“Is occupying the building a violation of the student code of conduct? Yes,” Burns said. “Is disciplinary action for this particular incident likely? It’s not on our agenda right now.”

Burns noted that Judicial Affairs has a “tendency” to review and judge such incidents “on their own merits.” Mentioning the occupation of Kerr Hall in 2009, he contrasted the condition of both buildings after protestors left.

“Kerr Hall was a mess and very costly to reopen,” Burns said, “and obviously the condition of that building played a role in the sanctions inflicted.”

He recounted seeing protestors cleaning the building and making sure no damage had been inflicted, which he said the staff, maintenance workers and students were very relieved to see.

Pressing charges against future violations of the student code of conduct was absolutely possible, said Burns, but Hahn is not likely to be pursued as an offense in and of itself.

Those who opted not to accept the voluntary resolutions issued to them in April of last year were offered the opportunity to defend their cases to a campus administrator. Some of these hearings have resulted in the reduction or dismissal of findings of responsibility.

At a quarterly press conference in January, Chancellor George Blumenthal said he supports the decisions both to amend and to uphold the voluntary resolutions.

“Some of those hearings have been held, and … in some cases students have been offered the opportunity to do community service in lieu of paying a fine,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, if that’s the result of the adjudication, then that’s fine. I simply wanted things to be fair, and I wanted there to be an understanding that certain behaviors do have consequences, not just for the institution but for the individuals who do that behavior.”

The voluntary resolutions were issued after 150 students occupied Kerr Hall to protest the UC Regents’ approval of a measure to raise student fees by 32.5 percent. The occupation lasted for 66 hours, causing damages that administrators said totaled up $34,992.02. Forty-five students received summons regarding the illegal occupation, and 35 students were eventually held responsible for the occupation. As part of their voluntary resolutions, these students were asked to pay $944 each to cover the cleanup for the damages to Kerr Hall.

As a result, over 100 UCSC faculty and lecturers signed a letter to Chancellor Blumenthal, and members of the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the administration, both objecting to the university’s judicial process.

Since the original sanctions were issued, some of the 35 students received warnings, while others accepted their resolutions or appealed to the Student Judicial Board for a hearing.

Third-year Gabi Kirk recently received a letter from the administration explaining that the findings of responsibility and the sanctions and conditions of her own resolution have been modified. She is now required to do 20 hours of community service in lieu of the original $944 restitution.

Kirk said the modification of the resolution is a “political move” in light of the public attention the incident has received.

“They couldn’t definitively link the property damage to specific people so they’re no longer [requiring] the charge,” she said. “My question is, if they’re not holding anyone fiscally responsible and they said they need the money, where’s the money coming from?”

Director of public information Jim Burns said in an e-mail that UCSC will pay for the damages with “one-time central funds that could otherwise support such activities as instruction or student support.”

Student journalist Kenji Tomari was a writer for UCSC student newspaper The Project at the time of the occupation. Tomari was one of three student journalists present in Kerr Hall, along with representatives from TWANAS and City on a Hill Press.

Though Tomari met with Student Judicial Affairs director Doug Zuidema and explained that the extent of his involvement at Kerr Hall was limited to his role as a reporter, Tomari received a resolution, which included the $944 restitution.

Tomari said that he voluntarily passed up his opportunity to appeal Zuidema’s decision.

“I have said all I have to say regarding my situation as a student journalist inside Kerr Hall,” Tomari said in an e-mail.

He was told in June that associate vice chancellor Jean Marie Scott was reviewing his case and would get back to him in seven to 10 days.

“That was seven months ago,” he said.

In August of last year, Tomari’s lawyer contacted the university legal counsel and was told Scott was still reviewing his case.

Illustration by Patrick Yeung.

Despite a letter drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) objecting to the UC Santa Cruz’s judicial process, the administration has opted not to amend the protocol. 35 students are currently facing a restitution charge of $944 to cover the damages to Kerr Hall.

