitment to academic freedom, exemplified their lack of empathy for staff’s ethical concerns, and provided grievances that contributed to the eruption of the Free Speech Movement a decade later.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
[http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century Part 1: The Early 20th Century]<br />
<br>Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51<br />
<br>Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976<br />
<br>Part 4: Fighting for Tenure<br />
<br>Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers<br />
<br>Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] Academic Senate, Southern Section,. 1949. [http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb309nb51n&brand=lo&chunk.id=meta Resolution Passed By The Academic Senate], April 19, 1949. Academic Freedom--California. Los Angeles. <br />
<br>[2] The oath for state employees became the Levering Act in 1950 following the inclusion of the disavowal of radical beliefs, with the help of Earl Warren.<br />
<br>[3] Benjamin H. Lehman, interviewed by Suzanne B. Riess, [https://archive.org/details/lehmanrecollecti00lehmrich Recollections and reminiscences of life in the Bay Area from 1920 onward], University of California Libraries, Bancroft Library, 1969, 276. Note: See also, more generally, 254-290 for oral history on the Oath Crisis.<br />
<br>[4] [http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/loyaltyoath/timeline_retreat.html "The California Loyalty Oath Digital Collection"]. 2007. Bancroft.Berkeley.Edu. Note: This Digital Collection from the Bancroft Library contains oral histories and links to additional resources such as digitised primary sources.<br />
<br>[5] Charles Muscatine, interviewer unknown, Stifling Academic Freedom, [http://www.trackedinamerica.org/timeline/mccarthy_era/muscatine/ Tracked In America], n.d. Note: The ‘Tracked in America’ project is a documentary website of oral histories related to surveillance in America.<br />
<br>[6] Jackson, John David. 2009. "Panofsky Agonistes: The 1950 Loyalty Oath At Berkeley". Physics Today 62 (1): 41-47. doi:10.1063/1.3074262., 8. Note: This short document provides an interesting insight into how pervasive the moral/ethical crises triggered by the Oath, and how Regents and University officials attempted to coerce nonsigners.<br />
<br>[7] Birge, Raymond Thayer. 1968. ''History Of The Physics Department''. 1st ed. Berkeley: University of California, Chapter XVIII, 33 Note: This is referenced in Jackson’s 2009 account of Panofsky’s entanglement in the Loyalty Oath Crisis, page 8.<br />
<br>[8] Edward C. Tolman et al., Petitioners, v. Robert M. Underhill, as Secretary and Treasurer of Regents of University of California, et al., Respondents. 1951 Concerning the Special Loyalty Declaration at the University of California, Civ. No. 7946 3. The District Court of Appeal, State of California, Third Appellate District.<br />
<br>[9] Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 67<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1940s]][[category:1950s]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century&diff=26462UC Berkeley: The Early 20th Century2017-04-25T00:47:07Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 1 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Earl-Warren-Bohemina-Club.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Earl Warren (Left) becoming potentate at the Bohemian Club'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf2g5005d0/?layout=metadata&brand=oac4 Online Archive of California]''<br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | ''This brief six-part history seeks to disrupt the popular imaginary that esteems UC Berkeley as a progressive, even radical, institution. Such a characterization is ahistorical, for the administration has proven itself a bastion of conservatism, repressive of counter-hegemonic scholarship, and certainly ''not'' a vehicle for progressive change. Instead, the radical aura of the college should be credited to the immense efforts of committed members of the Berkeley community – both on-campus and in the city at large - many of whom were activated by the 1934 San Francisco general strike, and the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. This broad stroke historical survey, which is by no means exhaustive, focuses specifically on 20th century conflicts between ''faculty'' [1] and the administration of UC Berkeley [2]. It reveals the administration’s true nature as a force for conservatism, adept in using bureaucratic manoeuvrings to maintain the status quo at Berkeley through close ties with government actors and corporate interests. As a public institution, this ‘status quo’ has included the instruction of tough policing tactics, the hyping of nuclear weapon technologies and simultaneous suppression of their critics, and the enabling of corporate hegemony over genetically modified organisms.'''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The actions and alignments of Berkeley’s administration during the two World Wars offers fruitful context for issues discussed later, but also exemplifies just how historically conservative - at times exhibiting far-right elements - the administration has been. In ''The Goose-Step'' [3] - a seminal text for those wishing to understand the political climate of American Universities during this era - Upton Sinclair invokes the mafia to describe Berkeley as ‘The University of the Black Hand’ [4], providing myriad examples of collusion between right wing, imperialist political actors and the conservative, hegemonic UC regents (the “grand dukes of plutocracy” [5]). Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President of the UC system until 1919, was a good friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He nominated the German Emperor for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1911 [6], and hung a “fine photograph” of the Kaiser in his office [7]. However, this camaraderie became a sticking point by 1918 when anti-German hysteria was rife in America. All degree candidates were now required to sign a pledge attesting to their Americanism, and three professors were fired on dubious charges of disloyalty [8]. This should be regarded as the first Loyalty Oath at Berkeley, foreshadowing the anti-communist Oath of the 1950s.<br />
<br />
A second symptom of this hysteria was Wheeler’s succession by David Prescott Barrows, a Colonel who served as assistant chief of staff in the American Expeditionary Forces [9]. He fought in the bloody conflicts in Siberia alongside General Semenoff, a particularly brutal commander of the White Russian forces, as part of a loose coalition of anti-communist interventionist forces who sought to prevent the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution [10]. In a 1939 hearing, Barrows argued that communists are violent by nature [11]; ignoring the fact that the Revolution only became bloody when the White Russian forces and their allies, of which he was a member, invaded. It makes sense, then, that Sinclair refers to Barrows as “The Dean of Imperialism” [12], a “real red-blooded, two-fisted man of action” [13]. Unsurprisingly, Barrows was a powerful accomplice in the crackdown on the American Left, and made ultrapatriotism and anti-communism priorities of the new American Legion of which he was commander [14]. These actions reflect deep ideological convictions, corroborated by his memoirs in which he labels the 1934 San Francisco General Strike as a “prelude for a Communist overthrow” [15], and brands union leader Harry Bridges a communist conspirator.<br />
<br><br><br />
[[image:General-Barrows-Armistice-Day.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''General Barrows speaking at Armistice Day observance, 1926'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://lit250v.library.ucla.edu/islandora/object/edu.ucla.library.specialCollections.latimes%3A7237 LA Times Photographs Collection]''<br><br><br />
<br />
During the strike, Barrows – while still teaching at Berkeley - was head of the National Guard for the Western region, commanding the ''military'' crackdown on the strike while UC regent John Francis Neylan orchestrated the ''political'' crackdown through his close ties to the press. Following the General Strike, University Regulation 5 was enacted, banning Communist Party members (or suspected members) from campus on the grounds that Communism was contradictory to “Free Speech” and “academic freedom” [16]. It is telling that no policy was ever enforced to defend these tenets from fascism, despite Regulation 5 acknowledging the university was just as threatened by reactionaries on the Right. Instead, the administration fired Kenneth May from Berkeley’s math department in 1940 - the first politically motivated dismissal of a member of teaching staff since 1874 [17] - and maintained a strict policy on not hiring those deemed to be Communists.<br />
<br />
By 1933, Roosevelt’s New Deal had prompted a rightward shift amongst many of the UC’s regents. Despite the professed purpose of the Regents as representatives of the people of California, in reality most were agents of business interests such as oil and gas tycoons and agribusiness giants. George Stewart, a Berkeley English Professor, argued that the board was “an expensive gentlemen’s club” without one “person of broad intellectual stature” [18]. Prior to the Loyalty Oath Controversy, Robert Gordon Sproul, President of the UC from 1930–1958, was “the most popular president in the history of the University of California” [19]. Sproul typifies the close linkages between the administration and political and business interests, most notably through his close friendship Republican Governor Earl Warren; the two were fishing buddies and members of the secretive Bohemian Club [20]. Through his many roles in California’s political arena, Warren helped Sproul suppress the Left at Berkeley throughout the 1930s and ‘40s. In his capacity as attorney general of Alameda County in the 1930s, Warren provided Sproul with intelligence on Berkeley’s left-wing students; as California’s attorney general in 1940, he forced Governor Culbert Olson to withdraw his nomination of Max Radin, a highly regarded Berkeley Law professor, on the grounds that he was too radical [21]; in 1944 he appointed John Francis Neylan - a key orchestrator of the Loyalty Oath Crisis, and a member of the right-wing faction of the Republican Party - to another 16-year term on the Board of Regents. Furthermore, Sproul’s knack in garnering support from wealthy alumni and private actors in the form of financial and social capital afforded him great political clout, which he used to suppress the Left at Berkeley and contour the future of the College through high-level appointments and dismissals.<br />
<br />
The relations between Warren and Sproul exemplify the level of collusion between political actors and the University’s administration in repressing faculty, and the Left more broadly, at Berkeley. It also demonstrates the importance of acknowledging the intersections of microhistories and biographies, for the Warren-Sproul collaboration operates on a local, interpersonal level, showing that it is untrue that the UC administration was merely ''complicit'' in the wishes of the government, but that members of the administration were in fact friends, confidantes, and ''active supporters'' of key governmental orchestrators, with some moving fluidly between these spheres. In the early 20th Century, Berkeley was a hotbed for right wing, militarised, reactionary thought and practice [22], and the UC administration was closely aligned with the ideology, programs, and whims of the government.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
Part 1: The Early 20th Century<br />
<br>Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51<br />
<br>Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976<br />
<br>Part 4: Fighting for Tenure<br />
<br>Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers<br />
<br>Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] There is a good deal of history on the disputes and confrontations between the student body and the administration at UC Berkeley. This article therefore seeks to chart new territory by chronicling the disputes between academic staff and administrative staff, and thus seemingly obvious flashpoints of repression have been omitted, such as the Free Speech Movement.<br />
<br>[2] Including, necessarily, the Regents of the University of California.<br />
<br>[3] Sinclair, Upton. ''The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education''. Pasadena, CA: Author, 1923.<br />
<br>[4] ''Ibid.'', 135<br />
<br>[5] ''Ibid.'', 132<br />
<br>[6] Emmerson, Charles. 2013. 1913. 1st ed. London: Bodley Head, 77<br />
<br>[7] Clifford, J. Garry. 1972. ''The Citizen Soldiers''. 1st ed. [Lexington]: University Press of Kentucky, 19<br />
