This could have been a story about the brilliance of the University of California. The police officer’s union has played right into the hands of the university, attempting to block the release of the pepper spray report. This has allowed the university to take the public stance for release, and allowed them to be on the side of moral indignation.
Now all UC has to do is cut a deal for the release of the information, insulate themselves at the top levels from blame, and the crisis has been managed.
Just as it appeared that UC had gotten their act together, the issue of U.S. Bank has exploded. The issue of the bank is a policy failure at a number of different levels, for the university and UC in general.
Back in November of 2009, UC Davis thought they had pulled off a coup, landing a 10-year agreement with U.S. Bank that would provide nearly $3 million to support student services and bring the campus its first bank branch.
However, the deal came with gross miscalculations. In order to sweeten the pot for U.S. Bank, the university issued a new campus identification card — with a bank logo on the back and optional ATM access — to help generate new customers.
Simply put, this generated a huge amount of resentment by students at the time and made the bank an easy target for student protests when the Occupy Movement was looking for a secondary victory following the pepper spray fiasco.
One needs to go back to November 18 to understand what happened here. The university, far from nipping things in the bud through a heavy use of force, actually rendered themselves impotent to solving future problems which require actions that, even potentially, could be seen as a heavy hand.
The reluctance to respond actually served the university well when it came to efforts to occupy various buildings on campus. The protesters eventually grew bored at the lack of response and moved on. That is what should have happened when they occupied the Quad.
But blockading a business is very different, and required UC to come up with a new response. Simply put, the university could not simply have allowed the protesters to shut down U.S. Bank on multiple days.
Yes, they put forth a banking policy, but it was too little and too late. Simply put, interfering with a business’s ability to conducts its business is a crime. UC Davis should have warned students that they would be arrested if they did not move and allow customers to use the bank, and then arrested them if they failed to comply.
It is here where people fail to understand the purpose of civil disobedience. All you have to do to understand it is look at the civil rights movement and the actions of Bull Connor in Birmingham, Alabama.
The civil rights movement began to gain headway when protesters who engaged in passive resistance were attacked with fire hoses and attack dogs and the images were shown on the nightly news, resonating with a public that was perhaps indifferent previously.
One of the more interesting things that we have learned is that authorities in the South quickly recognized that if they simply toned down their response, the spectacle would not occur and the civil rights protesters would not get the attention they desired.
Unfortunately for them, Bull Connor ignored the advice and couldn’t resist turning his police forces on the protesters.
Simply put, UC Davis erred when they decided they needed to clear the Quad, even though the presence of protesters did not interfere with the normal conducting of business. Protesters have come and gone from the Quad since, with little to no problem.
They exacerbated that by escalating the situation with the use of pepper spray.
However, they have underreacted to a true threat to business, with the blocking of the US Bank in the Memorial Union. The protesters should have been arrested and released.
People who engage in civil disobedience ought to expect to be arrested. As Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison…the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.”
Philosopher Hannah Arendt commented in her essay “On Civil Disobedience,” “disobedience to the law can be justified only if the law breaker is willing and even eager to accept punishment for the act.”
The system does not work if there is no consequence for breaking even an unjust law such as we saw in the South. The idea that there should be an exception for civil disobedience misses the point of civil disobedience.
But what we have at UC Davis and across UC is a failure to figure out how to properly deal with protest. The response is invariably too strong or too weak.
Over the last five years, UC Davis, and the University of California in general, has not figured out the delicate balance they must play.
An example of a properly-executed scenario comes on May 1, 2007 from the City of Davis police. Protesters blocked the middle of Anderson and Russell intersection. The police gave their warning. Those protesters not wanting to be arrested were allowed to move, those who wanted to be arrested were calmly and methodically arrested and placed into a bus.
A few weeks later, students occupied Mrak Hall during business hours, and a panicked UC Davis police force illegally arrested the protesters during business hours in a public building.