The letter, addressed to Chancellor George Blumenthal and Academic Senate Chair Lori Kletzer, states that the university has not afforded students due process, and must amend aspects of the process to assure constitutionality of the student judicial process.

“The administration failed to provide any hearing on the restitution. Students were being fined without due process,” said Julia Harumi Mass, an ACLU staff attorney who drafted the letter. “We were objecting to that.”

The ACLU’s presence follows the administration’s issuing of “voluntary resolutions” that found multiple students responsible for 10 violations of the Student Code of Conduct (SCC).

Some of the 35 students sanctioned were given a warning — they are eligible for an appeal to an appellate officer.

Students given any sanction greater than a warning may appeal to the Student Judicial Board for a hearing.

UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal stated that the process is in fact affording the students due process.

“[Appealing provides] the right to confront the evidence against them, to bring in an attorney if they wish, and to present evidence in their defense,” Blumenthal said. “That is a hearing and I believe that it meets the requirements of due process.”

Blumenthal made one modification to the process prior to receiving the letter from the ACLU: students who received a warning may appeal to an appellate officer in person rather than in writing.

Blumenthal stated that the administration had no plans to change the process underway any further.

“As of right now we are not waiving the restitution,” Blumenthal said. “It is subject to the outcome of the appeals.”

The administration issued equally distributed fines to identifiable students to cover the damage to Kerr Hall. ACLU attorney Mass stated that this was an aspect of the judicial process to which the ACLU specifically objected.

“You can’t just charge a flat rate without proving that each student was responsible for actually causing damage,” Mass said. “The amount needs to be reasonably related to the conduct that the student partook in.”

The administration has stated that by being present, students were active participants in the action, and as such are responsible for damages done to the building.

“Students have a responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and be aware of when they are participating in an event that violates the judicial code and violates the law,” Blumenthal said. “It is a collective responsibility. If you participate in something illegal, you often bear responsibility for some of the illegal acts whether you specifically created them or not.”

According to the ACLU, presence and responsibility are not synonymous. Mass went on to discuss specifically the student journalist who is also being held responsible for the restitution of $944.

“To hold him responsible for the damages, someone who has not participated in the decisions by the group — he shouldn’t be held responsible,” Mass said. “That is why a hearing is so important.”

The courses that both the ACLU and the administration will take are unclear. When asked what is next for the ACLU, Mass expressed uncertainty.

“It depends,” Mass said. “In this case, I’m still in touch with people [at UC Santa Cruz] and monitoring the situation.”

Regardless of the course that the Kerr Hall saga takes, Lori Kletzer, addressed in the ACLU’s letter, described an inevitable consequence of the ACLU’s involvement.

“In a very straightforward way, there will continue to be public attention to this issue,” Kletzer said. “It will stay visible.”

The Academic Senate meeting was held at the Kresge Town Hall on Friday afternoon. The meeting provided an opportunity to talk about issues with judicial affairs and narrative evaluations. Photo by Morgan Grana.

Photo by Morgan Grana.

After several topics had been addressed, the floor was opened for teachers and other appointed individuals to present questions about topics such as Judicial Affairs. Photo by Morgan Grana.

Kresge Town Hall hummed last Friday as members of the campus community weighed in on two touchy subjects. The judicial proceedings under way regarding the Kerr Hall occupation, and the proposal to make narrative evaluations optional were both at issue at the latest Academic Senate Meeting.

Faculty gathered outside the Town Hall prior to the meeting on April 23 to hold a brief press conference establishing their objection to the sanctions issued by the Judicial Affairs Office at UCSC to 35 students.

Thirty-five students are being held accountable for the estimated $35,000 in damage Kerr Hall incurred during the 66 hour occupation of the building in November 2009 — each student was given a restitution of $944.

A number of faculty members spoke at the press conference about their dissatisfaction with the current judicial process and the students’ penalties.

Speakers included history professor Gail Hershatter, Professor of Social Sciences and Political Thought Robert Meister, and second-year history of consciousness graduate student Mark Paschal. Paschal received a restitution charge.

