Illustration by Leigh Douglas

UC Santa Cruz isn’t UC Los Angeles. As a rule, UCSC doesn’t fight its workers every step of the way, bringing minor disputes all the way to arbitration like UCLA does with staggering frequency. So it’s discomforting to see UCSC going the way of its more combative southern cousin with its recent jab at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Before AFSCME’s contract with the UC expired in late September, UCSC began taking additional pension contributions out of the paychecks of AFSCME members without negotiating. Pension contributions are a mandatory subject of the contract bargaining process, so AFSCME filed an unfair labor practice charge against UCSC on behalf of the local Skilled Crafts Bargaining Unit, the targeted AFSCME unit.

The Public Employee Relation Board for California ruled in AFSCME’s favor, and an informal hearing involving the UC and AFSCME is occurring at the time of publication. And that’s the crux of this whole issue. It’s not a grey area at all. UCSC was in the wrong. They clearly violated the contract agreed upon by both parties. It’s strong-arming, plain and simple.

It’s clear to everyone that the university is in more than a little financial trouble, and that everyone must take cuts where they can. But reneging on union deals is low, especially when considering the inflated paychecks of upper-tier UC administrators (many “earn” well above six figures). Yudof maintains that such inflated salaries are necessary expenditures in order to retain talented employees.

But Yudof doesn’t keep this campus running from day to day. Our bus drivers, food workers, carpenters, electricians and medical technicians do. Weakening unions hurts workers, the UC and Santa Cruz as a whole.

It’s crucial that students recognize the vital role played by unions like AFSCME. You’ve seen them demonstrating. They’ve had a presence at almost every major student protest in the last several years. Out of all the UCs, UCSC is known for having a student body that has been overwhelmingly supportive of its unions. We can’t let that change, especially in the face of underhanded pressures from the UC itself.

Unions are in bad shape at UCSC, with groups from UC-AFT (University Council – American Federation of Teachers) to AFSCME doing more and more work with fewer and fewer people. The parallels between their situation and the plight of the student trying to get the classes needed to graduate while juggling jobs to pay for skyrocketing tuition costs should be obvious. We’re all stung by massive financial cuts. But we need to show the UC that striking at its most vulnerable members isn’t going to create a UC that we can be proud of.

UCSC is the biggest employer in Santa Cruz. It’s not a stretch from there to understand why protecting union workers is important.

UC President Mark Yudof recently announced the UC’s plan to ban the use of tobacco products on all 10 UC campuses over the next two years, and although we recognize the obvious benefits of such a decision, it is ultimately neither feasible nor fair.

The second part of Yudof’s plan — to also ban the sale and advertisement of tobacco products on campus — deserves praise and should be enacted. UC Santa Cruz already implements this policy, as do several other UC campuses, and it makes sense that the university actively discourages students from smoking. But trying to prevent legal adults from using legal substances is going too far.

It would be a wonderful thing if everyone chose not to smoke on campus. The Santa Cruz air would be even more crisp, health risks would go down, and cigarette butts wouldn’t litter the forest and sidewalks. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the fact is that for the foreseeable future, some portion of the student body and faculty are going to smoke cigarettes. To assume that they will not smoke on campus — where they’re not only attending classes, but also socializing, working out, eating and often living — is a bit too hopeful. Making this a reality would be especially difficult in Santa Cruz, where the terrain makes it impossible to simply step off campus for a quick smoke in between classes.

To gauge the potential efficacy of a smoking ban on campus, just take a moment to consider how often people engage in using other illicit substances on campus and aren’t caught. Would banning cigarettes really make people stop using them — or would it only cause them to light up inside a dorm room or bathroom, where it would be more hazardous?

A better strategy the university could use would be to better mark and regulate smoking and no-smoking zones on campus. They exist now, but few consequences meet those who bend the rules beyond being told to put out the cigarette. Since TAPS has recently beefed up its parking surveillance, perhaps tickets could also be given for those who don’t comply with smoking rules. Under Assembly Bill 795, signed by by Gov. Brown in November 2011, the UC has the right to to enforce state, local and system-wide smoking and tobacco laws, regulations and policies by issuing fines. Enforcing regulations would achieve the same goal of cutting down the risk of secondhand smoke, but in a more cooperative way.

