Tomas Matzat received good news and bad news on Friday. The good news is that, in part thanks to the vigilance of his friends and fellow occupiers, he and his attorney met with those in charge of the College of Letters and Science, and it was determined that he would be able to be reinstated as a student so long as he follows some unspecified terms and conditions.
Earlier in the day, Mr. Matzat was scheduled to be arraigned in front of Commissioner Janene Beronio. However, his attorney requested that the arraignment be delayed until May 11, where he will be arraigned by Judge Timothy Fall in Yolo County Superior County.
According to his attorney, Mr. Matzat faces 5 felony and 15 misdemeanor charges stemming from a string of incidents from January 24 to March 17.
The Davis Patch, unlike the Vanguard, was able to speak with Assistant Chief Deputy DA Michael Cabral who has been assigned to prosecute this matter. Mr. Cabral has repeatedly failed to return multiple requests for information that the Vanguard should be entitled to, as a matter of law.
Mr. Matzat faces five felony counts of vandalism where damage exceeds $400 under Penal Code 594. There are 14 additional counts of vandalism where the damage does not exceed $400 under the same penal code. And a misdemeanor count of possession of tools or marking substances with intent to commit vandalism.
“Markers, paint, that sort of thing,” said Assistant Chief Deputy DA Michael Cabral told the Davis Patch. “All of these occurred between Jan. 24 and March 17 of this year.”
Mr. Cabral would not elaborate on the specifics of the vandalism charges, telling the Davis Patch, he “can’t really comment on evidence at this time.” He described the vandalism as “slogans, pictures, a bit of everything.”
The Davis Patch further reported, “The evidence will eventually be specified in a preliminary hearing. Cabral says he is limited in what he can and can’t say at this point.”
It is a rare case when a supervising District Attorney is the one actually prosecuting the case. Most trials are tried by Deputy DA’s. This is the first case in which we have seen Michael Cabral, who has been in Yolo County for about a year, actually try a case.
Sources indicated that both the number of charges and the fact that the DA’s office is using a supervising DA to try to case indicate the seriousness with which they are taking this matter.
We do not yet know the specifics of this case or what Mr. Matzat is actually accused of doing.
However, this figures to be a lightning rod for further activity. Two dozen supporters showed up at court to support Mr. Matzat.
Next Friday, Mr. Matzat and 11 of his colleagues will have to appear before Commissioner Beronio again to be arraigned on misdemeanor charges stemming from the Bank Blocking incident.
Tomas Matzat suffered nerve damage when he was one of 10 arrested for misdemeanors during the camp clearing operation back in November 2011.
According to a press release from “Occupy UC Davis Antirepression Crew Media,” Mr. Matzat “was charged with Felony Vandalism and held in jail over the weekend and into finals week; his school supplies, phone and computer were all confiscated.”
“With no access to his contacts nor warning of the arrest, he was unable to contact legal representation. Incommunicado in jail, he was unable to take final exams, and was only bailed out (for $20,000) when concerned friends began looking for him after he had been missing for days,” they write.
“Several weeks later, both Student Judicial Affairs and Student Housing are threatening him with disciplinary measures including eviction and expulsion, in addition to the criminal charges they initiated through Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig” the press release continues.
“The student, who entered UCD as a transfer student last fall, is now facing expulsion based on poor academic performance, on top of criminal charges that may carry a 3-4 year sentence and $10,000 fine,” the release said.
“The charges against this student-activist are in line with the ongoing and systematic police and legal repression of the Occupy movement,” the group said. “Threatening people with inflated or trumped-up charges, a familiar tactic in many vulnerable communities, is now increasingly wielded as a strategy to chill political dissent on campuses – a way of exacting punishment in jail time, legal expenses, and interference with other obligations before the opportunity for trial.”
“This is the new de facto regime of guilty until proven innocent, and it should be opposed by every decent person,” said Joshua Clover, a professor at UCD.
Professor Clover declined further comment to the Vanguard, citing the pending legal charges against him.
The press release notes the Reynoso Task Force Report, which they argued “verified that the administration’s unfounded hysteria regarding the Occupy movement resulted in their extralegal use of force against student activists.”