­“[The case against the students] would never meet minimum standards of evidence in the court of law,” Hershatter said.

She said that faculty hoped to have the charges dropped and for the administration to examine the current process for possible reform.

The faculty’s contention is in the judicial proceedings. Only seven of the 35 students qualified for a judicial hearing and the remaining 28 students must appeal to the Appellate Officer — Director of Student Judicial Affairs, Felicia McGinty — a process outlined in the Student Policies and Regulations Handbook. Faculty claim this policy is a violation of the student’s constitutional right to due process.

Many faculty members doubt whether the evidence presented against many of the 35 students was sufficient to the students responsible for the damage.

“Faculty object that students were not provided with evidence confirming their responsibility for damages and were instead each fined the same amount — to cover the total for damages and cleanup — regardless of their role in the events … Students who requested a hearing were also initially denied one because their student status wasn’t threatened,” the press release said.

Professor Meister spoke of “vicarious liability” — a legal principal that provides that an individual can be held liable for the actions of another and how this legal principle is being employed in the case of the Kerr Hall proceedings. Meister said employing vicarious liability, as was done during the Kerr Hall trials, is unconstitutional.

“If the First Amendment means anything, it blocks vicarious liability,” Meister said at the press conference. “The entire point is to distinguish between a political demonstration and a frat party.”

In their press release, faculty described their expectations for the question and answer period with Chancellor George Blumenthal and Executive Vice Chancellor David Kliger during the Academic Senate meeting.

“[Faculty] expect to press the Chancellor and Executive Vice Chancellor with tough questions on the issue,” said the press release.

And that is exactly what the faculty did. For nearly the entire question and answer period, various faculty members pleaded with Blumenthal to drop the charges, reevaluate the current judiciary procedures, and examine whether or not due process is in fact being afforded to the students.

Barbara Epstein, a history of consciousness professor, addressed Blumenthal, contending the validity of evidence provided in the judicial proceedings.

“Who participated in which activity and where the evidence lies is something to be considered,” she said. “The problem isn’t hidden evidence; it’s a lack of evidence.”

“There is a responsibility when you participate,” Blumenthal responded.

He went on to say that those students who participated in the occupation need to “take responsibility for their actions in partaking in the occupation.”

While Blumenthal did not agree to the faculty’s request to drop the charges, he did express that he was open to reevaluating the current Student Code of Conduct (SCC).

“It is a legitimate question to be raised, to modify [the current SCC],” Blumenthal said in response to an inquiry about changing the current code of conduct. “It is fair to be open to possibilities of change.”

Separately, in a landslide vote by show of hands, 45 faculty members voted to make narrative evaluations optional, with five opposed. Prior to the vote, faculty, students and alumni debated whether to make narrative evaluations optional.

The state of narrative evaluations has been in discussion within the Academic Senate since the beginning of 2009-10 school year.

Those in support of making the evaluations optional cited the large class sizes, saying the time spent writing an evaluation for every student have made evaluations less personal and bland.

Those in opposition to the measure argued that making evaluations optional was the first step in getting rid of a tradition UC Santa Cruz has had since its inception.

Among those who spoke were Alumni Association President Amy Everitt and Porter College Representative Taylor Stephens, a first-year.

Stephens described how she was awarded money for school because of a narrative evaluation and became teary-eyed at the end of her address to the Academic Senate, making a case for keeping the narrative evaluations mandatory.

Everitt spoke of the Narrative Evaluation System’s unique place at UC Santa Cruz and how making them optional is in fact calling for the inevitable death of the Narrative Evaluation System.

“Narrative evaluations set UCSC apart from other universities,” Everitt said during her address to the Academic Senate. “Reform is necessary, elimination is not.”

Brent Haddad, a professor in the environmental studies department, had a different take on the change.

“This will revitalize our narrative evaluations that so many of us don’t take seriously,” Haddad said. “This will put meaning back into what we write.”

Illustration by Louise Leong.