<br>[8] Blauner, Bob. 2009. ''Resisting McCarthyism''. 1st ed. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 19. Note: This book offers a comprehensive history of the UC Loyalty Oath.<br />
<br>[9] ''Federal Writers Project of the Works Progress Administration'', 2011, "San Francisco in the 1930s: The WPA Guide to the City By the Bay" (1st ed., p. 401). University of California Press.<br />
<br>[10] Smith, G., [https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/winter/us-army-in-russia-1.html Guarding the Railroad, Taming the Cossacks. The U.S. Army in Russia], 1918-1920. ''Prologue Magazine'', (Vol. 34 No. 4), 2002<br />
<br>[11] David P. Barrows Papers, 1890-1954, Collection no. BANC MSS C-B 1005, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br>[12] Sinclair, ''The Goose-Step'', 137<br />
<br>[13] ''Ibid.'', 139<br />
<br>[14] On the American Legion’s commitments to anticommunism, see Schrecker, Ellen. 2002. ''The Age Of McCarthyism''. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave.<br />
<br>[15] David Barrows, Memoirs, Bancroft Library, University of California, 222<br />
<br>[16] Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 26<br />
<br>[17] ''Ibid.'', xvii. Note: from the whole UC, not just Berkeley.<br />
<br>[18] ''Ibid.'', 21<br />
<br>[19] ''Ibid.'', 228.<br />
<br>[20] As were “Virtually all of UC’s important people”, according to Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 18<br />
<br>[21] ''Ibid.'',11<br />
<br>[22] Perhaps the most telling sign of the political climate at UC Berkeley in the first half of the 20th Century is a question on the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) - which was compulsory until 1962 - final exam in 1936, which asked students how they would deploy the ROTC and National Guard to quell future labour insurrections and demonstrations. See Cohen, Robert. 1993. ''When The Old Left Was Young''. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 199<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1910s]][[category:1920s]][[category:1930s]][[category:1940s]][[category:1934 General Strike]][[category: Power and Money]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century&diff=26461UC Berkeley: The Early 20th Century2017-04-25T00:46:29Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 1 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Earl-Warren-Bohemina-Club.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Earl Warren (Left) becoming potentate at the Bohemian Club'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf2g5005d0/?layout=metadata&brand=oac4 Online Archive of California]''<br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | ''This brief six-part history seeks to disrupt the popular imaginary that esteems UC Berkeley as a progressive, even radical, institution. Such a characterization is ahistorical, for the administration has proven itself a bastion of conservatism, repressive of counter-hegemonic scholarship, and certainly ''not'' a vehicle for progressive change. Instead, the radical aura of the college should be credited to the immense efforts of committed members of the Berkeley community – both on-campus and in the city at large - many of whom were activated by the 1934 San Francisco general strike, and the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. This broad stroke historical survey, which is by no means exhaustive, focuses specifically on 20th century conflicts between ''faculty'' [1] and the administration of UC Berkeley [2]. It reveals the administration’s true nature as a force for conservatism, adept in using bureaucratic manoeuvrings to maintain the status quo at Berkeley through close ties with government actors and corporate interests. As a public institution, this ‘status quo’ has included the instruction of tough policing tactics, the hyping of nuclear weapon technologies and simultaneous suppression of their critics, and the enabling of corporate hegemony over genetically modified organisms.'''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The actions and alignments of Berkeley’s administration during the two World Wars offers fruitful context for issues discussed later, but also exemplifies just how historically conservative - at times exhibiting far-right elements - the administration has been. In ''The Goose-Step'' [3] - a seminal text for those wishing to understand the political climate of American Universities during this era - Upton Sinclair invokes the mafia to describe Berkeley as ‘The University of the Black Hand’ [4], providing myriad examples of collusion between right wing, imperialist political actors and the conservative, hegemonic UC regents (the “grand dukes of plutocracy” [5]). Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President of the UC system until 1919, was a good friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He nominated the German Emperor for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1911 [6], and hung a “fine photograph” of the Kaiser in his office [7]. However, this camaraderie became a sticking point by 1918 when anti-German hysteria was rife in America. All degree candidates were now required to sign a pledge attesting to their Americanism, and three professors were fired on dubious charges of disloyalty [8]. This should be regarded as the first Loyalty Oath at Berkeley, foreshadowing the anti-communist Oath of the 1950s.<br />
<br />
A second symptom of this hysteria was Wheeler’s succession by David Prescott Barrows, a Colonel who served as assistant chief of staff in the American Expeditionary Forces [9]. He fought in the bloody conflicts in Siberia alongside General Semenoff, a particularly brutal commander of the White Russian forces, as part of a loose coalition of anti-communist interventionist forces who sought to prevent the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution [10]. In a 1939 hearing, Barrows argued that communists are violent by nature [11]; ignoring the fact that the Revolution only became bloody when the White Russian forces and their allies, of which he was a member, invaded. It makes sense, then, that Sinclair refers to Barrows as “The Dean of Imperialism” [12], a “real red-blooded, two-fisted man of action” [13]. Unsurprisingly, Barrows was a powerful accomplice in the crackdown on the American Left, and made ultrapatriotism and anti-communism priorities of the new American Legion of which he was commander [14]. These actions reflect deep ideological convictions, corroborated by his memoirs in which he labels the 1934 San Francisco General Strike as a “prelude for a Communist overthrow” [15], and brands union leader Harry Bridges a communist conspirator.<br />
<br><br><br />
[[image:General-Barrows-Armistice-Day.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''General Barrows speaking at Armistice Day observance, 1926'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://lit250v.library.ucla.edu/islandora/object/edu.ucla.library.specialCollections.latimes%3A7237 LA Times Photographs Collection]''<br><br><br />
<br />
During the strike, Barrows – while still teaching at Berkeley - was head of the National Guard for the Western region, commanding the ''military'' crackdown on the strike while UC regent John Francis Neylan orchestrated the ''political'' crackdown through his close ties to the press. Following the General Strike, University Regulation 5 was enacted, banning Communist Party members (or suspected members) from campus on the grounds that Communism was contradictory to “Free Speech” and “academic freedom” [16]. It is telling that no policy was ever enforced to defend these tenets from fascism, despite Regulation 5 acknowledging the university was just as threatened by reactionaries on the Right. Instead, the administration fired Kenneth May from Berkeley’s math department in 1940 - the first politically motivated dismissal of a member of teaching staff since 1874 [17] - and maintained a strict policy on not hiring those deemed to be Communists.<br />
<br />
By 1933, Roosevelt’s New Deal had prompted a rightward shift amongst many of the UC’s regents. Despite the professed purpose of the Regents as representatives of the people of California, in reality most were agents of business interests such as oil and gas tycoons and agribusiness giants. George Stewart, a Berkeley English Professor, argued that the board was “an expensive gentlemen’s club” without one “person of broad intellectual stature” [18]. Prior to the Loyalty Oath Controversy, Robert Gordon Sproul, President of the UC from 1930–1958, was “the most popular president in the history of the University of California” [19]. Sproul typifies the close linkages between the administration and political and business interests, most notably through his close friendship Republican Governor Earl Warren; the two were fishing buddies and members of the secretive Bohemian Club [20]. Through his many roles in California’s political arena, Warren helped Sproul suppress the Left at Berkeley throughout the 1930s and ‘40s. In his capacity as attorney general of Alameda County in the 1930s, Warren provided Sproul with intelligence on Berkeley’s left-wing students; as California’s attorney general in 1940, he forced Governor Culbert Olson to withdraw his nomination of Max Radin, a highly regarded Berkeley Law professor, on the grounds that he was too radical [21]; in 1944 he appointed John Francis Neylan - a key orchestrator of the Loyalty Oath Crisis, and a member of the right-wing faction of the Republican Party - to another 16-year term on the Board of Regents. Furthermore, Sproul’s knack in garnering support from wealthy alumni and private actors in the form of financial and social capital afforded him great political clout, which he used to suppress the Left at Berkeley and contour the future of the College through high-level appointments and dismissals.<br />
<br />
The relations between Warren and Sproul exemplify the level of collusion between political actors and the University’s administration in repressing faculty, and the Left more broadly, at Berkeley. It also demonstrates the importance of acknowledging the intersections of microhistories and biographies, for the Warren-Sproul collaboration operates on a local, interpersonal level, showing that it is untrue that the UC administration was merely ''complicit'' in the wishes of the government, but that members of the administration were in fact friends, confidantes, and ''active supporters'' of key governmental orchestrators, with some moving fluidly between these spheres. In the early 20th Century, Berkeley was a hotbed for right wing, militarised, reactionary thought and practice [22], and the UC administration was closely aligned with the ideology, programs, and whims of the government.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
<br>Part 1: The Early 20th Century<br />
<br>Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51<br />
<br>Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976<br />
<br>Part 4: Fighting for Tenure<br />
<br>Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers<br />
<br>Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] There is a good deal of history on the disputes and confrontations between the student body and the administration at UC Berkeley. This article therefore seeks to chart new territory by chronicling the disputes between academic staff and administrative staff, and thus seemingly obvious flashpoints of repression have been omitted, such as the Free Speech Movement.<br />
<br>[2] Including, necessarily, the Regents of the University of California.<br />
<br>[3] Sinclair, Upton. ''The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education''. Pasadena, CA: Author, 1923.<br />
<br>[4] ''Ibid.'', 135<br />
<br>[5] ''Ibid.'', 132<br />
<br>[6] Emmerson, Charles. 2013. 1913. 1st ed. London: Bodley Head, 77<br />
<br>[7] Clifford, J. Garry. 1972. ''The Citizen Soldiers''. 1st ed. [Lexington]: University Press of Kentucky, 19<br />
<br>[8] Blauner, Bob. 2009. ''Resisting McCarthyism''. 1st ed. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 19. Note: This book offers a comprehensive history of the UC Loyalty Oath.<br />
<br>[9] ''Federal Writers Project of the Works Progress Administration'', 2011, "San Francisco in the 1930s: The WPA Guide to the City By the Bay" (1st ed., p. 401). University of California Press.<br />
<br>[10] Smith, G., [https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/winter/us-army-in-russia-1.html Guarding the Railroad, Taming the Cossacks. The U.S. Army in Russia], 1918-1920. ''Prologue Magazine'', (Vol. 34 No. 4), 2002<br />
<br>[11] David P. Barrows Papers, 1890-1954, Collection no. BANC MSS C-B 1005, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br>[12] Sinclair, ''The Goose-Step'', 137<br />
<br>[13] ''Ibid.'', 139<br />
<br>[14] On the American Legion’s commitments to anticommunism, see Schrecker, Ellen. 2002. ''The Age Of McCarthyism''. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave.<br />
<br>[15] David Barrows, Memoirs, Bancroft Library, University of California, 222<br />