While we put blame on UC Davis officials for mishandling the U.S. Bank protest, we also have to put blame on U.S. Bank.
It begins, as we noted, with unmitigated greed. Back in 2009, UC Davis was doing chest bumps at their clever deal with U.S. Bank.
“By forging public-private partnerships,” said Fred Wood, vice chancellor for Student Affairs, “the university has embraced a much-needed entrepreneurial spirit, one that balances the unique needs of our community with opportunities to generate new revenue.”
U.S. Bank was guaranteeing the university annual payments of $130,000 to $780,000 a year, based on the number of banking accounts activated; the partners estimated an average annual payment of $280,000.
Fred Wood said he recognized that there were concerns about corporate partnerships at a public university. In developing the bank partnership, Student Affairs adopted a set of guiding principles that required “a process that is open, fair and competitive, consultative, and readily available for scrutiny and discussion.”
But it ultimately failed. Had it merely been a deal for U.S. Bank to have an office in the Memorial Union, that might have been one thing.
But, at the same time, the university announced it would “roll out a new card for employee and student identification. The card will offer optional access to U.S. Bank’s debit and ATM services and display a small bank logo on the back.”
As one Vanguard commentator noted yesterday, “Where things start to fall apart is with their marketing. Student IDs now have a U.S. Bank logo on the back so it begins to seem as if the University is not just providing U.S. Bank a space, it seems like they are delivering their students to U.S. Bank. Personally, I would resent that level of commercialization of my personal identification.”
But the bottom line kicker is that, rather than working with the university for some kind of workable arrangement in an effort to save a ten-year deal that they thought just two years before would be quite lucrative, U.S. Bank left.
In the March 1 letter to the Regents, US Bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke wrote, “U.S. Bank advised the Regents of their default resulting from the faculty and student protest at the Branch.”
Most provocatively, he called the employees virtual prisoners, writing, “The employees of U.S. Bank who, at times, arrived prior to the protesters, were effectively imprisoned in the Branch.”
Protesters vehemently deny the claim, arguing that the employees were allowed access both in and out of the building.
Mr. Hoke continued, “For well over a month now, U.S. Bank has been deprived of the use of the Branch because of the human barricade formed by the students and faculty in front of the door to the Branch. Notwithstanding the repeated demands of U.S. Bank, the Regents have not provided access to the Branch.”
Whether you believe the students or not, there no doubt was an intimidation factor, but I have never seen a case where a major U.S. business has abandoned ship in the face of non-violent protesters.
The protesters are the ones doing chest bumps now.
The usual suspects have issued apologies here, suggesting that the student body is victimized. Only a tiny fraction of the university utilized the services of US Bank. The money it brought the university was a drop in the bucket compared to expenses. And many students were resentful of the contract with the bank and their logo on their card.
So if it means that students can only use ATM’s on campus and have to walk a bit further to do transactions that cannot be completed remotely, I think it is but a small inconvenience to regaining the integrity of the university and a reminder that this is an educational endeavor, not a capitalistic enterprise.
Lines have been crossed. It is difficult to assess how this impacts the average student, more than 90 percent of whom did not open an account at U.S. Bank and none will even notice the $130,000 or so in money that the university will not get.
The bigger issue is that UC Davis needs to come up with a coherent policy for policing protests, and needs to avoid escalating to the kind of use of force that will cause the reaction of the pepper spray incident. At the same time, they need to avoid making their policy impotent.
It is a difficult balance, to be sure. But somehow, most law enforcement agencies are able to handle things correctly most of the time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]So if it means that students can only use ATM’s on campus and have to walk a bit further to do transactions that cannot be completed remotely, I think it is but a small inconvenience to regaining the integrity of the university and a reminder that this is an educational endeavor, not a capitalistic enterprise.