The press release argues, “Importantly, the Reynoso Report also underscored the need for campus authorities to handle student political protest through already established, appropriate channels; namely through the SJA and Student Affairs – and not by means of police and criminal charges.”
They conclude, “We urge the UCD campus community and the general public to reject categorically the administration’s use of legal maneuvering to suppress political dissent.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“It is a rare case when a supervising District Attorney is the one actually prosecuting the case. Most trials are tried by Deputy DA’s. This is the first case that we have seen Michael Cabral who has been in Yolo County for about a year, actually try a case.
Sources indicated that both the number of charges and the fact that the DA’s office is using a supervising DA to try to case indicate the seriousness in which they are taking this matter.”
Then again, these same “sources” could be totally wrong with this assessment and characterization of the District Attorney’s Office.
Invariably, sources are anointed as being infallible and having wisdom beyond any of us mere mortals who hang on their every word. Surely, these undisclosed numbers of sources should be willing to give their identity. They apparently possess not only brilliance, but humility and modesty, too.
Yo, “Sources”, please step forward and let us examine you while you examine everything else. We can then measure your credibility and give you accountability for your hearsay published words. We’ll call it, “transparency.”
Imagine somebody else having “sources” and these other sources assess the same foundation paragraphs quoted above. The other sources would say that the DA’s Office has virtually ignored the relevance and importance of this case. They assigned some rookie who has never been seen in court before and and has been on staff in Yolo for just a year.
[quote]Tomas Matzat received good news and bad news on Friday. The good news is that, in part thanks to the vigilance of his friends and fellow occupiers, he and his attorney met with those in charge of the College of Letters and Science, and it was determined that he would be able to be reinstated as a student so long as he follows some unspecified terms and conditions.[/quote]
Let’s hope this student begins to realize he needs to stick to his studies rather than wasting time protesting since he is a marginal student. He needs to get his priorities straight…
Just as an aside, AFAIK, “protesting” is not a profession or way to earn a decent living…
“Let’s hope this student begins to realize he needs to stick to his studies rather than wasting time protesting since he is a marginal student. He needs to get his priorities straight…”
I think he is, however these charges threaten to undermine that
“Let’s hope this student begins to realize he needs to stick to his studies rather than wasting time protesting since he is a marginal student. He needs to get his priorities straight…”
I think he is, however these charges threaten to undermine that
” is not a profession or way to earn a decent living…”
Why is this statement necessary?
” is not a profession or way to earn a decent living…”
Why is this statement necessary?
“Just as an aside, AFAIK, ‘protesting’ is not a profession or way to earn a decent living… “
Neither is becoming a lecturer. But I digress.
The best route, the most decent route, the highest paid route, would be to study law enforcement. That way, you can earn a decent living chemical spraying those who live indecently, and teach them lessons about authority, and improve society that way.
“Just as an aside, AFAIK, ‘protesting’ is not a profession or way to earn a decent living… “
Neither is becoming a lecturer. But I digress.
The best route, the most decent route, the highest paid route, would be to study law enforcement. That way, you can earn a decent living chemical spraying those who live indecently, and teach them lessons about authority, and improve society that way.
“Why is this statement necessary?”
because apparently, beavis and butthead types like Matzat….haven’t figured it out.
civil: “The best route, the most decent route, the highest paid route, would be to study law enforcement. That way, you can earn a decent living chemical spraying those who live indecently, and teach them lessons about authority, and improve society that way.”
no, no. law enforcement should take a lesson from the occupiers…. quit your job, drop out of school to pitch tents for an unknown “cause”. which ultimately didn’t go anywhere, seeing as how the tuition problem remains unchanged after the smoke cleared.
“Why is this statement necessary?”
because apparently, beavis and butthead types like Matzat….haven’t figured it out.
civil: “The best route, the most decent route, the highest paid route, would be to study law enforcement. That way, you can earn a decent living chemical spraying those who live indecently, and teach them lessons about authority, and improve society that way.”
no, no. law enforcement should take a lesson from the occupiers…. quit your job, drop out of school to pitch tents for an unknown “cause”. which ultimately didn’t go anywhere, seeing as how the tuition problem remains unchanged after the smoke cleared.
[quote]I think he is, however these charges threaten to undermine that[/quote]
Lets not place any responsibility with Matzat, it’s easier to blame someone else.