<br>[16] Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 26<br />
<br>[17] ''Ibid.'', xvii. Note: from the whole UC, not just Berkeley.<br />
<br>[18] ''Ibid.'', 21<br />
<br>[19] ''Ibid.'', 228.<br />
<br>[20] As were “Virtually all of UC’s important people”, according to Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 18<br />
<br>[21] ''Ibid.'',11<br />
<br>[22] Perhaps the most telling sign of the political climate at UC Berkeley in the first half of the 20th Century is a question on the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) - which was compulsory until 1962 - final exam in 1936, which asked students how they would deploy the ROTC and National Guard to quell future labour insurrections and demonstrations. See Cohen, Robert. 1993. ''When The Old Left Was Young''. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 199<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1910s]][[category:1920s]][[category:1930s]][[category:1940s]][[category:1934 General Strike]][[category: Power and Money]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:DailyCalLoyaltyOath.jpg&diff=26458File:DailyCalLoyaltyOath.jpg2017-04-25T00:42:10Z<p>Joshhardman: Daily Californian cartoon, July 7th 1949</p>
<hr />
<div>Daily Californian cartoon, July 7th 1949</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:TenneyCommittee.jpeg&diff=26455File:TenneyCommittee.jpeg2017-04-25T00:37:17Z<p>Joshhardman: Tenney Committee members: state senators Louis Sutton, Hugh Burns, Clyde Watson, Jack B. Tenney, 1947.</p>
<hr />
<div>Tenney Committee members: state senators Louis Sutton, Hugh Burns, Clyde Watson, Jack B. Tenney, 1947.</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=UC_Berkeley:_The_Early_20th_Century&diff=26453UC Berkeley: The Early 20th Century2017-04-25T00:34:40Z<p>Joshhardman: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' <br> ''by Josh Hardman'' <br> '''Part 1 of 6 in ''A History of Repressi..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by Josh Hardman''<br />
<br><br />
'''Part 1 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Earl-Warren-Bohemina-Club.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Earl Warren (Left) becoming potentate at the Bohemian Club'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf2g5005d0/?layout=metadata&brand=oac4 Online Archive of California]''<br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | ''This brief six-part history seeks to disrupt the popular imaginary that esteems UC Berkeley as a progressive, even radical, institution. Such a characterization is ahistorical, for the administration has proven itself a bastion of conservatism, repressive of counter-hegemonic scholarship, and certainly ''not'' a vehicle for progressive change. Instead, the radical aura of the college should be credited to the immense efforts of committed members of the Berkeley community – both on-campus and in the city at large - many of whom were activated by the 1934 San Francisco general strike, and the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. This broad stroke historical survey, which is by no means exhaustive, focuses specifically on 20th century conflicts between ''faculty'' [1] and the administration of UC Berkeley [2]. It reveals the administration’s true nature as a force for conservatism, adept in using bureaucratic manoeuvrings to maintain the status quo at Berkeley through close ties with government actors and corporate interests. As a public institution, this ‘status quo’ has included the instruction of tough policing tactics, the hyping of nuclear weapon technologies and simultaneous suppression of their critics, and the enabling of corporate hegemony over genetically modified organisms.'''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The actions and alignments of Berkeley’s administration during the two World Wars offers fruitful context for issues discussed later, but also exemplifies just how historically conservative - at times exhibiting far-right elements - the administration has been. In ''The Goose-Step'' [3] - a seminal text for those wishing to understand the political climate of American Universities during this era - Upton Sinclair invokes the mafia to describe Berkeley as ‘The University of the Black Hand’ [4], providing myriad examples of collusion between right wing, imperialist political actors and the conservative, hegemonic UC regents (the “grand dukes of plutocracy” [5]). Benjamin Ide Wheeler, President of the UC system until 1919, was a good friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He nominated the German Emperor for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1911 [6], and hung a “fine photograph” of the Kaiser in his office [7]. However, this camaraderie became a sticking point by 1918 when anti-German hysteria was rife in America. All degree candidates were now required to sign a pledge attesting to their Americanism, and three professors were fired on dubious charges of disloyalty [8]. This should be regarded as the first Loyalty Oath at Berkeley, foreshadowing the anti-communist Oath of the 1950s.<br />
<br />
A second symptom of this hysteria was Wheeler’s succession by David Prescott Barrows, a Colonel who served as assistant chief of staff in the American Expeditionary Forces [9]. He fought in the bloody conflicts in Siberia alongside General Semenoff, a particularly brutal commander of the White Russian forces, as part of a loose coalition of anti-communist interventionist forces who sought to prevent the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution [10]. In a 1939 hearing, Barrows argued that communists are violent by nature [11]; ignoring the fact that the Revolution only became bloody when the White Russian forces and their allies, of which he was a member, invaded. It makes sense, then, that Sinclair refers to Barrows as “The Dean of Imperialism” [12], a “real red-blooded, two-fisted man of action” [13]. Unsurprisingly, Barrows was a powerful accomplice in the crackdown on the American Left, and made ultrapatriotism and anti-communism priorities of the new American Legion of which he was commander [14]. These actions reflect deep ideological convictions, corroborated by his memoirs in which he labels the 1934 San Francisco General Strike as a “prelude for a Communist overthrow” [15], and brands union leader Harry Bridges a communist conspirator.<br />
<br><br><br />
[[image:General-Barrows-Armistice-Day.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''General Barrows speaking at Armistice Day observance, 1926'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://lit250v.library.ucla.edu/islandora/object/edu.ucla.library.specialCollections.latimes%3A7237 LA Times Photographs Collection]''<br><br><br />
<br />
During the strike, Barrows – while still teaching at Berkeley - was head of the National Guard for the Western region, commanding the ''military'' crackdown on the strike while UC regent John Francis Neylan orchestrated the ''political'' crackdown through his close ties to the press. Following the General Strike, University Regulation 5 was enacted, banning Communist Party members (or suspected members) from campus on the grounds that Communism was contradictory to “Free Speech” and “academic freedom” [16]. It is telling that no policy was ever enforced to defend these tenets from fascism, despite Regulation 5 acknowledging the university was just as threatened by reactionaries on the Right. Instead, the administration fired Kenneth May from Berkeley’s math department in 1940 - the first politically motivated dismissal of a member of teaching staff since 1874 [17] - and maintained a strict policy on not hiring those deemed to be Communists.<br />
<br />
By 1933, Roosevelt’s New Deal had prompted a rightward shift amongst many of the UC’s regents. Despite the professed purpose of the Regents as representatives of the people of California, in reality most were agents of business interests such as oil and gas tycoons and agribusiness giants. George Stewart, a Berkeley English Professor, argued that the board was “an expensive gentlemen’s club” without one “person of broad intellectual stature” [18]. Prior to the Loyalty Oath Controversy, Robert Gordon Sproul, President of the UC from 1930–1958, was “the most popular president in the history of the University of California” [19]. Sproul typifies the close linkages between the administration and political and business interests, most notably through his close friendship Republican Governor Earl Warren; the two were fishing buddies and members of the secretive Bohemian Club [20]. Through his many roles in California’s political arena, Warren helped Sproul suppress the Left at Berkeley throughout the 1930s and ‘40s. In his capacity as attorney general of Alameda County in the 1930s, Warren provided Sproul with intelligence on Berkeley’s left-wing students; as California’s attorney general in 1940, he forced Governor Culbert Olson to withdraw his nomination of Max Radin, a highly regarded Berkeley Law professor, on the grounds that he was too radical [21]; in 1944 he appointed John Francis Neylan - a key orchestrator of the Loyalty Oath Crisis, and a member of the right-wing faction of the Republican Party - to another 16-year term on the Board of Regents. Furthermore, Sproul’s knack in garnering support from wealthy alumni and private actors in the form of financial and social capital afforded him great political clout, which he used to suppress the Left at Berkeley and contour the future of the College through high-level appointments and dismissals.<br />
<br />
The relations between Warren and Sproul exemplify the level of collusion between political actors and the University’s administration in repressing faculty, and the Left more broadly, at Berkeley. It also demonstrates the importance of acknowledging the intersections of microhistories and biographies, for the Warren-Sproul collaboration operates on a local, interpersonal level, showing that it is untrue that the UC administration was merely ''complicit'' in the wishes of the government, but that members of the administration were in fact friends, confidantes, and ''active supporters'' of key governmental orchestrators, with some moving fluidly between these spheres. In the early 20th Century, Berkeley was a hotbed for right wing, militarised, reactionary thought and practice [22], and the UC administration was closely aligned with the ideology, programs, and whims of the government.<br />
<br />
<br><h4>Continue Reading...</h4><br />
'''Part 1 of 6 in ''A History of Repression at UC Berkeley.'''''<br />
<br>Part 2: The Loyalty Oath Controversy, 1949-51<br />
<br>Part 3: The Closure of the School of Criminology, 1976<br />
<br>Part 4: Fighting for Tenure<br />
<br>Part 5: Nuclear Weapons and Whistleblowers<br />
<br>Part 6: The 21st Century: GMOs and Corporate Agendas<br />
<br><br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
<br>[1] There is a good deal of history on the disputes and confrontations between the student body and the administration at UC Berkeley. This article therefore seeks to chart new territory by chronicling the disputes between academic staff and administrative staff, and thus seemingly obvious flashpoints of repression have been omitted, such as the Free Speech Movement.<br />
<br>[2] Including, necessarily, the Regents of the University of California.<br />
<br>[3] Sinclair, Upton. ''The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education''. Pasadena, CA: Author, 1923.<br />
<br>[4] ''Ibid.'', 135<br />
<br>[5] ''Ibid.'', 132<br />
<br>[6] Emmerson, Charles. 2013. 1913. 1st ed. London: Bodley Head, 77<br />
<br>[7] Clifford, J. Garry. 1972. ''The Citizen Soldiers''. 1st ed. [Lexington]: University Press of Kentucky, 19<br />
<br>[8] Blauner, Bob. 2009. ''Resisting McCarthyism''. 1st ed. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 19. Note: This book offers a comprehensive history of the UC Loyalty Oath.<br />
<br>[9] ''Federal Writers Project of the Works Progress Administration'', 2011, "San Francisco in the 1930s: The WPA Guide to the City By the Bay" (1st ed., p. 401). University of California Press.<br />
<br>[10] Smith, G., [https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/winter/us-army-in-russia-1.html Guarding the Railroad, Taming the Cossacks. The U.S. Army in Russia], 1918-1920. ''Prologue Magazine'', (Vol. 34 No. 4), 2002<br />
<br>[11] David P. Barrows Papers, 1890-1954, Collection no. BANC MSS C-B 1005, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.<br />
<br>[12] Sinclair, ''The Goose-Step'', 137<br />
<br>[13] ''Ibid.'', 139<br />
<br>[14] On the American Legion’s commitments to anticommunism, see Schrecker, Ellen. 2002. ''The Age Of McCarthyism''. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave.<br />
<br>[15] David Barrows, Memoirs, Bancroft Library, University of California, 222<br />
<br>[16] Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 26<br />
<br>[17] ''Ibid.'', xvii. Note: from the whole UC, not just Berkeley.<br />