Lines have been crossed. It is difficult to assess how this impacts the average student, more than 90 percent of whom did not open an account at U.S. Bank and none will even notice the $130,000 or so in money that the university will not get.[/quote]
A few students do not have the right to decide for the rest of the students or decide for the University what can/cannot occur on campus. Once everyone starts down that road, it becomes a dangerous slippery slope. I find it very interesting and telling that this article appears to be blaming the victims (University; US Bank) instead of blaming the bullies (protestors)…
OccuPunks…….I love it Jeff
[quote]I find it very interesting and telling that this article appears to be blaming the victims (University; US Bank) instead of blaming the bullies (protestors)… [/quote]
Exactly, especially in light of DG’s statement, in another “Story,” that he plays “No Role!”
[quote]The bigger issue is that UC Davis needs to come up with a coherent policy for policing protests, and needs to avoid escalating to the kind of use of force that will cause the reaction of the pepper spray incident. At the same time, they need to avoid making their policy impotent.
It is a difficult balance, to be sure. [/quote]
Yes, it is a difficult balance, especially when students change tactics; outside agitators meld into the protest scene to help things along; faculty join in the protest; students use the press and daylight hours to their advantage. At this point, the University is clearly hesitant to use force, bc of the very recent and as yet unresolved pepper-spraying debacle, which is quite understandable. Further, the students themselves are the losers in the latest protest to oust US Bank, since there will be no more convenient banking services on campus and no more $$$ for student activities from US Bank. This article tries to minimize/rationalize away that loss, but the fact of the matter is that students effected had NO SAY in the decision to oust US Bank and the attendant loss of funds, and it impinges on their rights to have such services/perks. No one has the right to speak for the students effected; or decide for them; or to arbitrarily take away services bc someone else disagrees w those services.
The discussion of civil disobedience above misses a crucial point. The expectation of being arrested is the price the protestors pay for challenging authority. But if the civil disobedience crosses the line and starts to trample on everyone else’s rights, the rest of society pays the price of losing their rights/freedoms in the process and anarchy reigns – the right to receive an education unfettered by interruption from protestors, the right to banking services on campus and the attendant $$$ benefits that go along with it, the right of citizens to use a public road or park or facility in safety.
Yes it is a tough balancing act – where is the line between “peaceful protest” and “anarchy”? It is not an easy line to draw. And frankly, it is the protestors themselves who make the decision where the line is drawn. They initially control the situation, and they are the ones who decide which side of the line to come down on. Then and only then can the authorities make decisions on how to handle the issue if it does indeed cross the line. And it is not easy to deal with such a situation, as we saw in the pepper-spraying debacle. Events unfold over a short span of time, decisions have to be made on the spot, some students get more out of hand than others, etc.
“A few students do not have the right to decide for the rest of the students or decide for the University what can/cannot occur on campus.”
You’re missing a key point, they aren’t deciding for the rest of the students. And they didn’t decide. The university and the bank did.
I think there is a typo in your editorial. There was no protest at the intersection of Anderson and Russell on May 1, 2007.
Oh please David, the OccuPunks actions caused the bank’s closure.
Grad Student: I’m pretty sure you are wrong: link ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=416:mass-protests-and-arrests-in-davis-over-food-workers-contract&catid=62:organized-labor&Itemid=116&cpage=30[/url])
see image ([url]http://bp3.blogger.com/_9pR-0mkLeic/Rje2hHD6-YI/AAAAAAAAAMw/OFjkDPl2fe8/s1600-h/Davis+ASCME+Protest084.jpg[/url])
Rusty: if you say so.
[quote]”This could have been a story about the brilliance of the University of California.”[/quote]It’s nice to start Sunday out with a bit of humor. The [i]Vanguard[/i] “could have” written a story about “brilliance” of UCD’s leadership? Without being under the threat of severe bodily injury?
LOL, as they say. When pigs fly, as they say.
Thanks, JustSaying, I laughed.
rusty49
“…
Oh please David, the OccuPunks actions caused the bank’s closure.”