[quote]I think he is, however these charges threaten to undermine that[/quote]
Lets not place any responsibility with Matzat, it’s easier to blame someone else.
I think my point was if the goal is to help the kid get his life back on track twenty criminal charges are an obvious barrier. It seems the DA may be more interested in making an example out of him.
I think my point was if the goal is to help the kid get his life back on track twenty criminal charges are an obvious barrier. It seems the DA may be more interested in making an example out of him.
The case could have been assigned to a supervising D.A. because it might actually be hard to win, and no one else in the office wanted to handle it. We don’t know exactly what the evidence is, nor defense.
If it weren’t for protesters, we’d still be a British colony, we’d still have segregation, women couldn’t vote, members of the military under 21 couldn’t vote……….
Too bad Germany didn’t have more protesters in the late 1930’s.
The case could have been assigned to a supervising D.A. because it might actually be hard to win, and no one else in the office wanted to handle it. We don’t know exactly what the evidence is, nor defense.
If it weren’t for protesters, we’d still be a British colony, we’d still have segregation, women couldn’t vote, members of the military under 21 couldn’t vote……….
Too bad Germany didn’t have more protesters in the late 1930’s.
I think my point was if the goal is to help the kid get his life back on track twenty criminal charges are an obvious barrier. It seems the DA may be more interested in making an example out of him.
that isn’t the goal. that is the problem with the vanguards thinking, and 9/10 of the problem with judicial watch. It is always about what’s best for the defendant and how he can turn his own life around. Putting yourself in the defendants’s shoes and noone else’s. The perpetrator caused people at the US bank to lose their jobs working there – decided that his own political statement ought to come at their personal expense – both literally and figuratively speaking.
I think my point was if the goal is to help the kid get his life back on track twenty criminal charges are an obvious barrier. It seems the DA may be more interested in making an example out of him.
that isn’t the goal. that is the problem with the vanguards thinking, and 9/10 of the problem with judicial watch. It is always about what’s best for the defendant and how he can turn his own life around. Putting yourself in the defendants’s shoes and noone else’s. The perpetrator caused people at the US bank to lose their jobs working there – decided that his own political statement ought to come at their personal expense – both literally and figuratively speaking.
eagle eye said . . .
[i]”The case could have been assigned to a supervising D.A. because it might actually be hard to win, and no one else in the office wanted to handle it. We don’t know exactly what the evidence is, nor defense.
[b]If it weren’t for protesters, we’d still be a British colony, we’d still have segregation, women couldn’t vote, members of the military under 21 couldn’t vote……….[/b]”[/i]
eagle eye,
In terms of broad societal impact how does the revolt of the colonies compare with having a bank branch on campus providing services that students have expressed a desire for?
In terms of broad societal impact how does segregation compare with having a bank branch on campus providing services that students have expressed a desire for?
In terms of broad societal impact how does women getting the vote compare with having a bank branch on campus providing services that students have expressed a desire for?
In terms of broad societal impact how does providing members of the military under 21 with the right to vote compare with having a bank branch on campus providing services that students have expressed a desire for?
My basic problem with what Mr. Matzat and his cohorts have done is that they have chosen to protest what is fundamentally a trivial problem, if it is even is a problem.
The absence of any Black Studies curriculum at Cornell or Columbia or Berkeley in 1969 had enough broad societal impact to be worth protesting. Protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has enough broad societal impact to be worth protesting. A bank branch on campus?
What is going to be protested next, the presence of a cafeteria on campus? Bonnie Raitt making money by singing on campus? Both of those are “privatized endeavors.” How about sitting in at the dorm room doors of the privately run dormitories on campus? Shouldn’t the students be denied access to those services just as the students who chose to use US Bank were denied access to the bank’s services?
Bottom-line, IMHO the battles you are choose to wage need to rise to a higher standard.
eagle eye said . . .
[i]”The case could have been assigned to a supervising D.A. because it might actually be hard to win, and no one else in the office wanted to handle it. We don’t know exactly what the evidence is, nor defense.
[b]If it weren’t for protesters, we’d still be a British colony, we’d still have segregation, women couldn’t vote, members of the military under 21 couldn’t vote……….[/b]”[/i]
eagle eye,
In terms of broad societal impact how does the revolt of the colonies compare with having a bank branch on campus providing services that students have expressed a desire for?