College students are notorious for two things — experimenting and bending the rules. As the Los Angeles Times pointed out, binge drinking is still a huge problem on college campuses. Only 8 percent of UC students smoke cigarettes, but some studies cite as many as half of all college students as binge drinkers. Keeping that in mind, perhaps it would be best for Yudof to more wisely pick his battles.

Photo by Prescott Watson

Footage of students being pepper sprayed by UC Police Department (UCPD) officers as they sit with arms linked on the campus quad at a UC Davis protest has garnered national attention. The attention has brought the UC Police Department (UCPD) under severe scrutiny.

In a release from the University of California Office of the President (UCOP), Yudof said the announcement came in response to a request from UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi that the UC president conduct a thorough review of the event. Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, D-Los Angeles, has also requested an independent investigation of the event.

Yudof has asked UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and Christopher Edley Jr., UC Berkeley School of Law dean, to head a system-wide examination of “police protocols and policies as they apply to protests at all 10 UC campuses,” according to the release.

The examination will involve visits to campuses for discussions with students, faculty and staff, and consultation with “an array of experts.”

William J. Bratton, chairman of New York-based Kroll consulting company, will investigate the pepper spray incident and report back the results to Yudof within 30 days.

Bratton’s findings will be reviewed by an advisory panel made up of students, faculty, staff and members of the campus community, which will make recommendations to Chancellor Katehi “on steps that should be taken to ensure the safety of peaceful protesters on campus.” Katehi will then present her implementation plan to President Yudof.

The University of California and Davis Chancellor Katehi have come sharp criticism in the wake of the pepper spraying, both in national media and the academic community.

The Council of UC Faculty Associations condemned the UCPD’s actions in a Nov. 19 press release.

“We demand that the Chancellors of the University of California cease using police violence to repress non-violent political protests,” reads the release. “We hold them responsible for the violence and believe it can only result in an escalation of outrage that holds the potential for even more violence.

Others have publicly called for Katehi’s resignation. According to a banner on the UC Davis English department homepage, the department joins the Board of the Davis Faculty Association in calling for the chancellor’s resignation, and further, the disbanding of the UCPD.

The university placed Campus Police Chief Annette Spicuzza on administrative leave pending investigation into the incident, and suspended two officers involved.

Alexander R. Galloway, an associate professor in the department of media, culture, and communication at New York University, said yesterday in a public letter to Yudof and Katehi he will no longer attend a UC Davis conference as he had previously planned, “until Chancellor Katehi takes responsibility for her actions by resigning, and until UC Davis removes its paramilitary police from campus.”

“While my admiration and respect for the great public universities of the UC system remain strong, I cannot in good conscience visit the UC Davis campus in April,” the letter continues. “I cannot support Chancellor Katehi. I cannot support police brutality. And, quite simply, I fear for my own safety were I to visit your campus.”

When meeting with the 10 chancellors, either in person or by phone, Yudof plans to discuss how to handle non-violent protest with “proportional” law enforcement, he said in a statement released on Sunday Nov. 20. In addition, Yudof said he is assembling an assessment of campus police procedures.

UC Davis police officers pepper sprayed Occupy UC Davis participants on Friday Nov. 18, while UC Berkeley police officers jabbed Occupy UC Berkeley protesters with batons on Nov. 9.

“As I have said before, free speech is part of the DNA of this university,” Yudof said. “Non-violent protest has long been central to our history. It is a value we must protect with vigilance. I implore students who wish to demonstrate to do so in a peaceful and lawful fashion. I expect campus authorities to honor that right.”

While the UC Davis chief of campus police and two other officers involved with the pepper spray incident are on a paid leave of absence, students and faculty are calling on UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to resign.