BB
How well known is 2418 Cedar? But then law students would never do this...
ASHO'C
P.S. Definitely "motivational speaking", not "bitching"

It would have been so sweet if the Chancellor came out with a shotgun and defended his property, as he has every right to do.

A classic escalation spiral. Young guys want to fight and find reasons to do it, some more than others. Some of them continue to late in life, ain't that right "rightwingprofessor"?

The administration sent in the police to arrest protesters occupying Wheeler. There are reports that some were treated with some brutality. Cops handling the sons and daughters of the college elite gives those elite kids a shocking taste of what it's like for poor and minority kids all their lives. The protesters seethed and doubtless some got angry because a female they knew got handled roughly. (Roughly, at least, by their standards. Probably by cop standards it was somewhere between nice and normal.)

So now the protesters sent some guys over to scare the crap out of the chancellor. Well, duh.

What else does anyone expect? This cycle is exactly how terrorist factions get started. It's long been in the insurgency manual to try to provoke overreaction. Provocation is easy. UC under Yudof has taken the same tack with animal rights protesters too. The long term result of that has been firebombings and attacks on the homes of professors. The animal rights people can't come on campus, can't leaflet, can't picket, nothing. But that doesn't end the gedanken, now does it? (For the record, my work does experiments on animals, sacrificing them for medical research.)

Come on people. Academics are SUPPOSED to be capable of a bit more nuanced thinking and response than GW Bush displayed when he was president. And yet, the administration of UC is managing to radicalize students over something as simple as fee hikes. (Welcome to the set of "It takes a nitwit?")

There is a big difference between what one "has the right to do" under the law, and what is wise to do, or what will resolve a situation.

Has anyone ever heard of manners? Every young person, it appears, seems to think they have some inherent right to say anything they wanrt without consequence, and if they don't get what they want, use violent acts as their threat. Life doesn't work that way. Jail is an option.

But, this being California, it just won't happen. So maybe there really aren't any consequensces and we are reaping what we have sown?

johntoradze,
First off whatever happened in the previous weeks is irrelevant to what happend at the chancellor's house. And they didn't send people over to "scare" him, they violently assaulted his personal residence. Most places in the US such a violent assault might indeed be greated with an armed homeowner. Only in academia or in the People's Republic of Berkeley is this called a "cycle of violence." God forbid these spoiled terrorist students have to pay a whopping $7000/year for a world class education instead of $5000.

Confucius says: Don't want no heat, don't get butt close to fire.

Had it been my home under attack, I would have called the police and in the meantime defended myself. One shotgun blast, I'm sure, would have been sufficient to send those spoiled brats packing.

I'm an academic, but when it comes to having threats against my life and property, I won't hesitate to fight.

Have to agree with a couple who posted above - the first sign of physical attack on my house and I'd pull out the shotgun, load it up, and unload it in their direction. Protest all you want, but if you attack MY house you will suffer.

At the public research university where my son is a student, tuition was doubled in five years, and they announced in advance that they would do it. Tuition had been among the lowest in the nation for years, but once funding by the legislature plummeted, they realized they had to make up for lost time. It is still a better deal than comparable universities in the region but not as low as U. Cal. There have been no protest incidents of any type, but this is not California. Regardless how unhappy you are with something, violence and vandalism are never justified. Regardless whose position is right, those students are now terrorists and criminals, plain and simple.

OK, let's see, Berkeley Students are:
1. Spoiled brats
2. Spoiled terrorists
3. Regular terrorists
4. Violent
5. Criminals
Care to add more?

So one person says, "Life doesn't work that way. Jail is an option." Let us reflect! Oh...

Boston Tea Party -- Criminal terrorists!
Martin Luther King -- Criminal terrorists!
Students at Ohio State -- Criminal terrorists!
Students protesting (violently) the Vietnam war -- Criminal terrorists!
Nelson Mandela -- Criminal terrorists!
and the list can go on and on...

I guess it's just a matter of perspective and so I am inclined to agree with Confucius.

May I add "Thugs" and "Mob," please?