I disagree. Each side is responsible for their own actions.
The protestors are responsible for any illegal blockage of a business. The UCD police and/or administration are responsible for their decision to not arrest those breaking the law. The bank is responsible for it’s decision to close the branch rather than other available options such as choosing to work further with the university, or seek some mutually agreeable, if not optimal solution, as many clinics which perform abortion have come to terms with protesters who are in close proximity and definitely use intimidation as a tactic.
Quite simply, when dealing with adults in complicated systems, each party is responsible for their own input into the situation.
David
I have a question for you with regard to your “culpability” in supposedly empowering the protestors. Do you have any idea what proportion of UCD students even know that The Vanguard exists ?
Elaine
“outside agitators meld into the protest scene to help things along”
Your evidence that this happened in any of the recent UCD protests would be ?
rusty and Jeff: in the past I’ve pulled derogatory terms used for Tea Party members. So in the spirit of fair play, please don’t use derogatory terms for Occupy protesters. Thanks.
Medwoman: I don’t have a great appreciation for that. I will say that students are not the core Vanguard audience.
There is a funny story though. When I went to interview three of the pepper spray students at the quad a month ago. I was told by the media person for the ACLU that while teh students were reluctant to talk to Fox40 and KCRA, they were excited that the Vanguard was there and going to interview them.
That did not mean a lot in terms of readership, but it did make my day to hear that.
[quote]You’re missing a key point, they aren’t deciding for the rest of the students. And they didn’t decide. The university and the bank did.[/quote]
But for the actions of the protestors, the bank would still be on campus. Simple cause/effect legal analysis of who is liable here.
By that logic, if I hit someone’s vehicle, and the vehicle is totaled, I’ve decided that they can’t drive?
Quote from Chancellor Katehi:
[quote]The chancellor went on: “On Thursday, the group stayed overnight despite repeated reminders by university staff that their encampment violated university policies and they were requested to disperse. On Friday morning, the protestors were provided with a letter explaining university policies and reminding them of the opportunities the university provides for expression. Driven by our concern for the safety and health of the students involved in the protest, as well as other students on our campus, I made the decision not to allow encampments on the Quad during the weekend, when the general campus facilities are locked and the university staff is not widely available to provide support.
“During the early afternoon hours and because of the request to take down the tents, many students decided to dismantle their tents, a decision for which we are very thankful. However, a group of students and [b][i]non-campus affiliates[/i][/b] decided to stay. The university police then came to dismantle the encampment. The events of this intervention have been videotaped and widely distributed. As indicated in various videos, the police used pepper spray against the students who were blocking the way.”
[/quote]
Quote above is in response to medwoman’s comment:
[quote]Elaine
“outside agitators meld into the protest scene to help things along”
Your evidence that this happened in any of the recent UCD protests would be ?[/quote]
To medwoman: There was quite a bit of “talk” in the press/blogs about outside agitators at the pepper-spray debacle. Don’t know who specifically these “non-campus affiliates” were – in other words don’t know if they were ever specifically identified…
I talked to one of the “outside” agitators. He had graduated from UCD last spring and was in the process of applying to grad school at UCD. Most of these “outside” agitators were actually recent graduates who still lived in town. Also, citing from Katehi’s initial report is highly questionable, she did not have command of the facts at that point.
“in other words don’t know if they were ever specifically identified…”
Or even in fact if they existed ?
ERM said,
“But for the actions of the protestors, the bank would still be on campus. Simple cause/effect legal analysis of who is liable here”.
I suspect that U.S. Bank wasn’t doing near as well as they had anticipated with their on campus endeavor. Most likely student resentment over the commandeered ID cards led to a lack of business. In my experience businesses don’t go away over protests. They quit when they can’t make money. And the numbers here tell that story. The protesters were simply the last nail in the coffin for an already struggling business.
Students most likely chose Golden One credit Union, which also has an ATM on campus, for reasons of ethics.