In terms of broad societal impact how does segregation compare with having a bank branch on campus providing services that students have expressed a desire for?
In terms of broad societal impact how does women getting the vote compare with having a bank branch on campus providing services that students have expressed a desire for?
In terms of broad societal impact how does providing members of the military under 21 with the right to vote compare with having a bank branch on campus providing services that students have expressed a desire for?
My basic problem with what Mr. Matzat and his cohorts have done is that they have chosen to protest what is fundamentally a trivial problem, if it is even is a problem.
The absence of any Black Studies curriculum at Cornell or Columbia or Berkeley in 1969 had enough broad societal impact to be worth protesting. Protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has enough broad societal impact to be worth protesting. A bank branch on campus?
What is going to be protested next, the presence of a cafeteria on campus? Bonnie Raitt making money by singing on campus? Both of those are “privatized endeavors.” How about sitting in at the dorm room doors of the privately run dormitories on campus? Shouldn’t the students be denied access to those services just as the students who chose to use US Bank were denied access to the bank’s services?
Bottom-line, IMHO the battles you are choose to wage need to rise to a higher standard.
If it weren’t for protesters, we’d still be a British colony, we’d still have segregation, women couldn’t vote, members of the military under 21 couldn’t vote……….
Too bad Germany didn’t have more protesters in the late 1930’s….
no, but Germany had its share of protestors in the 20’s, one of which led the famous beer hall putch…..
we also had a major war protest in 1863, which led to the destruction of pieces of New York, the lynching of blacks.
If it weren’t for protesters, we’d still be a British colony, we’d still have segregation, women couldn’t vote, members of the military under 21 couldn’t vote……….
Too bad Germany didn’t have more protesters in the late 1930’s….
no, but Germany had its share of protestors in the 20’s, one of which led the famous beer hall putch…..
we also had a major war protest in 1863, which led to the destruction of pieces of New York, the lynching of blacks.
“I think my point was if the goal is to help the kid get his life back on track twenty criminal charges are an obvious barrier. It seems the DA may be more interested in making an example out of him. “
People who break the law purposely, publicly and repeatedly get arrested and convicted and sentenced to some kind of punishment. The kid wont’t get “his life back on track” until he has some desire to do that. He says he got hurt from the plastic cuffs when he was arrested. Did that encourage him to stop law-breaking? The charges were dropped; did that encourage him to try to get his life back on track? Instead, he joined the bank blocade, knowing he was breaking the law. He intentionaly destroyed university property, vandalizing repeatedly.
He is encouraged in his illegal behavior by Professors Clover and Brown, who are using the demonstrators to advance their personal anarchist (“we are the law here now”) views of a university run by professors rather than evil administrators.
Have either of these two professional troublemakers considered helping Mr. Matzat keep his grades up while egging him on to break the law?
Too bad for Mr. Matzah and the other blocade demonstrators that the Clover and Brown objectives are just as effectively advanced by students being arrested and expelled. Anything that troubles the UCD administration is a big plus for Clover and Brown. To think we pay them to educate our children. Shame.
Why do you think Mr. Matzat has the slightest interest in turning around his life at this particular point in his hoodlum life? And why do you think that discouraging potential future lawbreakers isn’t a good reason to aggressively prosecute someone who spent most of two months purposely breaking the law nearly two dozen times?
If the two professors would volunteer to do some public service or jail time on behalf of the kids they’ve so terribly mislead, I’d say give him one more break. I’ll lay money that all three of them will be out trying to break the law again before this semester is over.
“I think my point was if the goal is to help the kid get his life back on track twenty criminal charges are an obvious barrier. It seems the DA may be more interested in making an example out of him. “
People who break the law purposely, publicly and repeatedly get arrested and convicted and sentenced to some kind of punishment. The kid wont’t get “his life back on track” until he has some desire to do that. He says he got hurt from the plastic cuffs when he was arrested. Did that encourage him to stop law-breaking? The charges were dropped; did that encourage him to try to get his life back on track? Instead, he joined the bank blocade, knowing he was breaking the law. He intentionaly destroyed university property, vandalizing repeatedly.