When thuggery of this sort materializes, it can't be tolerated. These students, beneficiaries of California's largesse, need to be expelled and probably should be prosecuted. Even in the less violent form of occupying buildings, the students need a severe repremand, and they should be told to further their education elsewhere.

Berkeley obviously isn't affording them an adult perspective on the world, and their apologists do them no favors. Both the protesters and their defenders show a complete lack of concern for the education of serious students.

They "smashed windows and threw torches at the home of the chancellor?" They are a mob from a Frankenstein movie, an unfortunate exemplar of the personal growth at Cal. No little Martin Luther Kings, they.

Baby Robespierres, maybe, were they even marginally effective.

Hmm ... As one who lived his adolescence in the 60s, I'm reminded of observations by my friends & neighbors who went to UC Berkeley and other campuses -- most of the 'protesters' were NOT students, but outside agitators & rabblerousers -- most students continued to go to classes, as they were there to get an education. And at least my friends had lived in working class neighborhoods like mine, so they saw the value of an education, and didn't want to squander their time there. I suspect things are much the same nowadays. Sure there are some students involved, but I would be surprised if a significant portion of the legitimate student body @ UC Berkeley were. Then, as now, I'm betting most are there to get an education, and see the value of continuing with classes and graduating. Times are tough all over, and increased tuition is an economic hardship for many, but ... it certainly doesn't justify these terrorist acts.

Boston Tea Party -- destroyed tea on ships -- not private residence threatening individuals -- not terrorists -- but certainly others during our Revolution were

MLK -- not terrorist -- although others, like Black Panthers and Black Muslims included terrorists -- they assassinated Malcolm X, among other terrorist acts

Students protesting the Vietnam war - many were engaged in nonviolent action -- but there were certainly terrorists among them, including the Weathermen

Nelson Mandela - he, personally, may not have been a terrorist, but he certainly had political ties to many who were --

Let's call a terrorist a terrorist -- one who uses terror to further one's aims, regardless of cause. That includes attacking an individual or an individual's residence. Pretty straightforward.

Regguy2000, let's see... I readily admit I am lost in the littany of legal and moral definitions you invoke. But if TeaPartiers, Martin Luter Kings and Nelson Mandelas are breaking windows in my house and throwing torches at it, I won't be spending too much time thinking about such semantics. You can be darn sure I'll be unboxing my (much hated by liberals) "assault rifle" AR-15 and returning a favor (don't own a shotgun, sorry...).

Typical Right Wing "American" attitude -- to the "few" in the crowd that threw stones or tourches you wish to respond with an AR-15. As I recall, the National Guard did the same thing in Ohio and we ended up with, yes count them, four dead STUDENTS!

I wonder, didn't the Chancellor have back door to leave by? Doesn't sound as though the house was surrounded with maurauders!

Typical Left Wing attitude -- when attacked in your own home you must try to escape. Or, some "students" might get shot. Well, I have a simple solution -- don't throw torches into people's houses. In a state I live in arson is considered a forcible felony that justifies using lethal force to prevent it (in fact ANY person whatsoever, even a passer-by, CAN use deadly force to stop an arsonist).

Are professors really debating the propriety of shooting students, in the comment sections of 'The Chronicle of Higher Education'?

No opendna, professors are debating the propriety of homeowners shooting dangerous criminals, who may or may not be students.

Frankly, whether they're students or not is quite irrelevent. The minute they begin to attack and burn someone's home, they become violent criminals and must be treated as such.

Not surprised by the idiot comments of my professorial colleagues. Being high status toads these days they cannot connect the dots between rough handling of students and rough student responses.

I shall try to make it clear, but since you professors have PhDs that means that 90% of you are no longer capable of grasping the simplest of social connections even when led by the nose. So, I shall sadly try. And please people, understand that I have published in military textbooks used by West Point regarding counter-insurgency. So you really should listen. Here is how it works.