In the continuing battle for student rights, the students of UC Santa Cruz have gained a powerful ally in the university faculty. Over 100 professors and lecturers showed support for the students of UCSC in a letter to the administration condemning the disciplinary actions regarding the November occupation of Kerr Hall. And, unlike the administration’s usual mode of communication, there was no deceptive wording, no polite hedging or stepping-around the issue. Faculty are alarmed, as they very well should be.

The faculty members are concerned, as are we at City on a Hill Press, at the ways in which the university has repeatedly denied these students what so many American citizens have come to take for granted as a fundamental right — the right to due process.

In an institution of higher learning, it is ridiculous to make such an accusation among adults, but the actions of the administration have shown that bullying has no age limit.

Let me catch you up on the latest episode of the students vs. school saga. In response to the outcry from faculty members, the administration has attempted to placate the angry students and teachers with a slight concession. Twenty-eight students may now appeal for an in-person hearing with a single administrator, the appellate officer, rather than appealing in writing. While this is technically good news, it still brings about the question: what is the point of having a student judicial court if it isn’t going to be used?

The student judicial court comprises of three Student Union Assembly members, one staff member, and one faculty member — a number of individuals with a number of viewpoints, all prepared to discuss and deliberate before assigning responsibility. Is it just for show, a pretense at a fair decision-making process? That students are denied due process while there is a system in place that would allow them this constitutional right just adds insult to injury.

Also, it is important to call into question the damaging evidence that one single administrator found, unequivocally condemning 36 people of 10 different charges. In the case of several of the students, the evidence presented proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had damaged plumbing, paint, lighting, and office equipment. This damning pronouncement was based on … drumroll, please … a single photo taken by an individual at the protest.

And this photo was not an image of the individuals actually engaging in these actions, mind you, but a photo of one student in or around the building in which the damages occurred. Any system that would allow students to be charged almost $1,000 based on a single photo (in one student’s case, a photo that was mistakenly identified since she wasn’t even there) needs reform.

Because of this, and many other obvious and appalling injustices the administration has imposed upon the students presence at the peaceful protest, City on a Hill Press joins the faculty of UCSC in calling for reform of the university’s judicial process in future and current circumstances, and we applaud the professors and lecturers who stood up for the rights of their students.

Forty-five students received summons nearly two months ago regarding events in the 66-hour illegal occupation of Kerr Hall in November. In a follow-up of student judicial affairs director Doug Zuidema’s fact-finding investigation, 36 of the 45 were found responsible for violations of the Student Policies and Regulations Handbook (SPRH).

On April 7, the 36 students were issued letters of “Voluntary Resolution” requiring a restitution of $944. One individual was found not responsible for the violations yesterday in a meeting with Zuidema, lowering the number to 35.

University spokesperson Jim Burns said Kerr Hall sustained $34,992.02 in damages during the occupation. Restitutions were intended to divide the total cost equally among each of the 36 student participants.

“They were determined to be active participants that were involved with an occupation that led to $34,000 of damage,” Burns said. “These students participated in a demonstration that left the university with the bill and these students are responsible for payment.”

The “Voluntary Resolution,” as written and determined by Zuidema, described the sanctions — including the restitution — and were distributed April 7.

According to a resolution letter provided to City on a Hill Press, the restitution declares the individuals fiscally responsible for damages.

“You will be responsible for making restitution to Kerr Hall in the amount of $972.00 by June 30, 2010. Payment is to be by check or money order made payable to UC Regents, delivered in person to Student Judicial Affairs (245 Hahn).”

Restitutions are issued in accordance with section 105.09 of the SPRH.

On April 8, Program Assistant Kay Anderson-Wiebe sent an e-mail ammending the aforementioned amount.

“Please note that the restitution amount ($972) indicated in your Voluntary Resolution Agreement dated April 7, 2010 is incorrect,” she wrote. “The actual amount of restitution is $944. This correction has been noted in your file.”

Multiple students were found responsible for the same 10 charges delineated in the resolution letter.