To roger bockrath: Proof? If US Bank was not doing well, then how was the approx $160k generated that was given to the University. Someone on the blog indicated there were 2500 student accounts on campus. That does not sound like a failing business to me. Am I missing something? Altho all of this is beside the point, bc but for the protestors, the bank would still be operating on campus…
[quote]Or even in fact if they existed ?[/quote]
Katehi seemed to think they did – are you accusing Katehi of false statements?
[quote]I talked to one of the “outside” agitators. He had graduated from UCD last spring and was in the process of applying to grad school at UCD. Most of these “outside” agitators were actually recent graduates who still lived in town. Also, citing from Katehi’s initial report is highly questionable, she did not have command of the facts at that point.[/quote]
How many “outside” agitators did you talk to? It only takes one to cause trouble, especially if they are a “professional” at it…
[quote]By that logic, if I hit someone’s vehicle, and the vehicle is totaled, I’ve decided that they can’t drive?[/quote]
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The proper cause-effect analysis would be as follows: Vehicle A hits Vehicle B. There is damage to Vehicle B as a result. Therefore the driver of Vehicle A is responsible for the damage to Vehicle B, and is liable for those damages. Or to say it another way, but for Vehicle A hitting Vehicle B, there would have been no damage to Vehicle B.
What is an outside agitator in your estimation? Name them and identify how many of them were arrested on November 18.
“I have a question for you with regard to your “culpability” in supposedly empowering the protestors. Do you have any idea what proportion of UCD students even know that The Vanguard exists ?”
Again, in order to balance David’s tendency toward modesty about his Vanguard readership, the answer to your question is that EVERYbODY reads the Vanguard, or, at least, knows when he writes about them. I’d say that empowerment culpability rests much more with UCD when it refuses to act after civil disobedience events make the desired point and move into extended lawbreaking that disrupts functioning of the university for weeks.
[quote]What is an outside agitator in your estimation? Name them and identify how many of them were arrested on November 18.[/quote]
I’ll refer you to Katehi’s quote and my previous comment:
[quote]There was quite a bit of “talk” in the press/blogs about outside agitators at the pepper-spray debacle. Don’t know who specifically these “non-campus affiliates” were – in other words don’t know if they were ever specifically identified…[/quote]
Elaine
“Katehi seemed to think they did – are you accusing Katehi of false statements?”
I am accusing Katehi of nothing at all. But what you are making here is an appeal to authority ( in this case Katehi) with no substantiating evidence. I would like to see the facts behind Katehi’s statement, just as I would like to see the facts or preponderance of data behind any assertion before arriving at a conclusion. Being in a prominent position does not make your statements accurate. Katehi’s assertions should be subject to the same weight of evidence as anyone else’s. Perhaps because of my profession, I am a stickler for an evidence based approach and am inherently skeptical of appeals or deference to authority.
…
rusty and Jeff: in the past I’ve pulled derogatory terms used for Tea Party members. So in the spirit of fair play, please don’t use derogatory terms for Occupy protesters. Thanks.
Sorry, there’s a big difference between OccuPunk and tea bagger.
“Sorry, there’s a big difference between OccuPunk and tea bagger.”
There is a big difference between what an OccuPunk and a Tea bagger are, but not a big difference in terms of it being a derogatory remark expressly precluded by the user agreement.
“But for the actions of the protestors, the bank would still be on campus. Simple cause/effect legal analysis of who is liable here.”
And but for the actions of the university in raising tuitions and student fees, the students would not have been protesting.
How far back are you willing to push the cause and effect chain ? Or are you merely going to stop with the group whose actions of which you personally disapprove and hold them entirely responsible ?
rusty49
“Sorry, there’s a big difference between OccuPunk and tea bagger.”
It would seem to me that these are both being used as derogatory terms. Can you explain why you find one objectionable ane the other appropriate ?