<br>[18] ''Ibid.'', 21<br />
<br>[19] ''Ibid.'', 228.<br />
<br>[20] As were “Virtually all of UC’s important people”, according to Blauner, ''Resisting McCarthyism'', 2009, 18<br />
<br>[21] ''Ibid.'',11<br />
<br>[22] Perhaps the most telling sign of the political climate at UC Berkeley in the first half of the 20th Century is a question on the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) - which was compulsory until 1962 - final exam in 1936, which asked students how they would deploy the ROTC and National Guard to quell future labour insurrections and demonstrations. See Cohen, Robert. 1993. ''When The Old Left Was Young''. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 199<br />
<br />
[[category:East Bay]][[category:1910s]][[category:1920s]][[category:1930s]][[category:1940s]][[category:1934 General Strike]][[category: Power and Money]][[category:Schools]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:General-Barrows-Armistice-Day.jpg&diff=26450File:General-Barrows-Armistice-Day.jpg2017-04-25T00:10:12Z<p>Joshhardman: General Barrows speaking at Armistice Day observance, 1926</p>
<hr />
<div>General Barrows speaking at Armistice Day observance, 1926</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Earl-Warren-Bohemina-Club.jpg&diff=26448File:Earl-Warren-Bohemina-Club.jpg2017-04-25T00:02:53Z<p>Joshhardman: Earl Warren (Left) becoming potentate at the Bohemian Club.</p>
<hr />
<div>Earl Warren (Left) becoming potentate at the Bohemian Club.</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Spring_Mobilization_Committee_to_End_the_War_in_Vietnam,_1967&diff=26445The Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, 19672017-04-24T23:58:57Z<p>Joshhardman: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by John Penilla''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Pamphlet_(1).gif]]<br />
'''A pamphlet distributed by the National Committee advertising the day of action.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://peacetour.org/blog Peace Tour]''<br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | '''The Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam led a historical mass demonstration on April 15th, 1967 that brought over 500,000 people out onto the streets of New York City and San Francisco. A close analysis reveals that the Committee adopted a two-pronged strategy, which combined mass coalition work with local community organizing strategies. The events also offer a window into the political debates and discords of the old and new left, particularly surrounding the question of how to involve ‘everyday’ Americans in the antiwar movement.'''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
In 1966, students, unionists, Blacks, Women’s organizations, Third World communities, and other oppressed constituencies were mobilizing against the Vietnam War. The Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam tasked itself with solidifying and harnessing the coalitional force of these groups, in order to mobilize two mass rallies on April 15th, 1967: one in New York and the other in San Francisco. Each group in the coalition had distinct interests, and thus conflicts were a regular occurrence; but the general intent and target were the same: building popular resistance against the actions of the United States government through a dual strategy of mass action and local community organizing.<br />
<br><br><br />
This entry attempts to capture the voices of those who contributed to the mobilization’s successes and shortcomings, while cueing activists on the effectiveness of mass mobilization work. The first part of this entry will be dedicated to an overview of the political development of the nationwide coalition before it began to work locally in San Francisco. Next, the discussion will move to an examination of the work it carried out, with a case study on the role of unionists, particularly the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).<br />
<br><br><br />
<blockquote>“5. The Spring Mobilization Committee shall be charged with suggesting, stimulating, and/or organizing such actions of a more limited and more localized nature as may be feasible, with the aim of broadening the influence of the peace movement as much as possible, as long as these actions clearly fall within the consensus reached by the diverse viewpoints at this conference.” [1]''</blockquote><br />
<br><br />
The committee emerged from the November 8th Mobilization Committee, and was cemented at the Cleveland Conference on November 26th, 1966. The conference was called by the Executive Council of the Inter-University Committee for Debate on Foreign Policy to debrief the anti-war demonstration they took place in on Nov. 5th-8th. Approximately 150 people attended the Cleveland Conference, with representatives from a variety of political perspectives, including the liberal-left, pacifist, and far-left; with organisations including the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the Communist Party (CP), Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), and the Du Bois Club.<br />
<br><br><br />
A. J. Muste was chosen as Chairman of the National Mobilization Committee because he “earned the respect of virtually every sector of the social protest movements in this country, displaying leadership in his work as a pacifist, radical, labor and civil rights [activist].” [2] He recounts the conference in the first issue of their bulletin, The Mobilizer, discussing the debates that arose regarding mobilization strategy. At the outset of the convention, mass action was not necessarily a guaranteed strategy, though we see some clear support for this tactic in The Mobilizer, with some attendees stating: “that the anti- war movement needed and could mount the greatest demonstration ever of Americans against the abomination being perpetrated in Vietnam by the government of this country.”[3] The YSA were explicit in their call for mass organization and education, with their pamphlet arguing that “the continual educational campaign against the war, culminating in periodic mass demonstrations, has had a deep effect on the entire American public.”[4] Fred Halstead, a leader of the SWP, attended the conference, and elaborated on his account of the antiwar movement in his book Out Now!. Halstead explains that the SWP, CP and the Du Bois Club were all of a similar opinion to that displayed by the YSA regarding the efficacy of mass organizing.[5]<br />
<br><br><br />
Other groups, particularly within the SDS, “emphasized the need for work on the local level, geared toward tackling the problems of everyday people and thus developing a truly democratic ‘power base for radical action.”[6] In response to the differing strategic affinities and concerns of the various groups, Muste - in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee - neatly synthesised the two positions together into something agreeable. He explained that “experience has often shown that local groups emerge as some national rally or action is projected”, and that “no national action can possibly attain significant proportions unless an immense amount of local concern and backing are available.”[7] Thus, a symbiosis of national and local organising was adopted by the Committee. <br />
<br><br>[[image:Mobilizing-Committee-Pamphlet-2.png]]<br><br />
'''A Pamphlet advertising the April 15th mass demonstration.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://www.pinterest.com/thesocycinema/social-mvmts-anti-war-movements/?lp=true Pinterest]''<br />
<br><br><br />
Having reached some level of agreement regarding strategy, the need to establish broad support for the coalition came to the fore. The first publication of The Mobilizer emphasises this, as Muste ensures he details the various discussions taking place at the Cleveland Conference in order to involve as many people as possible. Initially, he made it clear that there are many different expressions of the peace and antiwar movement and that their coalition does not represent them all. Given this stance, those in attendance debated about how to expand their base. One perspective, which ultimately did not carry, was committed to mobilizing ordinary Americans, believing that they are “well-meaning but ill-informed about what is going on in Vietnam.”[8] This perspective insisted on dropping the coalition’s non-exclusion policy: a policy which allowed for political radicals, particularly those on the far-left, to participate openly in the coalition, as they believed that everyday Americans would be reluctant to become involved in the coalition if radicals were present.[9] Muste, and those with similar sentiments, pushed back against this position, not because he believed the movement to be “superior to ‘ordinary Americans,’” but because he believed that these seemingly-apathetic Americans would be more active if integrated into groups and organizations.[10] This viewpoint thus inferred that the coalition’s organizing efforts would provide an environment that would bring these two groups together. For example, the Spring Mobilization committee would reach out to other groups (Churches, Third World groups, etc.) on the basis of their overall intent and not on the political and ideological persuasions of coalition members. Muste was clear about his support for “‘non-exclusion’ [to not be] tampered with in any way”[11], arguing that the principle contributes to the promotion of democracy in the United States, and explaining that any noncommunist coalition runs the risk of becoming anti-communist.[12]<br />
<br><br><br />
Soon after the Conference, Rev. James Bevel became the National Director of the committee. This decision was politically savvy as Bevel had connections to the Civil Rights Movement, for he was a leader in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and had close ties to Martin Luther King Jr.. Bevel was also firmly on-board with the strategy to build the broadest coalition possible, with The Mobilizer highlighting remarks he made at a national committee. Bevel’s remarks revealed that he did not think that a peace organization would be as effective as a “protest group”[13], arguing that a protest group would be effective “when they force other groups, basically conservative groups,” to mobilize.[14] Key to his strategy for building the mass action was what he called establishing “the movement to end the mass murder.”[15] He believed a mass movement would be critical in mobilizing the ‘everyday Americans’, particularly in the black community, but also white liberals. To do this, Bevel was insistent on what he called “taking the position of the slave.”[16] This involves avoiding the use of a political argument to talk about the war; instead, he advocated for the adoption a moralistic one, urging people to take “a position based on humanity and decency,” which involves putting oneself in the position of those sent to war. This included the African American men fighting for the U.S. Army, but also the Vietnamese who were being murdered overseas. [17] He thought that this appeal to morals would be an effective means to mobilize everyday folks because - undoubtedly informed by his experience as a preacher - it creates a situation where “there ain’t no debate”, since everyone is against murder.[18] Also, the position of the slave effectively responds to the argument of white liberals who call for the bombing to end but support the commitment of more ground troops. However, maintaining the war in any way, whether it be through bombing and/or sending in more troops, is unacceptable when one takes the position of the slave. <br />
<br><br><br />
As for the overall sentiment of the coalition, there was general support for the concept of self-determination. In an interview Kipp Dawsom, then leading member of the SWP and Executive Director for the West Coast mobilization, explained the main political line of the coalition was to focus on getting the troops out of Vietnam, and the rest of Indochina, because it was a civil war that the U.S. had no role in.[19] The YSA expanded on this, putting forward that that the movement was based “on self-determination, [and] it has let those in the oppressed colonial countries know that there are growing numbers in the U.S. who support their struggle for national independence.”[20] Bevel held the same line, but he added that the war directly contributed to racial oppression in the U.S. and abroad, particularly for African Americans, as white liberals were pushing the war in a direction that led to the murder of black people. To Bevel, their argument of more ground troops and not bombs was parallel to, “‘we believe we ought to be the slave masters, but we just ought to be kind slave masters.’”[21]<br />
<br><br><br />