Second-year undergraduate student Gabi Kirk was among the students found responsible for the 10 violations of the Student Policies and Regulations Handbook and given the $944 restitution.

“I did not steal anything, I did not break anything, I did not do the things that they found me responsible for,” Kirk said. “What this group charge says to me, is that they don’t know what they are doing.”

The property form Kirk completed in order to retrieve her possessions from the University Police in November was used as evidence in her meeting with Zuidema.

The UC Police collected items left behind after the occupants vacated the building. Kirk said that the property form does not prove guilt.

“[The property form] doesn’t indicate anything, it is clearly no proof of theft,” Kirk said. “I’m not paying $1,000 for something I didn’t do.”

Section 104.20 of the Student Policies and Regulations Handbook (SPRH) determines that “the final authority for administration of student discipline rests with the chancellor.” As such, 85 faculty members addressed a letter regarding the resolutions to Chancellor George Blumenthal expressing their skepticism of the judicial proceedings surrounding Kerr Hall.

The letter read, “The actions at Kerr Hall were collectively executed by a group of considerable size and diversity, in public expression of grievance against the University. The proposed resolution does not separate accusations of criminal behavior from protected speech acts; it implies that any form of participation in these actions is tantamount to vandalism. Such an equation will have a chilling effect on necessary speech and debate in the campus community. The ‘Voluntary Resolution’ agreements present an implicitly constant threat of criminalization in cases where the University has a substantial stake in minimizing the effects of a coordinated protest action.”

Several students were found responsible for 10 identical charges. Twenty-nine of the 36 students were issued a warning as well as the restitution and seven individuals were given more severe sanctions, ranging from probation to dismissal. Burns stated that the seven individuals who received more severe sanctions had previous violations to the SPRH.

“Prior misconduct factored into the decision in the cases of those who received more than a warning,” Burns said.

Those who received the resolution were eligible to submit an appeal — the deadline was April 14 at 4:00 p.m. The appeal process can be pursued in two possible ways — a written appeal to an Appellate Officer or a request for a hearing before the Campus Judicial Board (CJB). The CJB comprises two staff members and three members of the Student Union Association (SUA).

Those who received a warning and the restitution are only eligible to pursue a written appeal, which goes to the Appellate Officer. In cases of a written appeal an Appellate Officer will make a decision. This would apply to 29 of the 35 students, if they chose to appeal.

Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Felicia McGinty or a designee will be the Appellate Officer in the cases of written appeals, as described in Section 107.60 of the SPRH.

Section 108.21 of SPRH outlines the constraints of appealing; resolutions that include a warning, regardless of inclusion of a restitution, are limited to a review by the Appellate Officer. Those who received a sanction of greater severity are eligible to pursue either the written appeal to an Appellate Officer or request for a hearing in front of the Judicial Board.

“In most of these cases, the appeal will be in writing,” Burns said. “The request for a formal hearing is only available to the seven students [who recieved sanctions more severe than a warning]. Irrespective of the restitution, if someone receives a warning they can write an appeal.”

As stated in section 107.62, McGinty or a designee will make a determination on the findings of the appealed case.

“Upon completion of review, the appellate authority may affirm, modify, or reverse the recommended finding(s) and/or sanction(s).”

Students are limited to one level of appeal. As such, cases close after completion of the vice chancellor’s review.

In a Formal Hearing, the accused student may present the Campus Judicial Board with documents and witnesses, and the CJB will make a determination based upon the evidence. Upon reaching the decision, the CJB submits their decision to the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Felicia McGinty. McGinty may “modify the recommended findings or sanctions received from the Campus Judicial Board,” as stated in section 108.37 of the SPRH.

Among the 36 individuals who received the restitution were a student journalist and a negotiator. The student journalist, fourth-year Kenji Tomari, a reporter for The Project, was one of three student journalists present during the occupation that spanned three days. Representatives from City on a Hill Press and TWANAS were also present.