He is encouraged in his illegal behavior by Professors Clover and Brown, who are using the demonstrators to advance their personal anarchist (“we are the law here now”) views of a university run by professors rather than evil administrators.
Have either of these two professional troublemakers considered helping Mr. Matzat keep his grades up while egging him on to break the law?
Too bad for Mr. Matzah and the other blocade demonstrators that the Clover and Brown objectives are just as effectively advanced by students being arrested and expelled. Anything that troubles the UCD administration is a big plus for Clover and Brown. To think we pay them to educate our children. Shame.
Why do you think Mr. Matzat has the slightest interest in turning around his life at this particular point in his hoodlum life? And why do you think that discouraging potential future lawbreakers isn’t a good reason to aggressively prosecute someone who spent most of two months purposely breaking the law nearly two dozen times?
If the two professors would volunteer to do some public service or jail time on behalf of the kids they’ve so terribly mislead, I’d say give him one more break. I’ll lay money that all three of them will be out trying to break the law again before this semester is over.
[quote] Tomas Matzat suffered nerve damage when he was one of 10 arrested for misdemeanors during the camp clearing operation back in November 2011. [/quote]
This seems like a self-serving claim by the alleged criminal and his supporters. Why does the Vanguard report it as if it was a fact? Has a doctor’s report been entered into evidence? Does dmg have expertise in evaluating nerve damage?
[quote] Tomas Matzat suffered nerve damage when he was one of 10 arrested for misdemeanors during the camp clearing operation back in November 2011. [/quote]
This seems like a self-serving claim by the alleged criminal and his supporters. Why does the Vanguard report it as if it was a fact? Has a doctor’s report been entered into evidence? Does dmg have expertise in evaluating nerve damage?
Apparently this is part the standard description of Mr. Matzat, like his first name, that keeps appearing for no apparent reason. I read about in the [i]Vanguard[/i] on April 18, leading off a story about how he “Faces Felony Charges and Possible Expulsion For Vandalism.”[quote]”Thomas Matzat suffered nerve damage when he was one of 10 arrested for misdemeanors during the camp clearing operation back in November 2011. On Friday, he will be one of 12 arraigned on misdemeanor charges….”[/quote]Then, I read it again on April 20 when I read another [i]Vanguard[/i] story on “Student Faces Arraignment, Hearing on Student Status on Friday”: [quote]”The hearing was finally confirmed by the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office. Thomas Matzat suffered nerve damage when he was one of 10 arrested for misdemeanors during the camp-clearing operation back in November 2011.”[/quote]After I read it again today in this story–for the third time in as many days–I decided it must be true or David wouldn’t be saying it over and over. Maybe the medical reports just came in. The question I have is: “Why?” Maybe his lawyer wants us to feel sorry for him for some reason.
Apparently this is part the standard description of Mr. Matzat, like his first name, that keeps appearing for no apparent reason. I read about in the [i]Vanguard[/i] on April 18, leading off a story about how he “Faces Felony Charges and Possible Expulsion For Vandalism.”[quote]”Thomas Matzat suffered nerve damage when he was one of 10 arrested for misdemeanors during the camp clearing operation back in November 2011. On Friday, he will be one of 12 arraigned on misdemeanor charges….”[/quote]Then, I read it again on April 20 when I read another [i]Vanguard[/i] story on “Student Faces Arraignment, Hearing on Student Status on Friday”: [quote]”The hearing was finally confirmed by the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office. Thomas Matzat suffered nerve damage when he was one of 10 arrested for misdemeanors during the camp-clearing operation back in November 2011.”[/quote]After I read it again today in this story–for the third time in as many days–I decided it must be true or David wouldn’t be saying it over and over. Maybe the medical reports just came in. The question I have is: “Why?” Maybe his lawyer wants us to feel sorry for him for some reason.
“that isn’t the goal. that is the problem with the vanguards thinking, and 9/10 of the problem with judicial watch.”
Part of the problem is that you don’t sit in a courtroom. In almost all matters that do not involve one party being physically injured, one of the chief goals of the judge is to figure out the best way to get the person out of their present circumstances and how to be a productive member of society.
