Byung Kyu Park's Personal Website

These people are unbelievable.

Signs illegally put up at Wheeler on Dec. 9, 2009

You probably heard about occupation of Wheeler by students (and non-students, as not all protesters were students at UC Berkeley) in the week before Thanksgiving. They caused thousands of students to miss their class—or deal with the extreme inconvenience of re-scheduling at the last moment. These people are trying the same thing again. Just before the finals week.

Apparently their motto is “open university”, “24/7″, “education is a right, not a commodity”, etc. And unless I am reading the wrong news, their goal is to stop the university from raising student fees, force them to keep hiring custodians that it may not need (or at least can afford to lay off, as far as work load goes), and, I don’t know, use black magic to make money when none is forthcoming from the state?

Well. If these people have their way, yes, we will have an open university, as in buildings will be open and classrooms will be open to public (as if they weren’t before; you could, as long as I have been in UC Berkeley, practically walk into any class and “audit” it without paying or any registration; no instructor would have stopped you; it’s the diploma you need to pay for, not education), in fact, if these people have their way, the buildings will even be clean, thanks to a glut of custodians.

Too bad the classrooms will not have competent lecturers and labs will not have prolific researchers. Too bad, after paying for custodians, building upkeep, and not raising student fees to raise necessary funds, the university will not be able to attract the top faculty. Too bad, with all these protests and disruptions to research and education, prospective faculty and students will turn away from UC Berkeley—if they care about education and research.

Support these people if you want UC Berkeley to become a diploma mill. I know their motto is “education is not a commodity”, but well, if they have their way, UC Berkeley diploma will become a commodity, a piece of paper without the prestige it used to carry.

Update: I’m not going to claim all or even most protesters are violent criminals. But given that about 70 of them are, if you support the protesters, you risk supporting criminals who would endanger others’ lives and destroy properties. Is that what you want to do?

Prof. Muller puts it perfectly

Among the speakers was physics professor Richard Muller, who was arrested during the 1964 Sproul Hall sit-in. Ultimately, Muller said, the Free Speech Movement was a failure because of today’s intolerance on campus.

“We could not invite Condoleezza Rice here, as a prominent black woman, because of the fear she would be booed down,” he said. “We have less free speech today than on the day I was arrested.”

This is all very consistent with the typical “liberal” sentiments today: freedom for me but not for thee. Nowhere can we find any hint of Voltaire’s attitude “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

And how typically “liberal” of them to have such an elevated opinion of themselves:

Some Free Speech Movement veterans who watched Wednesday’s event said the current issues have yet to take on a life of their own, as they did in the 1960s. But many on the Berkeley campus at first ignored rallies 45 years ago, said Bob Roundy, an analyst in the academic personnel office who was a UC Berkeley student in the 1960s.

“The broader understanding (of the issues) grew with the Free Speech Movement,” he said. “It wasn’t instantaneous.”

One former leader of the movement told current students to keep up the fight.

“What you’re seeing here today is really a continuation of the fights we went through,” Gretchen Lipow told the group as many protesters chatted among themselves. “Do your research and stay out there.”

A free speech movement speaks to human nature itself. Freedom of expression is inalienable right given to us by Creator Himself (or, if you don’t believe in a Creator, the process of evolution which culminated in the human race). That’s why Free Speech Movement became what it became and carries the legacy it carries. Had it been described as the anti-Vietnam War movement we wouldn’t even consider it worth talking about it now—that war’s over now, right?

The fight that protesters today fight are not the same fight that was fought in the 60s. Free Speech Movement was everyone’s movement—no reasonable person is ever against reasonable (i.e. not violence-inciting) freedom of speech. The fight today—fight to keep UC public university, fight to stop raising student fees, fight to re-hire union workers who got laid off—is not everyone’s fight; it’s definitely not my fight: I believe the future of UC Berkeley as an academic institution and not a diploma factory lies in further privatization and enlargement of endowments; I see the economic reality and don’t really blame the administration for raising student fees (it was the best among the realistic options they had); and I’d rather that the administration fire custodians than lecturers and, god forbid, GSIs.

But now, on this campus, could I voice these sentiments (say, on Sproul plaza at one of those rallies) and not feel threat to my personal safety? Perhaps I could—I never tried it—but I do not risk it, not in person. And that is the failure of Free Speech Movement. We have less freedom of speech—if by speech you mean to include commonsense conservative opinions, and by freedom if you mean freedom from demonization and threats—on this campus today.