Though Tomari met with Zuidema and explained that the extent of his involvement at Kerr Hall was limited to his role as a reporter, Tomari, along with 35 individuals, received his resolution — including the restitution of $944 — on April 7.

The negotiator who received the restitution, recent graduate Olivia Egan-Rudolph, was one of five negotiators acting as a liaison between the administration and those in the building.

“Dialogue was important in that situation,” Rudolph said. “I wanted to make sure it was resolved in a peaceful way and demands were negotiated.”

Three of the five negotiators received a summons, and Rudolph was the only one out of the three to receive the resolution, including the restitution of $944.

Rudolph was cited with sanction 105.05 of the SPRH — suspension. She also is restricted from campus. As a recent graduate, the circumstances of Rudolph’s suspension are unique. Per her understanding, Rudolph’s degrees may be withheld until December of 2010.

One student, who wishes to remain anonymous, received the resolution letter though she was never present at Kerr Hall.

Sydney Clark* met with Zuidema on April 13 to relay that she was not affiliated with the events at Kerr Hall. Zuidema presented her with the evidence that had been used to determine her presence — a photo of another female student participating in the Kerr Hall occupation. Clark was identified by a staff member when the image was cross referenced with a photo of Clark that was on file.

After the meeting, Zuidema determined the photo was not of her and deemed her not responsible for the restitution and her warning was dropped.

Until her meeting with Zuidema on April 14, Clark was among those found responsible for all 10 violations of the Student Policies and Regulations Handbook.

*Name has been changed

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

In a predictably callous and entirely characteristic act of arrogance, ignorance, and unlawfulness, the University of California at Santa Cruz’s administration has once again taken it upon itself to persecute student journalists.

Here’s what you should know: in November, hundreds of students, staff, and faculty protested rising educational fees, pink slips, and limited class offerings. After rallying on campus, approximately 70 students — not including a handful of reporters — occupied Kerr Hall for 66 hours. Hundreds of students were in the vicinity of Kerr Hall during the three days. Outside Kerr Hall, the presence of 80 students, staff and faculty members made it clear that the occupiers had support. Of the 70 people present when police entered Kerr Hall, only 45 were identified and summoned for testimony by the administration.

Of those 45 who were summoned, 36 were billed $944 in order to cover the $34,992.02 in damages.

A grand total of one university official made the decision to issue the resolution.

Of the 36 students who received the restitution, one was a journalist and one was a negotiator. The journalist, from UCSC newspaper The Project, was one of three reporters present during the occupation, and did not participate in the protest.

One representative from City on a Hill Press and one from TWANAS were also present, neither of whom received a summons nor a restitution letter.

Without trial, without thought, and certainly without justice, several students received identical sanctions stating­ — not alleging — that they were responsible for the damages Kerr Hall sustained during the occupation.

Not only did these ludicrous accusations allege that each student participated equally and without variance (an unlikely scenario), they were issued as randomly as a poker hand. Odds are in the dealer’s favor.

Sanctioning a reporter who had donned a press pass is unethical.

Let’s be clear about this. Being a reporter does not give an individual free reign to participate in any illegal acts without risk of prosecution. In the interest of keeping people informed and fostering freedom of speech and the media, being a reporter should guarantee the right to observe and write about an event, so long as doing so does not involve participation.

Reporters who are acting as journalists and wield press passes deserve asylum so long as they refrain from supporting the activists through any means of a physical, verbal or emotional contribution.

UCSC has seen fit to sanction one such reporter, despite the fact that he, by all witnesses’ accounts, was never an active participant.

The Project journalist Kenji Tomari received the same sanction as several other active participants. Tomari is expected to pay the $944 dollars in restitution.

Whether or not the university can find (yet another) loophole through which to make these random acts of persecution justifiable, it is in no way ethical to punish a student reporter for doing their job.

If UCSC’s administrators are determined to ensure the mistrust and resentment of every student on this campus, they are well on their way. By continuing to refuse to make any attempts at transparency, democracy or mediation, UCSC is setting itself up for criticism and unrest.