“There is a big difference between what an OccuPunk and a Tea bagger are, but not a big difference in terms of it being a derogatory remark expressly precluded by the user agreement.”
Okay, but I’m going to hold you to this, no derogatory remarks whatsoever.
rusty: if you have any objection to the use of a specific term in a post, you can contact me at donshor@gmail.com.
I’m going to edit repeated use of derogatory terms in many cases, as I’ve done before, and discussions about moderation practices tend to derail threads. So I’m just letting you know now that posts that contain derogatory terms are likely to be edited without warning, and posts that discuss moderation practices will be pulled without warning.
[quote]”Where things start to fall apart is with their marketing. Student IDs now have a U.S. Bank logo on the back so it begins to seem as if the University is not just providing U.S. Bank a space, it seems like they are delivering their students to U.S. Bank. Personally, I would resent that level of commercialization of my personal identification.”[/quote]
While I am sympathetic to this idea I also think it is naive. Colleges and universities, especially public universities are scrambling to fill the void left by the huge drop in State funding we have seen. Tuition has risen steadily but not enough to make up for losses in State funding, and, of course, most OWS supporters would also object to increasing tuition. The UC once the crown jewel of public education is threatened with mediocrity.
Their is a bargain being struck here. USB doesn’t make much money on student accounts–what they potentially gain is long term loyalty from UC graduates, who tend to be more well healed than CSU or junior college students , on average. Is this right? Is the fact that the Wall Street Jnl or the Economist have for decades given low student subscription rates to students fair?
On balance I think the protestors are wrong on this one, though I do balk at seeing a USB logo on a student ID–perhaps they should be allowed to opt out of that one (though they might have to pay a few dollars for the privilege).
USB doesn’t want bad publicity. they are gone and won’t be back. What exactly did OWS accomplish here. As I mentioned yesterday, USB is one of the good ones. If it were B of A I’d have a somewhat different opinion frankly.
Dr. Wu
“… I do balk at seeing a USB logo on a student ID–perhaps they should be allowed to opt out of that one (though they might have to pay a few dollars for the priviledge. )”
Now that would have been a good idea. Or how about in true entrepreneurial spirit, allowing students to be rewarded ( say with a few dollars, or with discounts on some banking services or some other perk for choosing to voluntarily have the logo placed on their iD thus serving voluntarily as a walking advertisement for the bank. I guess it’s too late now, but might be worth considering for the future.
This is no big deal. Just take the lost revenue and add it to student fees. Students clearly have too much money and time on their hands. I saw a great quote on an [edit]s shirt yesterday down at the market “Eat, Sleep, Occupy”. That pretty much summarizes their value to society.
LOL, that is a great post Gunrock.
I think the whole thing is silly. Tho’ I never was inconvenienced by the protest, I didn’t see the point and felt that it would die out eventually. It didn’t stop people from accessing all of the other vendors in the hallway, including the Post Office a little down the way. As for the feeling that employees were trapped inside their bank, it is never clear if they tried to come and go, but were prevented. The new ID was a hassle to get. They scheduled times for staff and faculty to come and get their new ID’s over and over and each time something was wrong – the computer system wasn’t working, the camera wasn’t working, the only person trained on the system was out for the day. Since I don’t bank at US Bank, it didn’t change anything for me. It was an idea that did not work as planned and US Bank can move on. No big deal. I just hope that we aren’t asked to get new IDs.
[quote]”Their is a bargain being struck here. USB doesn’t make much money on student accounts–what they potentially gain is long term loyalty from UC graduates, who tend to be more well healed than CSU or junior college students , on average. Is this right?[/quote]I’m not sure “long term loyalty” is accurate after watching “Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders” this weekend.
By getting college students (not rich at all, but with good prospects for the future) into credit card hock, banks gain long-term “customers” for the [u]real money [/u]in banking, special fees and high interest for the minimum-monthly-payment debtors for years to come.