Academic Senate has issued an open letter to those protesting fee hikes (PDF).

We share the anguish over the policies adopted in the face of the state’s abrupt 20% disinvestment in higher education. The budget shortfall wounds the institution and community we cherish. We believe these policies are a regrettable but necessary response to the state’s actions. While we are committed to doing everything we can to mitigate their effects on the most vulnerable populations of
our students and staff, we recognize that many disagree deeply, and that vigorous and vocal protest is an understandable response. The passionate advocacy of students, staff, and faculty for the University and its public mission has been remarkable.

Many of the protest activities were appropriate forms of peaceful advocacy. We are concerned, however, about activities at several campuses that disrupted our educational mission and interfered with the freedom of fellow students, faculty, and staff, to teach, learn, research, and work. We are especially concerned about group protests in which a number of individuals attempted to move past police barricades, physically threaten and throw objects at police, and surround vehicles to trap those within. These activities are unlawful and disrespectful of the rights of others, and they create a serious risk of violence for everyone in the area: police, protestors, and bystanders. A number of injuries, some serious, were sustained last week by both protestors and police officers.

While a number of criticisms may apply to this open letter (it passes the buck to the state, it doesn’t address any of the real issues, etc., etc.), I guess I should be happy that at least “weak-kneed” doesn’t apply this time, as it usually does when UC officials act. At least they are condemning protesters—some of which are not even UC students—who occupy campus buildings and set off fire alarms.

Frankly, if you have ever supported (either in heart or deed) the so-called “strikes” and demonstrations in the past month or two, look at what the protesters have done and ask yourself: who is helping university achieve its missions better, the protesters protesting against the economic reality with no real alternatives of their own, or students, GSIs, and faculty who are continuing to perform their duty amid hardship?

It is time for choosing. Choose to side with the workers, builders, and maintainers of UC’s reputation, not the destroyers.

It’s been my position as long as I can remember: I hate exercising. 9th grade P.E. class was all I could handle. After that, I took a P.E. summer school so that I can get out of 10th grade P.E. and I was done with exercising after that.

But recently, I’ve found three very convincing reasons which convinced me that I need to exercise in a gym (as an example, run on a treadmill):

1) Running on a treadmill, unlike running on a track, uses electricity. This helps cycle the electrons through our power grid and helps release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—I’m not just warming myself up, but I’m warming up the earth, too!

2) Running on a treadmill, unlike, well, not running, helps me breathe out more carbon dioxide. As everyone knows, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that we have in our atmosphere only in minuscule amount (some hundred parts per million), and everyone needs to do their part to increase it.

Anyways. I guess it’s good thing RSF is open at 6 a.m. I mean it doesn’t help so much since it is still relatively full even at that hour, but at least when I’m out of RSF, I don’t see too many people walking around at 7 a.m.—I just hate people so much.

Schwimmer makes a convincing case that GOP needs to go nuclear.

Incidentally, he links to this UC Berkeley page where helpful instructions for building a nuclear bomb is laid out, step by step with complete list of vendors and reliable contractors who can do the job.

Oh, wouldn’t it be ironic that UC Berkeley is helping GOP go nuclear?

Apparently 1000 faculty signed a petition saying, “that workers earning under $40,000 a year be exempted from mandatory furloughs and pay cuts that began this month for most of the system’s staff and faculty.”

Well, that sounds like a good idea. And in fact, we can make that program, demand, plan, or whatever you call it, pay for itself, by increasing the furloughs for these 1000 faculty! After all, the faculty should take their fair share of the cut, and as a more highly-paid individual, they should share a larger percentage (percentage of their usual earnings) of the burden!

If you don’t see the absurdity of this proposal (or the even more absurd proposal that the university increase spending in any area without corresponding cuts elsewhere, especially when there is no profit margin to serve as a buffer), then we are not going to see eye to eye. If you don’t see the hypocrisy of faculty protesting these cuts without making personal contributions (hey, how about some donation to the university?) to make the cuts unnecessary, I am not sure if I want to talk to you even. This is the same hypocrisy you see in some white proponents of affirmative action who would not resign from their positions of power so that a black person or another minority can take their position instead.

I frankly didn’t see the crowd firsthand. I came to work at 8 a.m., crossed the picket line as I wanted to, and did my job. The picture makes it look like a sizable crowd in the Sproul Plaza, but then, UC Berkeley does have 30,000 students and all they had to do was walk 5, 10 minutes to get to the rally location, so excuse me for doubting the enthusiasm of the crowd there.