Any act that causes student reporters to fear relaying university news to their peers, professors, mentors, family, and so on for fear of legal retribution is wrong.

In addition to violating students’ First Amendment rights by prosecuting a reporter, UCSC is censoring the media through intimidation and contradicting its own mission: Let there be light.

City on a Hill Press stands in solidarity with Kenji Tomari and other student media organizations. We will not stay silent while our peers and colleagues are suppressed for woring to enlighten the university community.

Photo by Morgan Grana.

Photo by Morgan Grana.

Judicial summons have been issued to 45 students in response to the 66-hour occupation of Kerr Hall, an office building that houses high-level UCSC administrators including Chancellor George Blumenthal and Executive Vice Chancellor David Kliger.

Doug Zuidema, student judicial affairs director, summoned possible Student Code of Conduct violators as part of his investigation into the occupation of Kerr Hall.

“Following the illegal occupation of Kerr Hall and vandalism, the director [Zuidema] has summoned 45 students to discuss possible violations to the code of conduct,” campus spokesperson Jim Burns said. “Following these meetings, the director will decide whether or not to issue sanctions in each of the 45 cases.”

The summons arrive three months after the event that halted some administrative activity for more than two days, Nov. 19 and 20, when 150 Kerr Hall staff members were displaced for the duration of the occupation.

“We’ve said from day one that we were taking this seriously,” Burns said. “Everyone is concerned about the increase in student fees. … A protest to call attention to that statewide issue is more than understandable, but a protest that terrifies UCSC workers and displaces 150 workers and degrades into vandalism is not.”

Of the nearly 150 students who initially occupied the building, 70 were inside at the time the police entered. And because it was an open occupation for the majority of the two days, countless numbers of students came and went throughout its duration.

Zuidema summoned 45 students who, according to the document e-mailed to those students, were identified by a staff member.

“My view on the occupation itself and the punishing? It’s just very counter-productive. It just shouldn’t be a priority,” said Matt Palm, the Student Union Assembly’s commissioner of academic affairs, who was among the summons recipients. “I understand that some staff members felt harassed, but to respond by harassing students is not necessary. The arbitrariness of the process was unnerving.”

Among those summoned were Palm, student journalist Kenji Tomari, and campus sustainability outreach coordinator Gabriella Kirk.

Palm questioned the university’s decision to take action against certain individuals.

“When Gabi [Kirk] got a letter, it just seemed so blind. It’s not like there is one leader who is responsible, and because of that the university is kind of shooting blind,” Palm said. “As a result, many students and myself woke up to find we were being held accountable for damage we didn’t instigate or escalate. I am very concerned with how they have gone out carte blanche. It has gotten a lot of people worked up and upset.”

As to the 45 students who received summons, Palm expressed skepticism about the extent of some individuals’ involvement.

“I’m upset that a lot of people I know who [received summons]are good students and give a lot to this campus [and] didn’t instigate or escalate the events in Kerr Hall,” Palm said. “It is enough for me to question the process. I imagine it being truly difficult to pinpoint exactly who is responsible, which makes me question how much of this is making an example of students, versus knowing one student is responsible for an action.”

Tomari, a reporter for The Project, said he was present during the occupation as a journalist.

“As a journalist, you are drawn to important issues and stories that concern your audience,” Tomari said. “As a student, you’re implicated in these budget issues. When an action takes place dealing with these issues, you have to cover it. It is your obligation as a journalist.

“The motivation to stay [at the event],” he continued, “is that you could just talk to people after the event, or go talk to the administration to get their story, but it’s not the same as being there yourself and covering from the inside to be able to explain exactly the order of events instead of relying on mixed sources.”

Tomari said those who were present in Kerr Hall during the occupation fall into different categories.

He described how there were the participants, who were in solidarity with the occupation; journalists who were there to cover the events taking place; and liaisons who facilitated discussion between administrators and students. He also described the “passers-by,” who entered the building as “people who wanted to see the spectacle of an administrative building being occupied.”