“that isn’t the goal. that is the problem with the vanguards thinking, and 9/10 of the problem with judicial watch.”
Part of the problem is that you don’t sit in a courtroom. In almost all matters that do not involve one party being physically injured, one of the chief goals of the judge is to figure out the best way to get the person out of their present circumstances and how to be a productive member of society.
“He is encouraged in his illegal behavior by Professors Clover and Brown, who are using the demonstrators to advance their personal anarchist (“we are the law here now”) views of a university run by professors rather than evil administrators.”
I don’t know to what extent he was encouraged to do anything, he certainly did not need much prodding. From what I have observed, the professors are not the ones planning this stuff anyway.
“Have either of these two professional troublemakers considered helping Mr. Matzat keep his grades up while egging him on to break the law?”
What I do know is that he has been told by others in the movement to stop protesting and deal with his grades. He’s been given a second chance.
You have some kind of misplaced sense that the professors are the ones calling the shots here and that the students are their dupes. Perhaps it is because I got to see a little bit more first hand what was going on this week and I saw in which direction activity flowed.
Part of the problem is that you don’t sit in a courtroom. In almost all matters that do not involve one party being physically injured, one of the chief goals of the judge is to figure out the best way to get the person out of their present circumstances and how to be a productive member of society.
there you go again. the judge according to you, is supposed to think about the situation in terms of how to help the defendant. Again, its always about him and noone else. By the way, the bank and its employees were negatively affected by this, so that claim about non-injury to another party doesn’t apply here.
“there you go again. the judge according to you, is supposed to think about the situation in terms of how to help the defendant.”
Actually what I said is that they often do.
David, how do you feel about my points posted above that:
1) the choice of a local bank branch on campus rather than in off campus is trivial when compared to historical protests of note, and
2) if the protesters are balanced in their efforts they should be blocking privately run dormitories and privately performed music events as well as privately run banking services.
Matt: My basic problem with your view is that as a society I don’t think we have the right to base our response to a protest on the substance of the protest itself. We can’t have one set of rules for worthy protests and another set of rules for unworthy ones.
The point is really about rights and consequences and the constitution doesn’t distinguish on these matters whether we view this is a worthy or unworthy cause – in fact we wouldn’t want it to.
Reasonable response, but where do you draw the line between a protest and a nuisance?
You have answered my first question. How about the second one? Shouldn’t the protesters out of a sense of fairness be blocking privately run dormitories and privately performed music events as well as privately run banking services?
Matt: At the risk of sounding trite, one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.
I think nuisance versus protest is mostly a matter of perspective and how much one is inconvenienced by an activity.
In terms of your second question, my first response is don’t give them any ideas. I think the bank was a perfect target of opportunity both in terms of how it was situated and in terms of the symbol of banking in the Occupy Movement along with the contract with UC sticking in the craw of many in terms of the emblazoned logo on the ID cards and what that came to represent. That does not preclude them from picking other activities.
Not trite at all.
I realize that my perspective at 64 is a whole lot different than my perspective was at 21, but I guess it all boils down to the fact that I don’t find the Occupy Movement’s message targeting the banks’ involvement in educational finance as a compelling one. From a very practical perspective, if it weren’t for the Federal Student Loan Programs and the willingness of the banks to lend money under those programs, how many of the protesters (or students as a whole for that matter) would even be in college?
Matt:
that’s actually part of the problem. I’m between you and the students in age, I still have near $100,000 in student aid debt and Cecilia has like $50,000. There is a movement to possible provide amnesty for that debt which is crippling the younger generation of students. It’s almost like health insurance in that it has likely contributed to the rise in the costs of education.
I understand David, but how does the interest charged to students raise the costs for educational institutions like UCD? Those interest costs are external to UCD, not internal.
If you are talking about the total fiscal burden that a college education places on the students then I have to ask, are the banks not charging the interest rates that the government has set as standard?
Said another way, what is the gripe that anyone has with the banks in this scenario?
One can object to the way that universities and colleges manage their budgets, and the resultant tuition and fees that are charged as a result. One can object to the fact that (unrealistically) universities and colleges went for years and years charging tuition and fees that were unsustainable. But bottom-line, how have the banks contributed to any of the legitimate complaints about how universities and coilleges manage their budgets?