The success of the coalition is evident thus far. Their strategy resulted in a compromise amongst the left, preserving their ability to work together (which is no small accomplishment) and build a powerful political coalition. Moreover, they produced an effective strategy of local and national coordination. Dawsom explains that a solid national coordination was “essential” because it allowed them to represent the antiwar movement as a cohesive coalition, which opened the door to funding, other groups joining, and legitimacy. As a result, she argued that these factors led to one of the most important parts of the mobilization: Martin Luther King agreeing to speak at the East Coast mobilization.[22] Though this paper will not go into depth on this subject, it must be noted that impact of King’s supporting of the antiwar movement was momentous, due to the broad political support he had at the time.<br />
<br><h4>The West Coast Mobilization</h4><br />
<br><br />
The West Coast mobilization, founded on the strategy of mass action through localized organizing, was led by Edward Keating of Ramparts magazine, who was chairman for the region, and Dawson - who said her main role was to facilitate building a broader coalition in the region.[23] The practical element of movement-building on the West Coast was signified by an announcement for a call to organize featured in the second issue of The Mobilizer, which informed readers about a West Coast antiwar conference that was to take place in San Francisco at 55 Colton St. The purpose of the meeting was to decide how they were going to put into practice the local-national strategy, with a mind to maximizing the turnout and organizing for the lead-up, and day of, the April 15th demonstration.[24]<br />
<br><br>[[image:SF-antiwar-March.jpg]]<br />
'''Crowds march through San Francisco on April 15th, 1967'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://www.oldnewsco.com/blogs/the-presidents-blog/a-229-year-old-right Old News Co]''<br />
<br><br><br />
It is important to note that the announcement in The Mobilizer reminded local groups affiliated with the Spring Mobilization Committee that they could use their own themes to organize various constituents. Keeping this in mind is critical because it allowed the organizing group to preserve their identity within a broad coalition. Also, the announcement stipulated that all groups must send one voting delegate and any amount of observers to the conference. The conference was expected to have representatives from Seattle, San Diego, and Denver, while members that had already sponsored the action in the Bay Area were to be there representing local religious groups, trade unions, academia, and civil rights groups.<br />
<br><br><br />
The West Coast conference gives us an insight into the localized tactics used for the West Coast mobilization, which are consistent with the political vision of the Spring Mobilization Committee. The Student Mobilization Committee, an organizing committee within the broader coalition consisting of students from high schools and colleges around the nation, attended the meeting and reported - in their bulletin titled The Student Mobilizer - in an article titled “500 AT COAST PARLEY.”[25] They reported that the West Coast mobilization solidified their strategy, which would consist of a combination of local and mass action tactics. “There [would] be a protest march in San Francisco followed by a rally,” and “there [would] be a two week period of local anti-war actions culminating to the San Francisco rally on the 15th.”[26] The document titled “Activities Approved by the February 4th Conference” had at least fifteen “activities” or tactics approved to turn-out folks for the demonstration.[27] There are two main categories of tactics listed in the document: the first were general tactics that sought to increase the turnout for the mobilization from cities across the West Coast, while the second type focused on bringing out specific communities. General tactics discussed in the list include holding mass meetings on college campuses with well-known speakers, having press conferences bringing together antiwar leaders to post demands on the doors of city halls across the region, and to have local artists showcase antiwar pieces they created from March to April 1st; after which, they would be sent to SF to be displayed at Angry Arts Week West from April 7th to April 14th.<br />
<br><h4>Case Study: Bay Area Trade Unions</h4><br />
''A specific community-oriented strategy and political vision that was taking place in the Bay Area''<br />
<br><br><br />
Labor had a significant presence at the conference, with approximately 60 unionists in attendance, and a labor workshop strategized tactics that would bring out their communities. One of the tactics decided on at the conference was to have resolutions of support passed in their locals for the April 15th Mobilization.[28] In the approved activities document list, another tactic proposed was to “encourage delegations of trade unionists to the Governor and Legislative leaders of each state requesting the appointment of a state commission to plan for converting industries from war to peacetime production,” asking them “‘what happens when peace breaks out?’”[29] In response, the strategy of the West Coast Conference was successfully followed through in some of the big trade unions: resolutions were passed by the UAW with President Walter Reuther openly stating, “‘I am opposed to further escalation,’” the United Packing House Workers’ resolution demanded that the US government “‘call an immediate ceasefire and begin negotiations,’” and Frank Rosenblum, General Secretary of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, called for the US to not be concerned with “embarrassment” and withdraw.[30] Other major endorsements came from the Santa Clara County Central labor Council who agreed to participate at the San Francisco mass action. The district director of the International Packinghouse Workers Union and California State Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed the mobilization. United Auto Workers (UAW) Secretary Treasurer, Emil Mazey, agreed to speak at the rally, while the largest AFT local in New York voted to disassociate with the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO’s statement for not withdrawing their support of the war.[31] Rosenblum went so far as to criticize George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO, for removing Vietnam Day Committee demonstrators from their convention for challenging his so-called “enthusiastic support for Johnson’s war.”[32]<br />
<br><br><br />
In the third edition of The Mobilizer, published on March 18th, labor made the front page<br />
with a powerful article titled “Union Leaders Join Mobilization.” For the labor movement, the political reasons for opposing the war were closer to home than advocating for the self-determination of the Vietnamese people. The President of the Negro American Labor Council took the position of vice-chairman of the Spring Mobilization Committee. His rationale was that the war was “morally compromising our country and wasting the resources, both human and material, which should go to provide an abundant and decent life for all Americans.”[33] The same sentiment was reported by Labor Committee chairman Paul Latz of Teamsters #85, in a summary of their progress to the Nation Committee of the Spring Mobilization Committee a month after the Conference on March 31st. This report is also significant because it captures the political vision and strategy for the West Coast. Latz explains “the main concern of all was how to mobilize a citizens’ effort to end the war” with the initial task “for our government to stop bombing and enter into a serious effort to negotiate.”[34] He continues and elaborates, explaining that the immediate impacts on the working people will be felt “in higher living costs, higher income and property taxes and interest, while the building trades and other non-military trades suffer from unemployment[,] corporations’ profits in the war industries have soared[,] the [Taft- Hartley Act] is being used increasingly to halt strikes in the guise of “‘Patriotism’” and the war.”[35] Being suppressed by injunctions on strikes was a high and relevant concern for those in the labor movement: the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) received an injunction ending a four month long strike by shipyard electricians, and as recent as March 12th a similar fate befell 1,500 switchmen working on the Southern Pacific Line.[36] Ultimately, Latz sums up his message with “labor is under attack” and implores “unionists and citizens” to embrace and build for the SF mass action.[37]<br />
<br><br><br />
That said, ending the war was in the immediate interest of their membership. On the West Coast pamphlets titled MARCH WITH LABOR, printed in March by the Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, provided statistics on the impact of the war. The connection was made in a short excerpt, explaining that increased federal income taxes would mean wage cuts, as the government would attempt to recoup the costs of war. Moreover, another section of the pamphlet is dedicated to displaying how these attempts at recouping costs would not be adequate because the war had already been far too costly. The Office of Education lost $233 million, Loans for Elderly lost $125 million, and Economic Development lost $330 million.[38]<br />
<br><br><br />
When it came to mobilizing members for the April 15th San Francisco demonstration, the<br />
International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union (ILWU) were an exceptional case in the labor movement, with their historically-left leadership and rank-and-file militancy setting them apart from the rest of the unions involved in the mobilization. In Northern California, the District Council voted on February 20th to to endorse the Mobilization, thus securing support from Local 6, 10 and the unions auxiliary.[39,40] Not limiting themselves to an endorsement, they took an active role in the leadership for the Mobilization. Local 6 Head Business agent Paul Heidi was a part of the Spring Mobilization Executive Committee, contributing to discussions in labor forums during Vietnam Week that asked, “How widespread is labor’s opposition to the war?,” “What can labor do to affect U.S. foreign policy?,” and “Will the opposition continue to grow? Why?”[41] The “ILWU Policy Statement on Vietnam” immediately confronted President Johnson and his backers in Congress “to stop the killing in Vietnam.” They proposed next steps for the administration to implement: this included a ceasefire to facilitate negotiations, since no talks could be had if there were open conflict, withdraw American troops because if not then “mutual destruction” will result, and they demanded a settlement for peace.[42]<br />
<br><br><br />
On the day before the march, Local 10 sent out a special Local 10: Longshore Bulletin to remind members, and make one last effort to turn their membership out for the next day’s march. One side of the bulletin, titled “Let’s March,” explained that the ILWU would be leading the labor division of the march, while also providing logistical details about how the day would look in relation to the workplace.[43] One issue the bulletin addresses is that the A and B men that come to the march will not be “flopped,” as long as they sign-in at the demonstration and “receive a member meeting stamp.” Nevertheless, the bulletin concretely reminded its membership that the purpose of the “the MARCH is to stop the slaughter of our men, slaughter of the Vietnamese, and to end the war.” What is also interesting about the bulletin is that on the back it provides an elaboration of one of the points of discussion at their 17th Biennial Convention of the ILWU & Warehousemen’s Union that was taken from a Report of the Officers. This discussion, under the title of “More from ‘the Convention,’” is responding to a critical question about what the role of the union is, especially in relation to the antiwar movement.[44] This is an invaluable discussion to remind members of a day before a mass demonstration because it provides the context for understanding the purpose of the ILWU generally, and specifically in the antiwar movement. The document explains why the ILWU has been so involved in organizing by making the distinction between a business union, whose purpose is only to oversee the contract, and militant progressive unionism that “see the unions as a way of life as the most effective weapon of the [worker] to tackle issues which control them all the way from legislation to quality of education …, and many other challenges of living.” The most important message for members to take away is that the membership is the power of the union, setting the agenda and creating legitimacy for their political program. But, if members do not get involved then their political program has no more weight than a “poker club” or neighborhood bartender” since the rank- and-file is not shaping it. April 15th finally came, and the ILWU and labor played a significant role. A sense of what the organizers had in mind for San Francisco can be found in the Planning Committee’s minutes.[45] Many different speakers are in the program notes including Judy Collins, Mrs. Grace Newman of the Ft. Hood 3, Eldridge Cleaver, and Coretta King (Martin Luther King Jr. was speaking at the mobilization in New York). Labor, and particularly the ILWU, had - and was intended to have - a major presence on the schedule. Paul Schrade of UAW was a scheduled speaker, and there are many notes typed and handwritten on the document to confirm a speaker from the ILWU. Whether it be Harry Bridges or another representative, space was made for them in the speaker schedule. <br />