“It seems like there is political targeting going on,” Tomari said. “The bottom line here is it is an incomplete judicial summons.”

Tomari said, to the extent of his knowledge not all of the students identified in Kerr Hall were summoned.

“I can say that there were student journalists and liaisons that they could identify that they chose not to give summons to,” Tomari said.

The occupation of Kerr Hall, according to early estimates provided by Burns, did damage in the range of “tens of thousands of dollars.”

A prior occupation action on campus — the occupation of the Graduate Student Commons (GSC) from Sept. 24 to Oct. 1, 2009 — prompted an initial round of summons, and four students were determined by the university to be financially responsible for that action.

Each of the four individuals was charged $532. The charge went to their student fees, and they will be unable to enroll in classes unless the amount is paid off.

The Kerr Hall occupation began on Thursday in response to a 32.5% fee hike passed by the UC Regents on the same day.

We will post updates to this story as it develops.

UPDATE 8:15am
Upon request by UC Police, the protesters have left Kerr Hall. No arrests were made.

Students remain barricaded in Kerr Hall which houses the offices of UCSC's highest administrators.

Occupants in Kerr Hall expanded their space last night after deciding to break into the Chancellor’s area of the floor.  The building has several corridors that cannot be accessed without a key.

Around 1 am, wearing bandanas and tee shirts to avoid exposure from many security cameras, over fifty students gathered around a secured corridor that leads to the Chancellor’s conference room.  Soon after students used various tools such as a hammer, machete and a crow bar to wedge open the door.

Inside the corridor there is a conference room, a kitchen and other small rooms. The Chancellor’s Office remained closed off behind another set of doors.

“It’s symbolic. We got through,” cried one student expressing his enthusiasm for the movement.

Jim Stevenson* described the condition of the door that was removed.

“The integrity of the door was not compromised,” Stevenson said.

Participant, Alexander Jacobson*described his expectation for the administration’s response.

“People feel that no matter what they do, the administration is going to say the same thing, and claim excessive damage,” said Jacobson.

When the door was thrust open, cheers broke out and the students flooded in. Once the cameras were covered, students explored the area.

“We’re doing something that has never been done before,” said Jacobson*. “That’s what is really important; when young people can take matters into their own hands.”

Leading up to the Kerr Hall occupation, UCSC Radical Student Union, the group who organized the previous occupations but have changed their name, hosted a Rally in front of occupied Kerr Hall Thursday night. Nearly 200 people showed up, including news stations and UCSC classes. At the rally, speakers addressed the fiscal state of the UC and the importance of action.

“Students have an extremely strong moral position right now; most sane people know that what is happening is wrong,” said Jacobson*.

The occupants held a press conference of their own in the Chancellor’s conference room last night, to communicate with those involved with the similar actions taking place in Europe, speaking to students at a university in Vienna, Austria.

“We have very different backgrounds in this occupation and very different options,” said the Austrian student during the Skype conversation where occupants from both universities discussed their efforts. “I think that is very important.”

A large number of students remained in the space overnight. Sleeping bags, pillows and blankets littered nearly all hall ways on the second floor and the two elevators which had been propped open.

Blumenthal and Kliger are both out of their office, doing work elsewhere. The 150 staff members who did not come in to Kerr Hall on Friday are unable work.

The administration hopes that the occupants will vacate the premises without police intervention.

“At this point we would like to avoid bring in police. We remain hopeful that they will voluntarily leave,” said University Spokesman Jim Burns. “Their presence has effectively closed a building and the sooner they leave the better.”

In an address to the campus community regarding the occupants, Executive Vice Chancellor David Kliger established the liability of the actions.

“Those still inside are trespassing and subject to arrest and/or campus sanctions that may lead to suspension or expulsion.”

Burns established the stipulation of Kliger’s statement.

“The longer they stay here the greater the risk of being arrested or sanctioned,” said Burns. “We’re still hoping that they leave and if they don’t, [Kliger’s] message makes it clear.”

*Names have been changed.