P.S. BTW, who ever chose red the color to show support for this rally? Red? Really? Couldn’t you have chosen something else? Like blue and gold, maybe? I’m not the one to get hung up on vain symbolism, but why did they have to choose the color of communism to identify the rally with? And why did any American student choose to wear it?

Somewhat weak-kneed response from the Academic Senate says:

The Berkeley Senate Divisional Council shares the deep concern of all faculty, students, and staff about the terrible effects of the budget cuts imposed on the public teaching and research mission of the University. However, after discussion, the Divisional Council also recognizes the diversity of faculty opinion on the merits of a walkout. We therefore neither endorse nor oppose a walkout, regarding participation in it as a matter of individual faculty conscience, and knowing that faculty will meet their obligations to their students. We know that the campus administration sees matters in the same light.

Diversity of faculty opinion? Sure, diversity is all good, but the fact is, classes are not being held when and where they were originally scheduled!

Where is the list of faculty supporting this walkout? I would like to make sure that their “diversity of opinion” does not hurt my learning environment and avoid their classes if possible. Surely if you are brave enough to have an opinion (and voice them), you are brave enough for the consequences?

UC President Mark Yudof addresses criticisms, explains the situation:

I actually think the students ought to be angry about the fee increase proposal. I mean, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be. They are going up by tens and tens of percents. I’m angry about it too. I liked the old system. The closer it was to being free the happier I was. But that’s not the world I live in. And that’s not the world the Board of Regents lives in. And you could have 18 or 26 new board members and a new president and 10 new chancellors. But unless President Obama gives them a printing press, they are going to have much the same sort of decisions. Maybe some nuanced differences, but there aren’t many choices.

No one is happy about the fee increases (perhaps the one thing students, especially those from middle class who actually pay tuition, unlike graduate students or students from families earning under $60,000, might really be angry about). Everyone has done everything, except for relying on “faith-based budgeting”, to avoid that, and now it has to be done as a measure of last resort.

I’d recommend you to listen to the whole video (or read the whole transcript, as I did). I myself am personally taking this as the true account of our situation that hasn’t been muddled and corrupted by unions and other special interests. But even if you do not have the same faith in the university administration as I do (to me, the University is mother and father; nothing I have today has come from anywhere but from the University, so I am not an impartial judge of what the University does), the least you can do, if you are fair-minded and open-minded as so many college students claim to be, is listen to both sides.

Weigh the evidences they present, not the rhetorics or publicity stunts, and decide for yourself: how will my walking out on the 24th improve the situation? Whom and whose policies are you really protesting, and do you really have any other alternative (this is Alinsky’s rule #11, by the way)?

While some classes may be closed due to the walkout on Sept. 24 being publicized right now, I have great hopes that classes that actually teach something (i.e. anything but humanities, such as political science or English, really) will go on as if nothing happened. In case my hopes, that reasonable teachers would not participate in a political publicity stunt at the cost of their students, are dashed to bits, I am determined to make sure that my students are not affected, not in my class.

This supposed protest didn’t come up in our weekly Physics 111-BSC GSI meeting, and I hope it never will (because that would indicate that no one plans on skipping work that day). But in case it does, and in case any of the GSIs normally in the lab on Thursdays walk out, I will volunteer to be in the lab.

I know unions don’t like that v-word. People who volunteer don’t make any money and that means they can’t get a piece of the paycheck. Fuck the union. Fuck United Auto Workers Local 2865, a.k.a. the GSI union.

I have tried hard to keep politics out of my classrooms, whether it’s from me (you might have seen that I leave most … inflammatory political posts off this website) or from anyone else. I haven’t had to so far worry about the “anyone else” part, but if you think that I would let anyone harm the learning environment to serve their political cause just because opposing would be unpopular among my peers or because the damned GSI union would be displeased, you would be wrong.

There are only two things, short of me falling deathly ill, that can keep me out of the BSC lab on Thursday, Sept. 24: (1) my fellow GSIs show up to work and I don’t have to do their job for them; (2) none of the students come to the lab due to their enthusiasm with this walkout.

We will see what happens.

I’m just going to post two (somewhat old) emails I have in my inbox. I think I’ve made it fairly clear how I feel about these issues, so I don’t think I need to add my own commentaries. I think the emails themselves and who sent them speak clearly enough.