Of course, this bank card indictment came out six years ago, before the student loan scam overtook credit card debt and before we established the new consumer agency that will stop such crooked dealing from ever happening again. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxed_Out
Thanks to student housing, a hard-working wife, the G.I. Bill and a 32-hour-a week job, I finished college broke, but without debt. Our daughter completed a master’s degree with $30,000+ in student-loan debt and credit-card debt that she refused to disclose. I don’t think she was at all unusual then, and it seems worse now.
I work on campus and had a hand in an earlier version of the student ID card when it was sponsored by MCI and they put their logo on the card and gave students an option to use it as a calling card. Students were not happy. The campus did get a carding system they could not afford for the option and had an education on how to create their own debit card system which was all the rage of other universities at the time. So it was with some surprise when the USBank deal surfaced and students really didn’t make that big of a deal about it. On the plus side I understood the disbursement of financial aid was going to be improved via an ATM – without a USBank account. Never did get that confirmed. Was that true?
Secondly it is the UCD administrations fault that the USBank deal fell through. As the article stated, they failed to act to protect the business that was operating there. They were frozen. I can tell you – no one is running the ship – they don’t know what they are doing and I believe it is because the Chancellor is staying in the background to protect her career at least until the pepper spray report is released. It is just one stupid mistake after another due to lack of leadership. THAT is very transparent.
[quote]And but for the actions of the university in raising tuitions and student fees, the students would not have been protesting.
How far back are you willing to push the cause and effect chain ? Or are you merely going to stop with the group whose actions of which you personally disapprove and hold them entirely responsible ? [/quote]
Legal liability generally only goes one link back!
[quote]This is no big deal. Just take the lost revenue and add it to student fees. Students clearly have too much money and time on their hands. I saw a great quote on an [edit]s shirt yesterday down at the market “Eat, Sleep, Occupy”. That pretty much summarizes their value to society.[/quote]
I think you are missing an important point here. Adding the money to student fees punishes students who had no part in the protest…
[quote]I think the whole thing is silly. Tho’ I never was inconvenienced by the protest, I didn’t see the point and felt that it would die out eventually. It didn’t stop people from accessing all of the other vendors in the hallway, including the Post Office a little down the way. [/quote]
The protestors were no protesting the other vendors and the PO – the were specifically targeting USB…
“I think you are missing an important point here. Adding the money to student fees punishes students who had no part in the protest… “
Aside from that, we’re not talking about a noticeable amount of money. This was just a poorly handled situation.
The spoiled crybaby agitators cause a business to close its offices on the campus and somehow it’s US Bank’s fault in the eyes of some on this blog. That’s like saying if you’re walking down the street and you get mugged it’s your fault for being on the street.
Actually, the proper analogy is that you get mugged and based on that decide not to walk on the street next time.
David
If you say so….
They aren’t getting blames for being targeted (although they probably should be), they are getting blamed for making the decision to leave after being targeted. Hence your analogy is off.
If you say so…..
It’s hard to believe that anyone could make the public sympathetic to the banks. But the occupiers have done just that. Way to go.
In a March 1 letter to UC regents, U.S. Bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke said “…Occupy protesters had intermittently blocked the door to the Memorial Union bank branch since January.”
And,
“…the situation had become intolerable, noting that customers could not access the bank and employees sometimes felt imprisoned in the branch.”
Morover Hoke added,
“…repeated efforts to disperse Occupy protesters gathered illegally at the bank were not heeded and that
“U.S. Bank has been constructively evicted from the branch.
… The regents have been given [b]notice[/b] of their default and have
[i]failed to cure it.”[/i]
To JR and AdRemmer: Excellent points…
[quote]Actually, the proper analogy is that you get mugged and based on that decide not to walk on the street next time.
[/quote]IMO YOUR analogy is inapposite…
“IMO YOUR analogy is inapposite…”
How so, USB is not getting criticized because they are the victim, they are getting criticized because of how they chose to respond as the victim.