<br><br>[[image:Kezar-Stadium-Antiwar.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Crowds gather at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://www.oldnewsco.com/blogs/the-presidents-blog/a-229-year-old-right Old News Co.]''<br />
<br><br><br />
The success and scale of the rally was huge; there are combined figures of approximately 500,000 that came out for the Mobilizations, with 400,000 in New York and over 100,000 in San Francisco.[46,47] There were many components of the local organizing that must be celebrated. The first is the use of the conference as a space for collective strategizing, for it allowed concrete local results such as union members getting resolutions passed in opposition of the war in their Locals. The importance of unionists calling out and refusing to support the Johnson Administration and the Meany regime was momentous, for it demonstrated the consciousness that the administration had been consistently overlooking workers’ interests in favor of those in the capitalist’s party. Another major success was the overall turnout for the demonstration. The numbers speak for themselves – it was definitely a mass action that certainly had a profound impact on those involved in building it, but also on the national conscious. The final success was that the coalition continued its organizing. Throughout the planning of the Spring Mobilization, on both the East and the West Coast, next steps were constantly being considered, and the next Conference was to take place May 20-21st, 1967 in Washington, D.C. to assess April 15th, improve the operations of the movement, and plan for new organizing efforts.[48]<br />
<br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
[1] Spring Mobilizing Committee to End the War in Vietnam, ''The Mobilizer to End the War in Vietnam'', “Documents from Cleveland,” pg. 2, vol. 1, issue 1, December 19, 1966, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[2] ''Mobilizer'', “A. J. Muste (1885-1967),” p. 6, vol. 1, issue 3, March 18th, 1967.<br />
<br>[3] ''Mobilizer'', “Cleveland and After,” p. 5, vol. 1, issue 1, Dec. 19th, 1967.<br />
<br>[4] Young Socialist Alliance, "Is the Antiwar Movement Effective?" (New York City, NY: Young Socialist Alliance, 1967), pg. 3, Box 7, Folder 12 Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[5] Fred Halstead, ''Out Now!: A Participant’s Account of the American Movement Against the War'' (New York: Monad Press, 1978), 208-9.<br />
<br>[6] ''Mobilizer'', “Cleveland and After,” p. 5.<br />
<br>[7] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[8] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[9] ''Mobilizer'', “Cleveland and After,” p. 6. <br />
<br>[10] ''Mobilizer'', “Cleveland and After,” p. 6-7. 11 Ibid,7.<br />
<br>[12] ''Ibid'' 5,7.<br />
<br>[13] ''Mobilizer'', “Bevel Directs Anti-War Mobilization,” p.3, vol. 1, issue 2, Feb. 6th, 1967, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[14] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[15] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[16] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[17] ''Ibid.'', 4.<br />
<br>[18] ''Ibid.'', 3.<br />
<br>[19] Interview with Kipp Dawsom by author, Dec. 15th, 2016.<br />
<br>[20] Young Socialist Alliance, "Is the Antiwar Movement Effective?", p,3.<br />
<br>[21] ''Mobilizer'', “Bevel Directs Anti-War Mobilization,” p.3. 22 Interview with Kipp Dawsom by author, Dec. 15th, 2016. 23 Ibid.<br />
<br>[24] ''Mobilizer'', “West Coast Mobilization,” p.5, vol.1, issue 2, Feb. 6th, 1967.<br />
<br>[25] ''The Student Mobilizer'', “500 AT COAST PARLEY,” p.1, vol. 1, issue 2, Feb. 20th, 1967, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[26] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[27] “Activities Approved by the February 4th Conference,” Feb. 1967, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[28] ''The Student Mobilizer'', “500 AT COAST PARLEY,” p.1.<br />
<br>[29] “Activities Approved by the February 4th Conference,” 1967.<br />
<br>[30] Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, “March with Labor,” p.1-21967.<br />
<br>[31] ''The Mobilizer'', “Union Leaders Join the Mobilization,” p.1-2, vol. 1, issue 3, March 18th, 1967. <br />
<br>[32] Campus Friends of AFT, “Labor is Marching on April 15th Against the War in Vietnam,” 1967. <br />
<br>[33] ''The Mobilizer'', “Union Leaders Join the Mobilization,” p.1-2<br />
<br>[34] Paul Latz, Spring Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, “(Progress Report),” March 31st, 1967.<br />
<br>[35] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[36] Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, “escalation in viet-nam & against labor in u.s.,” 1967.<br />
<br>[37] “Progress Report” March 31st, 1967.<br />
<br>[38] Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, March with Labor, “Poverty Funds Gutted,” p. 2, 1967.<br />
<br>[39] Labor Committee, “escalation in viet-nam & against labor in u.s.”<br />
<br>[40] “Progress Report”<br />
<br>[41] AFT Local 1570, “Labor and the Vietnam War,” April 10th, 1967.<br />
<br>[42] Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, March with Labor, “ILWU Policy Statement on Vietnam,” p. 2, 1967.<br />
<br>[43] ''ILWU Local 10, Longshore Bulletin'', “Turn to on April 15th: Let’s March,” April 14th, 1967.<br />
<br>[44] “More from the Convention.”<br />
<br>[45] Program Committee Minutes, April 4th, 1967.<br />
<br>[46] Fred Halstead, Out Now!: A Participant’s Account of the American Movement Against the War (New York: Monad Press, 1978), 285.<br />
<br>[47] ''San Francisco Chronicle'', “Big Anti-War Rally Set Here,” Feb. 27th, 1967, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[48] Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, “A Call for a National Conference,” 1967.<br />
<br />
[[category:1960s]][[category:Bay Area Social Movements]][[category:Haight-Ashbury]][[category:Anti-war]][[category:Golden Gate Park]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Spring_Mobilization_Committee_to_End_the_War_in_Vietnam,_1967&diff=26444The Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, 19672017-04-24T23:51:47Z<p>Joshhardman: Created page with "'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>''' <br> ''by John Penilla'' Image:Pamphlet_(1).gif '''A pamphlet dist..."</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<font face = Papyrus> <font color = maroon> <font size = 4>Historical Essay</font></font> </font>'''<br />
<br><br />
''by John Penilla''<br />
<br />
[[Image:Pamphlet_(1).gif]]<br />
'''A pamphlet distributed by the National Committee advertising the day of action.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [http://peacetour.org/blog Peace Tour]''<br />
<br />
{| style="color: black; background-color: #F5DA81;"<br />
| colspan="2" | '''The Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam led a historical mass demonstration on April 15th, 1967 that brought over 500,000 people out onto the streets of New York City and San Francisco. A close analysis reveals that the Committee adopted a two-pronged strategy, which combined mass coalition work with local community organizing strategies. The events also offer a window into the political debates and discords of the old and new left, particularly surrounding the question of how to involve ‘everyday’ Americans in the antiwar movement.'''<br />
|}<br />
<br />
In 1966, students, unionists, Blacks, Women’s organizations, Third World communities, and other oppressed constituencies were mobilizing against the Vietnam War. The Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam tasked itself with solidifying and harnessing the coalitional force of these groups, in order to mobilize two mass rallies on April 15th, 1967: one in New York and the other in San Francisco. Each group in the coalition had distinct interests, and thus conflicts were a regular occurrence; but the general intent and target were the same: building popular resistance against the actions of the United States government through a dual strategy of mass action and local community organizing.<br />
<br><br><br />
This entry attempts to capture the voices of those who contributed to the mobilization’s successes and shortcomings, while cueing activists on the effectiveness of mass mobilization work. The first part of this entry will be dedicated to an overview of the political development of the nationwide coalition before it began to work locally in San Francisco. Next, the discussion will move to an examination of the work it carried out, with a case study on the role of unionists, particularly the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).<br />
<br><br><br />
<blockquote>“5. The Spring Mobilization Committee shall be charged with suggesting, stimulating, and/or organizing such actions of a more limited and more localized nature as may be feasible, with the aim of broadening the influence of the peace movement as much as possible, as long as these actions clearly fall within the consensus reached by the diverse viewpoints at this conference.” [1]''</blockquote><br />
<br><br />
The committee emerged from the November 8th Mobilization Committee, and was cemented at the Cleveland Conference on November 26th, 1966. The conference was called by the Executive Council of the Inter-University Committee for Debate on Foreign Policy to debrief the anti-war demonstration they took place in on Nov. 5th-8th. Approximately 150 people attended the Cleveland Conference, with representatives from a variety of political perspectives, including the liberal-left, pacifist, and far-left; with organisations including the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the Communist Party (CP), Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), and the Du Bois Club.<br />
<br><br><br />
A. J. Muste was chosen as Chairman of the National Mobilization Committee because he “earned the respect of virtually every sector of the social protest movements in this country, displaying leadership in his work as a pacifist, radical, labor and civil rights [activist].” [2] He recounts the conference in the first issue of their bulletin, The Mobilizer, discussing the debates that arose regarding mobilization strategy. At the outset of the convention, mass action was not necessarily a guaranteed strategy, though we see some clear support for this tactic in The Mobilizer, with some attendees stating: “that the anti- war movement needed and could mount the greatest demonstration ever of Americans against the abomination being perpetrated in Vietnam by the government of this country.”[3] The YSA were explicit in their call for mass organization and education, with their pamphlet arguing that “the continual educational campaign against the war, culminating in periodic mass demonstrations, has had a deep effect on the entire American public.”[4] Fred Halstead, a leader of the SWP, attended the conference, and elaborated on his account of the antiwar movement in his book Out Now!. Halstead explains that the SWP, CP and the Du Bois Club were all of a similar opinion to that displayed by the YSA regarding the efficacy of mass organizing.[5]<br />
<br><br><br />
Other groups, particularly within the SDS, “emphasized the need for work on the local level, geared toward tackling the problems of everyday people and thus developing a truly democratic ‘power base for radical action.”[6] In response to the differing strategic affinities and concerns of the various groups, Muste - in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee - neatly synthesised the two positions together into something agreeable. He explained that “experience has often shown that local groups emerge as some national rally or action is projected”, and that “no national action can possibly attain significant proportions unless an immense amount of local concern and backing are available.”[7] Thus, a symbiosis of national and local organising was adopted by the Committee. <br />
<br><br>[[image:Mobilizing-Committee-Pamphlet-2.png]]<br><br />
'''A Pamphlet advertising the April 15th mass demonstration.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://www.pinterest.com/thesocycinema/social-mvmts-anti-war-movements/?lp=true Pinterest]''<br />
<br><br><br />