First, the email from the chair of physics department:

From: Frances Hellman <phys...@berkeley.edu>
To: ALL Faculty <facu...@physics.berkeley.edu>,
        Staff All <sta...@physics.berkeley.edu>,
        Grads all <gra...@physics.berkeley.edu>,
        Undergrad majors <maj...@physics.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [Grads] Department budget cut information
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:34:26 -0700

[-- Attachment #1 --]
[-- Type: multipart/alternative, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 16K --]

Dear Physics faculty, staff, grads, majors, post-docs, visitors,

I attach (and insert below for convenience) a summary of how the
department is handling its budget cut.  To date, most of you have been
focused on the furlough program, which affects our salaries and our
ability to do our jobs, but which is temporary.   In addition to this, the
Physics Department is taking what is being called a permanent budget cut of
approximately $400,000 (~20% of our permanent state budget, similar to
other departments).  I have worked hard with staff and faculty to arrive at
what we think is the best way to handle this cut, and outline the details
below.  A cut of this magnitude will have impact. There is without doubt
things here that will make you angry and frustrated - I share that
frustration, and am doing what I can to mitigate it.  This mainly consists
of trying to choose as wisely as possible how and where to make the cuts,
keeping eyes open for places to recover money, and fund raising to offset
cuts where possible.  Your input is and will be appreciated.

We looked hard at all parts of the department to find the best ways to
make this cut.  We anticipate being able to do this without layoffs, which
I note many departments are facing, but by necessity there are going to be
some difficult choices and some services provided in the past will have to
be eliminated or reduced.   I wrote you previously concerning one
significant part of the budget plan, which involved an increase and
restructuring of shop recharge rates.  I am now writing to you with the
other parts of the reduction plan for this upcoming year.  I apologize for
the fact that some of these changes are being implemented with virtually no
notice (e.g. lecture demos; end of semester teaching schedule announced by
the university).  This is not how any of us like to operate, but the
process is cumbersome and not easy to anticipate what and when we will get
information from which we must make decisions.  I reiterate that none of
this is being done lightly -- it is not possible to take a budget reduction
from the state of this magnitude without incurring some pain.  It is also
not possible to say much about what is likely next year -- the university
is looking at a variety of ways to help reduce our reliance on state
funding, while still supporting excellent research and teaching and
remaining committed to being an open public university.   I do want here to
inject one personal comment -- I still believe that Berkeley and
particularly our Physics Department is and will be a great institution.  I
am committed to finding ways to make that continue to be true, and will
work with you as best as I can do to achieve this.

The changes for our department described below have been arrived at in
consultation with faculty and staff of the department.  We are working
hard to find ways to increase income, and have targeted several opportune
fund raising efforts which have already begun-- ranging from support for
the Advanced Lab (Physics 111), to SPS, to graduate student fellowships
(two endowments), to (hopefully) a new endowed chair.  Our successes in the
past have in fact been most helpful in mitigating the impact of the state
budget disaster on our department.  Our block grant (grad student support)
and our TAS (GSI and lecturer) budgets have not been cut, so negative
impacts on some of our core functions are somewhat less severe than might
have been.

One important point to note --the below are associated with cuts in our
permanent budget.  There is in addition the furlough program, which will
impact all staff and faculty (graduate students, post-docs and anyone 100%
on non-state funding are exempt).  Furlough days will inevitably have an
impact on how department services can be handled.  The staff in our
department work very hard to meet departmental needs, but furloughs will
impact their ability to do this, and faculty and students need to
understand and work with staff to avoid missed deadlines and other
problems.  It is therefore extremely important to anticipate your needs
such as purchasing or grant handling or lecture demos; get requests in
early and recognize that staff may not be able to provide all the services
you have previously received (although I note that the search for another
accounting analyst is still underway and will help relieve pressure when it
is successful).

Specific cuts (approximate savings in parentheses):
1.    The shop recharge rates have been modified as previously discussed.
The Electronics Shop manager position (budgeted at 100%) is reduced by 50%,
allowing us to continue to employ our present (temporary) 1/2 time E-shop
manager Jerry Przybylski. In addition, the shop tool allowance has been
temporarily suspended.  Recharge income and shop usage will be carefully
monitored during the year.

2. Instructional support services will be reduced by ½ person.  This takes
advantage of Cindy Holmes' retirement -- she was full time FTE but will be
replaced by a ½ FTE.  Instructional support (lecture demos, lower division
labs, advanced lab) will re-organize to minimize impact on teaching, but
you should expect to see reductions in availability of demos for classes.
Guidelines on how this will be handled will be sent to instructors and
GSI's for affected classes.