Party B has a grievance, real or imagined, against party A. Party B undertakes some action against party A. Party A, having hugely greater power, sends in troops, police, what have you against Party B. Party B is shocked, perhaps offended, and perhaps some want to use this to create a movement or to feather their nest. (A warlord wannabe is what we call the latter in Afghanistan.) You see, one can reap huge monetary rewards by becoming leader of almost any movement, from the good to the most vile. So, party B takes a slightly escalated action against Party A.

Now, what Birgenau did right in this was to call the police and not respond himself. That was a fairly non-escalatory step, although it could be seen as such, depending.

But let's explore what would have happened if Birgenau had been stupid enough to take the advice of several here and let loose with a shotgun or an AR-15. Shoot some students, or just be videotaped standing there firing a shotgun into the air (hitting god knows what - and folks I'm familiar with firearms) and what would that be? Yes, Virginia, that would be an escalation, as in, I'll see your torches and rocks and raise you some bullets.

Here's a general principle to keep in mind. You can, in the words of Churchill, "Jaw, jaw." all you want. But once the bullets start flying, there's one question, "Whose side are you on?" As any military man knows, men don't fight for principles, they fight for each other, for their friends, their buddies. And that is how things get really ugly.

If Birgenau had shot at those stupid kids, that would have generated a response of stupid kids firing at him, if not then, later. Or it would have made it ok in their minds to firebomb is house or something like that. That is how escalation works. It happens by little steps, with each step on each side being justifiable in the minds of both parties. I can also tell you from experience that chances are, the stupid kids, with their videogame trained fine motor coordination, and their youthful reflexes, would be far more likely to kill someone.

See how that works? (Yes, I doubt you can grasp it, because your PhD addled brain has created castles of nitwittery everywhere outside of your narrow specialty. By the way, I am an NRA member, and I have a PhD. I just don't let either item make me stupid because I overestimate its value.)

Yes, I understand the motive to defend one's home, but it is asinine to pretend that an incident like this aimed at a political figure like Birgenau is "out of the blue" disconnected. A political figure of any kind has to deal with reality as it is, and is no longer just a private citizen.

Do I support those kids? Not. They are young idiots with their heads firmly implanted up their own backsides. But being a young idiot is not in itself a crime, it is as common as grass.

My recommendation to Birgenau is that he ask that charges against the young idiots be reduced to misdemeanors with probation, on the condition that they meet with him and his staff to talk over why they did it. Probably there should be a mediator there who has a little bit of skill.

Now, why handle it that way?

First of all, magnanimity is an alpha behavior, a sign of strength. There are deep instincts in people that respond automatically to such gestures.

Second, it will take all the wind out of the escalation sails, depriving the hotheads of their reasons for picking up guns later. (Yes, Virginia, there are guns on the streets of Berkeley, and your students play videogame shoot-em-ups endlessly.) One must always remember that young guys of a certain age want to fight just because they want to fight. Cops sometimes call this "selling wolf tickets." The mechanism is the same whether the cause is just, stupid, or wrong.

Third, it will show the rest of the students and the general public, that the chancellor is being completely reasonable. This would be called, in Afghanistan, "Winning hearts and minds."

Fourth, it is just possible that Birgenau might learn something, and perhaps make policy changes for the police department, relative to how to take occupiers out of buildings. Cops enjoy the fight too, believe me. Maybe some clown training like the NYPD has done might be helpful.

So let's keep our humor dry, alright? This is a far cry from a roadside bomb or a sniper. Nobody has come screaming through our streets hacking everyone to death with machetes. It's just a bunch of hotheaded young idiots acting mildly dangerously and scaring the bejeezus out of the chancellor.

So I think that if a bunch of African villagers in Rwanda can forgive and make peace after genocide, we in academia can make peace after a few torches.

Beautiful sentiments John, you are absolutely correct the president should use a handgun or a rifle not a shotgun!

Right, John. I'm supposed to just sit and watch as hooligans throw torches to set my house on fire? I'm supposed to worry about "de-escalation"? And I believe the quote is "To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war" but a reasonable person could argue that if someone has already declared war (e.g. by trying to burn your house down), you might as well fight and win.