Having reached some level of agreement regarding strategy, the need to establish broad support for the coalition came to the fore. The first publication of The Mobilizer emphasises this, as Muste ensures he details the various discussions taking place at the Cleveland Conference in order to involve as many people as possible. Initially, he made it clear that there are many different expressions of the peace and antiwar movement and that their coalition does not represent them all. Given this stance, those in attendance debated about how to expand their base. One perspective, which ultimately did not carry, was committed to mobilizing ordinary Americans, believing that they are “well-meaning but ill-informed about what is going on in Vietnam.”[8] This perspective insisted on dropping the coalition’s non-exclusion policy: a policy which allowed for political radicals, particularly those on the far-left, to participate openly in the coalition, as they believed that everyday Americans would be reluctant to become involved in the coalition if radicals were present.[9] Muste, and those with similar sentiments, pushed back against this position, not because he believed the movement to be “superior to ‘ordinary Americans,’” but because he believed that these seemingly-apathetic Americans would be more active if integrated into groups and organizations.[10] This viewpoint thus inferred that the coalition’s organizing efforts would provide an environment that would bring these two groups together. For example, the Spring Mobilization committee would reach out to other groups (Churches, Third World groups, etc.) on the basis of their overall intent and not on the political and ideological persuasions of coalition members. Muste was clear about his support for “‘non-exclusion’ [to not be] tampered with in any way”[11], arguing that the principle contributes to the promotion of democracy in the United States, and explaining that any noncommunist coalition runs the risk of becoming anti-communist.[12]<br />
<br><br><br />
Soon after the Conference, Rev. James Bevel became the National Director of the committee. This decision was politically savvy as Bevel had connections to the Civil Rights Movement, for he was a leader in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and had close ties to Martin Luther King Jr.. Bevel was also firmly on-board with the strategy to build the broadest coalition possible, with The Mobilizer highlighting remarks he made at a national committee. Bevel’s remarks revealed that he did not think that a peace organization would be as effective as a “protest group”[13], arguing that a protest group would be effective “when they force other groups, basically conservative groups,” to mobilize.[14] Key to his strategy for building the mass action was what he called establishing “the movement to end the mass murder.”[15] He believed a mass movement would be critical in mobilizing the ‘everyday Americans’, particularly in the black community, but also white liberals. To do this, Bevel was insistent on what he called “taking the position of the slave.”[16] This involves avoiding the use of a political argument to talk about the war; instead, he advocated for the adoption a moralistic one, urging people to take “a position based on humanity and decency,” which involves putting oneself in the position of those sent to war. This included the African American men fighting for the U.S. Army, but also the Vietnamese who were being murdered overseas. [17] He thought that this appeal to morals would be an effective means to mobilize everyday folks because - undoubtedly informed by his experience as a preacher - it creates a situation where “there ain’t no debate”, since everyone is against murder.[18] Also, the position of the slave effectively responds to the argument of white liberals who call for the bombing to end but support the commitment of more ground troops. However, maintaining the war in any way, whether it be through bombing and/or sending in more troops, is unacceptable when one takes the position of the slave. <br />
<br><br><br />
As for the overall sentiment of the coalition, there was general support for the concept of self-determination. In an interview Kipp Dawsom, then leading member of the SWP and Executive Director for the West Coast mobilization, explained the main political line of the coalition was to focus on getting the troops out of Vietnam, and the rest of Indochina, because it was a civil war that the U.S. had no role in.[19] The YSA expanded on this, putting forward that that the movement was based “on self-determination, [and] it has let those in the oppressed colonial countries know that there are growing numbers in the U.S. who support their struggle for national independence.”[20] Bevel held the same line, but he added that the war directly contributed to racial oppression in the U.S. and abroad, particularly for African Americans, as white liberals were pushing the war in a direction that led to the murder of black people. To Bevel, their argument of more ground troops and not bombs was parallel to, “‘we believe we ought to be the slave masters, but we just ought to be kind slave masters.’”[21]<br />
<br><br><br />
The success of the coalition is evident thus far. Their strategy resulted in a compromise amongst the left, preserving their ability to work together (which is no small accomplishment) and build a powerful political coalition. Moreover, they produced an effective strategy of local and national coordination. Dawsom explains that a solid national coordination was “essential” because it allowed them to represent the antiwar movement as a cohesive coalition, which opened the door to funding, other groups joining, and legitimacy. As a result, she argued that these factors led to one of the most important parts of the mobilization: Martin Luther King agreeing to speak at the East Coast mobilization.[22] Though this paper will not go into depth on this subject, it must be noted that impact of King’s supporting of the antiwar movement was momentous, due to the broad political support he had at the time.<br />
<br><h4>The West Coast Mobilization</h4><br />
<br><br />
The West Coast mobilization, founded on the strategy of mass action through localized organizing, was led by Edward Keating of Ramparts magazine, who was chairman for the region, and Dawson - who said her main role was to facilitate building a broader coalition in the region.[23] The practical element of movement-building on the West Coast was signified by an announcement for a call to organize featured in the second issue of The Mobilizer, which informed readers about a West Coast antiwar conference that was to take place in San Francisco at 55 Colton St. The purpose of the meeting was to decide how they were going to put into practice the local-national strategy, with a mind to maximizing the turnout and organizing for the lead-up, and day of, the April 15th demonstration.[24]<br />
<br><br>[[image:SF-antiwar-March.jpg]]<br />
'''Crowds march through San Francisco on April 15th, 1967'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://www.oldnewsco.com/blogs/the-presidents-blog/a-229-year-old-right Old News Co]''<br />
<br><br><br />
It is important to note that the announcement in The Mobilizer reminded local groups affiliated with the Spring Mobilization Committee that they could use their own themes to organize various constituents. Keeping this in mind is critical because it allowed the organizing group to preserve their identity within a broad coalition. Also, the announcement stipulated that all groups must send one voting delegate and any amount of observers to the conference. The conference was expected to have representatives from Seattle, San Diego, and Denver, while members that had already sponsored the action in the Bay Area were to be there representing local religious groups, trade unions, academia, and civil rights groups.<br />
<br><br><br />
The West Coast conference gives us an insight into the localized tactics used for the West Coast mobilization, which are consistent with the political vision of the Spring Mobilization Committee. The Student Mobilization Committee, an organizing committee within the broader coalition consisting of students from high schools and colleges around the nation, attended the meeting and reported - in their bulletin titled The Student Mobilizer - in an article titled “500 AT COAST PARLEY.”[25] They reported that the West Coast mobilization solidified their strategy, which would consist of a combination of local and mass action tactics. “There [would] be a protest march in San Francisco followed by a rally,” and “there [would] be a two week period of local anti-war actions culminating to the San Francisco rally on the 15th.”[26] The document titled “Activities Approved by the February 4th Conference” had at least fifteen “activities” or tactics approved to turn-out folks for the demonstration.[27] There are two main categories of tactics listed in the document: the first were general tactics that sought to increase the turnout for the mobilization from cities across the West Coast, while the second type focused on bringing out specific communities. General tactics discussed in the list include holding mass meetings on college campuses with well-known speakers, having press conferences bringing together antiwar leaders to post demands on the doors of city halls across the region, and to have local artists showcase antiwar pieces they created from March to April 1st; after which, they would be sent to SF to be displayed at Angry Arts Week West from April 7th to April 14th.<br />
<br><h4>Case Study: Bay Area Trade Unions</h4><br />
''A specific community-oriented strategy and political vision that was taking place in the Bay Area''<br />
<br><br><br />
Labor had a significant presence at the conference, with approximately 60 unionists in attendance, and a labor workshop strategized tactics that would bring out their communities. One of the tactics decided on at the conference was to have resolutions of support passed in their locals for the April 15th Mobilization.[28] In the approved activities document list, another tactic proposed was to “encourage delegations of trade unionists to the Governor and Legislative leaders of each state requesting the appointment of a state commission to plan for converting industries from war to peacetime production,” asking them “‘what happens when peace breaks out?’”[29] In response, the strategy of the West Coast Conference was successfully followed through in some of the big trade unions: resolutions were passed by the UAW with President Walter Reuther openly stating, “‘I am opposed to further escalation,’” the United Packing House Workers’ resolution demanded that the US government “‘call an immediate ceasefire and begin negotiations,’” and Frank Rosenblum, General Secretary of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, called for the US to not be concerned with “embarrassment” and withdraw.[30] Other major endorsements came from the Santa Clara County Central labor Council who agreed to participate at the San Francisco mass action. The district director of the International Packinghouse Workers Union and California State Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed the mobilization. United Auto Workers (UAW) Secretary Treasurer, Emil Mazey, agreed to speak at the rally, while the largest AFT local in New York voted to disassociate with the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO’s statement for not withdrawing their support of the war.[31] Rosenblum went so far as to criticize George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO, for removing Vietnam Day Committee demonstrators from their convention for challenging his so-called “enthusiastic support for Johnson’s war.”[32]<br />
<br><br><br />
In the third edition of The Mobilizer, published on March 18th, labor made the front page<br />
with a powerful article titled “Union Leaders Join Mobilization.” For the labor movement, the political reasons for opposing the war were closer to home than advocating for the self-determination of the Vietnamese people. The President of the Negro American Labor Council took the position of vice-chairman of the Spring Mobilization Committee. His rationale was that the war was “morally compromising our country and wasting the resources, both human and material, which should go to provide an abundant and decent life for all Americans.”[33] The same sentiment was reported by Labor Committee chairman Paul Latz of Teamsters #85, in a summary of their progress to the Nation Committee of the Spring Mobilization Committee a month after the Conference on March 31st. This report is also significant because it captures the political vision and strategy for the West Coast. Latz explains “the main concern of all was how to mobilize a citizens’ effort to end the war” with the initial task “for our government to stop bombing and enter into a serious effort to negotiate.”[34] He continues and elaborates, explaining that the immediate impacts on the working people will be felt “in higher living costs, higher income and property taxes and interest, while the building trades and other non-military trades suffer from unemployment[,] corporations’ profits in the war industries have soared[,] the [Taft- Hartley Act] is being used increasingly to halt strikes in the guise of “‘Patriotism’” and the war.”[35] Being suppressed by injunctions on strikes was a high and relevant concern for those in the labor movement: the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) received an injunction ending a four month long strike by shipyard electricians, and as recent as March 12th a similar fate befell 1,500 switchmen working on the Southern Pacific Line.[36] Ultimately, Latz sums up his message with “labor is under attack” and implores “unionists and citizens” to embrace and build for the SF mass action.[37]<br />