3.  Our main administrative office is discontinuing its student helper,
and Nathan Proctor will be covering assignments in other parts of the
department, in addition to his primary duties as web master, colloquium
and special events organizer.  He will also be helping to cover for
Madeleine Gordon, who will be retiring this fall.  A number of other staff
have opted for a temporary time reduction (in addition to the mandatory
furloughs) which help offset costs in other areas.

4. Colloquium travel budget and special events budget (Segre and
Oppenheimer, annual staff, student, faculty holiday parties) have been
maintained, but with reduced budgets where possible; support for colloquia
entertainment expenses is reduced to a maximum of $175 per dinner.

5.  Faculty recruiting allowance has been eliminated for now (~$12,500);
funding for bringing in diversity speakers to the department has been
reduced to $2000/year, with a max of $400 per speaker, first come first
serve; funding for AMO seminar has been reduced to $1500 per year.

6.  Support for SWPS, SPS, COMPASS, CalDay, graduation, and 111 lab have
been maintained, as has grad student recruiting budget.

7.  Cookie/tea will only be provided on Mondays (colloquium day).  On
other days, the department will provide tea only.  (~$3000 per year)

8. The faculty lunches will no longer be held in the faculty club --
attendance was too light to justify the cost.  (~$2500 per year).  For
this upcoming year, we will try holding this informally in room 324
LeConte on Thursdays and see if attendance improves.

9. Telephone lines-- we have already identified 16 phone lines that have
been eliminated (saving ~$6000 per year) and estimate that there are an
additional ~16 lines that can be eliminated.

10.  PANIC room charges are currently being assessed to see if there is
room for savings.  Other small cuts have been made in all areas of the
department.

11.  There have been shifts of personnel from state funds to more
discretionary funds -- this may impact the availability of matching and
recruiting funds and other discretionary costs.  The impact of this will
be seen in time, particularly as we see if/how increased recharge rates
decrease shop usage.

Sincerely,
Frances Hellman, Physics Department Chair

[-- Attachment #2: Physics dept budget reductions.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Encoding: base64, Size: 48K --]

[-- application/pdf is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --]

[-- Attachment #3 --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 0.1K --]

_______________________________________________
Grads mailing list
Gra...@physics.berkeley.edu

http://physics.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/grads

And the second email is from my GSI union “executive board”, or, as I like to call them, union pigs:

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
Subject: UC employees hold no-confidence vote on President Mark Yudof
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:24:15 +0000 (UTC)

August 26, 2009

Dear UAW 2865 member,

Employees throughout the University of California system will be participating
in a no-confidence vote on UC President Mark Yudof. The vote will take place
from today through Wednesday, September 2 on all UC campuses, and results
will be announced on September 3rd. The vote has been organized by a coalition
of unions protesting Yudof’s budgetary policies and rejecting the notion that UC
has a fiscal emergency.

The university union coalition is encouraging all employees to register their
rejection of Yudof’s policies by participating in the no-confidence vote.

The remaining vote times/locations for your campus are:

Thu, 8/27
Bancroft/Telegraph, 11:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
University Village, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Dwinelle Hall, 8:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.

Thu, 8/27 thru Wed, 9/2
Moffitt Library/Free Speech Movement Café, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Northgate (Hearst/Euclid), 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Westgate (Center/Oxford), 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.

Fri, 8/28 thru Wed, 9/2
Bancroft & Telegraph, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Tue, 9/1 thru Wed, 9/2
Yali's/Stanley Hall, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Lawrence Hall of Science, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
1111 Franklin (UCOP), 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Richmond Field Station, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Wed, 9/2
College/Bancroft, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

In solidarity,

UAW Local 2865 Executive Board

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2855 Telegraph Ave, Suite 305
Berkeley, CA 94705
phone: (510) 549-3863  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

mail-list.com    1302 Waugh Dr. #438    Houston, Texas    77019    USA

As a commentary not on the emails but on my own sentiments, this is all I have to say: my jobs at UC Berkeley were my first ever. As a first employer, I could not have asked for a better one—and as a continuing, 6th-year employee, I could not ask for a better workplace.

As for “my” union, for the life of me, I cannot figure out what they do with my $9 that they take out of my paycheck every month. Aside from giving salaries to the union pigs, I mean.