And so it comes to pass that my contention regarding the idiot quotient of PhD thought processes is supported. One would think that intelligentsia would find it worthy to display their comprehension of the English language, at minimum. Consider:

A non-sequitur of a type abandoned by my friend's 12 year old when fighting with his 9 year old brother is followed by a "point" dealt with clearly in my discussion above. Nor, as is often the case, was my discussion overlong, easily fitting on a page. I will grant that undergrads whose lexical skills are limited to twitter have found anything more than 3-5 lines beyond them. But professors are generally presumed to have gotten to the stage of life when they are capable of reading one page in a sitting.

And we wonder why our students come into college with such poor skills when their college professors are incapable of conversation in English?

John,
........Aren't we losing in Afganistan? Didn't we fight our counter insurgency in Iraq by buying off the Sunni's to kill all of the outsiders so we would have time to run like heck out of the country? Isn't that a bit like paying the neighbor to come over with his shotgun to get rid of the little brats? Sorry, but claiming to write books for a military that is losing not one but two counter insurgency fights doesn't do it for me.

It sounds a bit like the experts in banking telling me how we need fix our economy. Seems like they are the ones that broke it. Kind of tells me they really don't know what they are talking about.

No doubt, I am just one of that vast pool of foolish Ph.D.s that don't understand the real world and need to read your books to understand. Of course, dang near every literate human being in the USA said to not go into Iraq.....

Ah, well. I shall try again, since this might even save a life. Professor-right-wing is beyond help or hope. But, at least Superdude displayed partial English language comprehension, so in the spirit of education I shall try. Please, though, take the time to read my post all the way through.

You say, superdude, that threatening to burn your house down is a declaration of war. And you denigrate the idea of de-escalation in that context. Curiously, you managed to miss the fact that your thought process is, precisely, escalation. On the other side, students who occupied Wheeler Hall were dragged out in their underwear and some beaten. That, to them, was a declaration of war. Consequently, they attacked the chancellor's house.

Now, do you see the connection? Those hotheads are exactly like you. They want to fight because of whatever provocation they think justified their attack. To them, it wasn't an "attack" it was a justified counter-attack. This is how humans get started fighting. WWI started with one nitwit assassinating a Crown Prince followed by massive reprisals.

So, no. A "reasonable person" would not fire back at people throwing rocks and/or torches given the context. They would not do so for the simple reason that firing back is not how to win the war. It's mostly a PR battle, just like every other asymmetric warfare conflict.

Well, 22097984, I recommended not to go into Iraq also. It was unnecessary and not in our interests. But, it was the best thing we could have ever done to help the Russian Federation. Their national budget was roughly that of NY City in 2000. By 2008 they were not exactly fat, but definitely solvent. We stabilized Russia by going into Iraq. Not intentionally of course. C'est la vie.

Your understanding of Iraq is incorrect. I don't have time or space to detail it here. For Afghanistan, the picture is complex. I didn't think we should go in there either. Not worth it. I listened to Russian military brass toasting to our failure on the day we invaded Afghanistan.

But the failure in Afghanistan was a failure to use exactly the kind of thinking I am trying to put across. Understanding escalation and human motives to fight is part of it. The Afghan strategy is changing, and the Clausewitzian strategy of firepower is being replaced by the Petraeus strategy of winning hearts and minds.

So, John, is there a situation when resorting to violence is the solution and how to be able to recognize it as such?

Historically, resorting to violence has solved far more problems than resorting to talking.

To the contrary, John. I did not miss the point that my thought process was escalation. That was indeed my very point; perhaps you are as witless as you claim I am. But I'll avoid, except for that one, the ad hominem attacks that you so happily traffic in. It's hard, frankly, to take you seriously as you seem more interested in crafting clever sentences. It's rather boring, actually.

More to the point: surely you would agree that not all conflicts are similar, and that in some instances escalation is the appropriate response. I would argue that this is indeed one of those instances. The student-criminals are very likely to be scared off, permanently, by a threat to their safety. They're cowards, and a forceful response will end the situation.

Now, if they were street-gang members (there is no evidence of this), it would be a different story. But these are spoiled brats who likely have never known danger before, and when confronted by it, will retreat and cease their actions.