“
I understand David, but how does the interest charged to students raise the costs for educational institutions like UCD? Those interest costs are external to UCD, not internal.”
I would argue it’s more a matter of deferring supply and demand.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I would argue it’s more a matter of deferring supply and demand.”[/i]
I’m not sure I quite understand what you mean by “deferring.” If the loan programs have any effect on the higher education supply/demand curve, I would say that they increase the demand side substantially, just the way that the presence of the mortgage market increases demand for ownership housing.
I would also say that in large part the microeconomics of the education marketplace are unique. In effect the workings of the supply side and the demand side work independently of one another. Universities don’t price their products on the basis of market demand, but rather (much like healthcare reimbursement prior to the implementation of the Prospective Payment System [PPS] in 1982) the pricing of education is effectively on a “cost plus” basis. The educational institutions or systems tally up their costs of operation, and then set the price of the service (education is after all a service rather than a product) at a level that covers the costs with a small margin to account for budget overruns.
The burden that the loans to students adds to the overall functioning of the educational marketplace really only operates on the demand side.
What I mean by “defer” is that you end up making your decision to go to school and you don’t worry at that time about the impact of the student loan debt or the impact of fee increases as a result.
I agree.
The question I have though is what does the Occupy Movement believe the banks can/should do to address that?
It is interesting that in the last month US Bank has gotten out of the student loan business.
“You have some kind of misplaced sense that the professors are the ones calling the shots here and that the students are their dupes. Perhaps it is because I got to see a little bit more first hand what was going on this week and I saw in which direction activity flowed.”
And you’ve had to purposely ignore all of the other reporting and the professors own exhortations to be able to pretend that Brown and Clover haven’t been encouraging these students to conduct the illegal actions they’ve carried out. Is this really what we pay professors to do at UCD?
What is the professors’ role now that you’ve gotten “a bit more first hand” look this week. Are they more quiet now than they’ve been in tha past months?
“I still have near $100,000 in student aid debt and Cecilia has like $50,000. There is a movement to possible provide amnesty for that debt which is crippling the younger generation of students.”
And you think this somehow justifies shutting down the UCD bank branch using blockade techniques….why?
I wouldn’t give much hope for student loan amnesty. At more than our credit card debt level, there’s not enough spare cash available to cover student loans. Anyway, Republicans want to spend all of our “extra” money on tax relief for rich guys.
I heard some tv commentator this weekend suggest that student loan levels should be based on the earning potential of the major being studied. That would saved a lot of us from serious agony had the rule been in place a few years ago.
“
And you think this somehow justifies shutting down the UCD bank branch using blockade techniques….why?”
I find your arguments tiresome and predictable. You and Elaine like to pull a statement and then take it out of context. For some reason you interpret an explanation as a justification.
JustSaying, I tend to agree with David’s explanation/justification statement above (although “tiresome” is a bit harsh). My comments in this thread clearly question the judgment of the students in their choice of a target, but there is no denying that the current economic conditions no doubt create conditions that are very daunting for a very large proportion of this generation of students, and David’s example gives those conditions a personal context.
By what he said, David made me think about the times in my life when it appeared that no matter what I did to try and move forward, circumstances conspired to thwart my efforts. Wanting to lash out at what you perceive are the contributors to those circumstances is an understandable reaction. However, the fact that it is understandable doesn’t change (for me) the fact that choosing US Bank’s on-campus branch as a target was bad judgment pure and simple.
David, I’m sorry “tiresome and predictable” is what you get. When you keep repeating the same stories and the same justifications for for the same acts of lawbreaking, I’m torn between asking you for more to support your contentions or just ignoring the story this time around since we’ve hashed out every one of the points at least once before.
You say my view of the professors’ role in encouraging students’ actions is born of ignorance when it’s based on reports in this and other publications as well as the professors’ own words in letters and blogs. You continue to claim you somehow know more about what’s in the minds of the the bank, the university administration and the DA than anyone else, but ignore half the questions that provide you an opportunity to display why your opinion is more than simple speculation based on your knowledge of their bad hearts and motives.
My choice in the past has been to question the same old claims with the “tiresome and predictable” retorts (unless I can come up with a more fresh response). I intend to change my ways.