<br><br><br />
That said, ending the war was in the immediate interest of their membership. On the West Coast pamphlets titled MARCH WITH LABOR, printed in March by the Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, provided statistics on the impact of the war. The connection was made in a short excerpt, explaining that increased federal income taxes would mean wage cuts, as the government would attempt to recoup the costs of war. Moreover, another section of the pamphlet is dedicated to displaying how these attempts at recouping costs would not be adequate because the war had already been far too costly. The Office of Education lost $233 million, Loans for Elderly lost $125 million, and Economic Development lost $330 million.[38]<br />
<br><br><br />
When it came to mobilizing members for the April 15th San Francisco demonstration, the<br />
International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union (ILWU) were an exceptional case in the labor movement, with their historically-left leadership and rank-and-file militancy setting them apart from the rest of the unions involved in the mobilization. In Northern California, the District Council voted on February 20th to to endorse the Mobilization, thus securing support from Local 6, 10 and the unions auxiliary.[39,40] Not limiting themselves to an endorsement, they took an active role in the leadership for the Mobilization. Local 6 Head Business agent Paul Heidi was a part of the Spring Mobilization Executive Committee, contributing to discussions in labor forums during Vietnam Week that asked, “How widespread is labor’s opposition to the war?,” “What can labor do to affect U.S. foreign policy?,” and “Will the opposition continue to grow? Why?”[41] The “ILWU Policy Statement on Vietnam” immediately confronted President Johnson and his backers in Congress “to stop the killing in Vietnam.” They proposed next steps for the administration to implement: this included a ceasefire to facilitate negotiations, since no talks could be had if there were open conflict, withdraw American troops because if not then “mutual destruction” will result, and they demanded a settlement for peace.[42]<br />
<br><br><br />
On the day before the march, Local 10 sent out a special Local 10: Longshore Bulletin to remind members, and make one last effort to turn their membership out for the next day’s march. One side of the bulletin, titled “Let’s March,” explained that the ILWU would be leading the labor division of the march, while also providing logistical details about how the day would look in relation to the workplace.[43] One issue the bulletin addresses is that the A and B men that come to the march will not be “flopped,” as long as they sign-in at the demonstration and “receive a member meeting stamp.” Nevertheless, the bulletin concretely reminded its membership that the purpose of the “the MARCH is to stop the slaughter of our men, slaughter of the Vietnamese, and to end the war.” What is also interesting about the bulletin is that on the back it provides an elaboration of one of the points of discussion at their 17th Biennial Convention of the ILWU & Warehousemen’s Union that was taken from a Report of the Officers. This discussion, under the title of “More from ‘the Convention,’” is responding to a critical question about what the role of the union is, especially in relation to the antiwar movement.[44] This is an invaluable discussion to remind members of a day before a mass demonstration because it provides the context for understanding the purpose of the ILWU generally, and specifically in the antiwar movement. The document explains why the ILWU has been so involved in organizing by making the distinction between a business union, whose purpose is only to oversee the contract, and militant progressive unionism that “see the unions as a way of life as the most effective weapon of the [worker] to tackle issues which control them all the way from legislation to quality of education …, and many other challenges of living.” The most important message for members to take away is that the membership is the power of the union, setting the agenda and creating legitimacy for their political program. But, if members do not get involved then their political program has no more weight than a “poker club” or neighborhood bartender” since the rank- and-file is not shaping it. April 15th finally came, and the ILWU and labor played a significant role. A sense of what the organizers had in mind for San Francisco can be found in the Planning Committee’s minutes.[45] Many different speakers are in the program notes including Judy Collins, Mrs. Grace Newman of the Ft. Hood 3, Eldridge Cleaver, and Coretta King (Martin Luther King Jr. was speaking at the mobilization in New York). Labor, and particularly the ILWU, had - and was intended to have - a major presence on the schedule. Paul Schrade of UAW was a scheduled speaker, and there are many notes typed and handwritten on the document to confirm a speaker from the ILWU. Whether it be Harry Bridges or another representative, space was made for them in the speaker schedule. <br />
<br><br>[[image:Kezar-Stadium-Antiwar.jpg]]<br />
<br>'''Crowds gather at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco.'''<br />
<br>''Photo: [https://www.oldnewsco.com/blogs/the-presidents-blog/a-229-year-old-right Old News Co.]''<br />
<br><br><br />
The success and scale of the rally was huge; there are combined figures of approximately 500,000 that came out for the Mobilizations, with 400,000 in New York and over 100,000 in San Francisco.[46,47] There were many components of the local organizing that must be celebrated. The first is the use of the conference as a space for collective strategizing, for it allowed concrete local results such as union members getting resolutions passed in opposition of the war in their Locals. The importance of unionists calling out and refusing to support the Johnson Administration and the Meany regime was momentous, for it demonstrated the consciousness that the administration had been consistently overlooking workers’ interests in favor of those in the capitalist’s party. Another major success was the overall turnout for the demonstration. The numbers speak for themselves – it was definitely a mass action that certainly had a profound impact on those involved in building it, but also on the national conscious. The final success was that the coalition continued its organizing. Throughout the planning of the Spring Mobilization, on both the East and the West Coast, next steps were constantly being considered, and the next Conference was to take place May 20-21st, 1967 in Washington, D.C. to assess April 15th, improve the operations of the movement, and plan for new organizing efforts.[48]<br />
<br><br><br />
'''Notes'''<br />
<br><br />
[1] Spring Mobilizing Committee to End the War in Vietnam, ''The Mobilizer to End the War in Vietnam'', “Documents from Cleveland,” pg. 2, vol. 1, issue 1, December 19, 1966, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[2] ''Mobilizer'', “A. J. Muste (1885-1967),” p. 6, vol. 1, issue 3, March 18th, 1967.<br />
<br>[3] ''Mobilizer'', “Cleveland and After,” p. 5, vol. 1, issue 1, Dec. 19th, 1967.<br />
<br>[4] Young Socialist Alliance, "Is the Antiwar Movement Effective?" (New York City, NY: Young Socialist Alliance, 1967), pg. 3, Box 7, Folder 12 Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[5] Fred Halstead, ''Out Now!: A Participant’s Account of the American Movement Against the War'' (New York: Monad Press, 1978), 208-9.<br />
<br>[6] ''Mobilizer'', “Cleveland and After,” p. 5.<br />
<br>[7] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[8] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[9] ''Mobilizer'', “Cleveland and After,” p. 6. <br />
<br>[10] ''Mobilizer'', “Cleveland and After,” p. 6-7. 11 Ibid,7.<br />
<br>[12] ''Ibid'' 5,7.<br />
<br>[13] ''Mobilizer'', “Bevel Directs Anti-War Mobilization,” p.3, vol. 1, issue 2, Feb. 6th, 1967, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[14] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[15] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[16] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[17] ''Ibid.'', 4.<br />
<br>[18] ''Ibid.'', 3.<br />
<br>[19] Interview with Kipp Dawsom by author, Dec. 15th, 2016.<br />
<br>[20] Young Socialist Alliance, "Is the Antiwar Movement Effective?", p,3.<br />
<br>[21] ''Mobilizer'', “Bevel Directs Anti-War Mobilization,” p.3. 22 Interview with Kipp Dawsom by author, Dec. 15th, 2016. 23 Ibid.<br />
<br>[24] ''Mobilizer'', “West Coast Mobilization,” p.5, vol.1, issue 2, Feb. 6th, 1967.<br />
<br>[25] ''The Student Mobilizer'', “500 AT COAST PARLEY,” p.1, vol. 1, issue 2, Feb. 20th, 1967, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[26] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[27] “Activities Approved by the February 4th Conference,” Feb. 1967, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[28] ''The Student Mobilizer'', “500 AT COAST PARLEY,” p.1.<br />
<br>[29] “Activities Approved by the February 4th Conference,” 1967.<br />
<br>[30] Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, “March with Labor,” p.1-21967.<br />
<br>[31] ''The Mobilizer'', “Union Leaders Join the Mobilization,” p.1-2, vol. 1, issue 3, March 18th, 1967. <br />
<br>[32] Campus Friends of AFT, “Labor is Marching on April 15th Against the War in Vietnam,” 1967. <br />
<br>[33] ''The Mobilizer'', “Union Leaders Join the Mobilization,” p.1-2<br />
<br>[34] Paul Latz, Spring Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, “(Progress Report),” March 31st, 1967.<br />
<br>[35] ''Ibid.''<br />
<br>[36] Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, “escalation in viet-nam & against labor in u.s.,” 1967.<br />
<br>[37] “Progress Report” March 31st, 1967.<br />
<br>[38] Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, March with Labor, “Poverty Funds Gutted,” p. 2, 1967.<br />
<br>[39] Labor Committee, “escalation in viet-nam & against labor in u.s.”<br />
<br>[40] “Progress Report”<br />
<br>[41] AFT Local 1570, “Labor and the Vietnam War,” April 10th, 1967.<br />
<br>[42] Labor Committee to End the War in Vietnam, March with Labor, “ILWU Policy Statement on Vietnam,” p. 2, 1967.<br />
<br>[43] ''ILWU Local 10, Longshore Bulletin'', “Turn to on April 15th: Let’s March,” April 14th, 1967.<br />
<br>[44] “More from the Convention.”<br />
<br>[45] Program Committee Minutes, April 4th, 1967.<br />
<br>[46] Fred Halstead, Out Now!: A Participant’s Account of the American Movement Against the War (New York: Monad Press, 1978), 285.<br />
<br>[47] ''San Francisco Chronicle'', “Big Anti-War Rally Set Here,” Feb. 27th, 1967, Box 7, Folder 12, Paul Covin Papers, Holt Labor Library, San Francisco, CA.<br />
<br>[48] Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, “A Call for a National Conference,” 1967.<br />
<br />
[[category:1960s]][[category:Haight-Ashbury]][[category:Anti-war]][[category:Golden Gate Park]]</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Kezar-Stadium-Antiwar.jpg&diff=26443File:Kezar-Stadium-Antiwar.jpg2017-04-24T23:31:58Z<p>Joshhardman: Crowds gather at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco for the April 1967 mobilization.</p>
<hr />
<div>Crowds gather at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco for the April 1967 mobilization.</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Mobilizing-Committee-Pamphlet-2.png&diff=26442File:Mobilizing-Committee-Pamphlet-2.png2017-04-24T23:27:55Z<p>Joshhardman: Pamphlet advertising the Antiwar March of 1967.</p>
<hr />
<div>Pamphlet advertising the Antiwar March of 1967.</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:SF-antiwar-March.jpg&diff=26441File:SF-antiwar-March.jpg2017-04-24T23:24:56Z<p>Joshhardman: 1967 Antiwar March</p>
<hr />
<div>1967 Antiwar March</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Pamphlet_(1).gif&diff=26432File:Pamphlet (1).gif2017-04-24T22:53:24Z<p>Joshhardman: Spring Mobilization Committee Pamphlet</p>
<hr />
<div>Spring Mobilization Committee Pamphlet</div>Joshhardmanhttps://foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:West-Oakland-Map-1.jpg&diff=26431File:West-Oakland-Map-1.jpg2017-04-24T22:38:21Z<p>Joshhardman: Map of West Oakland</p>
<hr />
<div>Map of West Oakland</div>Joshhardman