[quote]You and Elaine like to pull a statement and then take it out of context. For some reason you interpret an explanation as a justification.[/quote]
Where in this article did I pull something you said out of context, that would warrant the above criticism? I’m baffled…
Matt, I also tend to agree. It reveals my frustration in trying to find the reasons for David’s selections of the good guys and the bad guys. Upon reflection, it was less repetitive than snotty.
I’d planned to respond to David’s mention of the amnesty discussion–see the other five sentences–but wondered whether he felt his personal situation plays into his insistence that shutting down a bank branch that serves students helps solve anything.
I long ago give my own unfavorable evaluation of how the federal school loan program (in league with schools and banks) has established a circle of more money for schools and banks and decades of debt for students. We still have many years of payments to make in our family. However, that doesn’t keep me from being able to separate purposeful lawbreaking from acts of speaking out and demonstrating for a cause.
Sometimes being tiresome and predictable can encourage change. Since it isn’t working with the Vanguard, in the future,I’ll respond once and ignore repetitions of the same stories (regardless of how grating and irritating the subsequent repeats become).
Sorry, I just saw Elaine’s question. While you’re answering her, maybe you could explain why you feel your student loan comments were “pulled out of context.” This is the ONLY time I will ask you this question.
” You continue to claim you somehow know more about what’s in the minds of the the bank, the university administration and the DA than anyone else, but ignore half the questions that provide you an opportunity to display why your opinion is more than simple speculation based on your knowledge of their bad hearts and motives.”
Just Saying: I don’t know what is on the minds of anyone. But I do judge their actions. I am critical of both the University and the Bank on this one, because I think they mishandled a simple situation.
As I wrote yesterday, there has been a suggestion that the protesters have somehow resisted arrest – that has never been charged and not my understanding of what occurred. The University needed to arrest and clear the path for the bank to operate.
You have in the past suggested that they would simply come back the next day. So what? I was a kid at the time, but remember well the anti-nuclear demonstrations at Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo. The protesters would cross the line, get arrested, get released, come back and do it again. Eventually they got tired and went home.
[quote]”You have in the past suggested that they would simply come back the next day. So what? I was a kid at the time, but remember well the anti-nuclear demonstrations at Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo. The protesters would cross the line, get arrested, get released, come back and do it again. Eventually they got tired and went home.”[/quote]And that, of course, is the whole point. Even daily arrest-and-release confrontations would have changed nothing. The blockaders would “come back and do it again”–day after day for months–until the bank gave in (maybe on the same day as bank officials closed without the arrests).
Your scheme has the added disadvantage of causing injury to Mr. Matzat’s other wrist, if not during his second arrest then during his 8th or 17th or 25th or 57th. You must see why the Diablo Canyon arrest-and-release approach in a university building might not have been the most appealing option to the chancellor.
Maybe you’re correct that the demonstrators would have given up before the bank would have–if only UCD police would have dragged them away over and over. But, that’s as speculative as anything else and is burdened with the potential for violence or errors in police judgement.
Except you missed the point, the Nuclear Plant never gave in, they opened up despite the protests.
“But, that’s as speculative as anything else and is burdened with the potential for violence or errors in police judgement. “
This probably lies at the heart of your beliefs that the students are inherently violent. The police maybe. But the students are not.
[quote]”This probably lies at the heart of your beliefs that the students are inherently violent. The police maybe. But the students are not.”[/quote]I’ve never said (or even hinted at) such a thing. I’m pleased to accept your testimonial that students are not “inherently violent,” but it’s not necessary.
And, your nasty charge about what lies at the heart of a belief I don’t have and never have expressed doesn’t change the fact that officials might reasonably have weighed potential for violence when considering your “arrest the demonstrators” option.
Obviously, I missed your point that the power plant outlasted the demonstrators. I thought you were suggesting the arrest strategy would discourage the demonstrators fairly quickly. The motivation for continuing banking in a ten-year agreement is much less continuing building a nuclear plant that still stands.
Speculate all you want about how quickly arrests would have discouraged the bank blockaders, but don’t get all huffy when someone speculates something else. And, in the long run, blaming the bank instead–without any support or facts for that view–for their decision doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
But, I’ve exhausted myself on the many resurrections of the Bank Blockade story.