Byung Kyu Park's Personal Website

Another message from my beloved union (private address redacted):

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
To: xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Healthcare Negotiations Beginning; Vote on Initial Demands Feb.
        3rd or 4th
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:45:37 +0000 (UTC)

January 20, 2010

Dear UAW 2865 members,

UAW 2865 is preparing to open our current contract with University of
California in order to negotiate improvements to the Graduate Student
Health Insurance Program. We consider UC’s agreement to enter
negotiations on GSHIP as a victory in our years-long struggle to improve
the quality of healthcare that academic student employees receive. In
recent years this struggle has included UC providing vision and dental
coverage as part of all GSHIP plans and the establishment of a UAW-UC
committee which has explored how best to make healthcare
improvements.

All members are encouraged to attend a meeting with bargaining
committee members and to vote on our initial healthcare bargaining
demands on February 3rd or 4th. Campus-specific dates, times, and
locations will be sent out next week.

We are opening healthcare now so we can negotiate changes that would
take effect in August for the 2010-2011 academic year. This would not be
possible under the already scheduled negotiations, because our current
contract expires September 30, 2010 and no changes take effect until the
entire contract is settled and ratified. We still plan to begin our full
set of negotiations in the spring, and there will be a separate process
where members will have a chance to vote on those initial demands as well.

If you have any questions or would like to get involved, please contact us
(info below).

In solidarity,

Bargaining Committee, UAW Local 2865

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2070 Allston Way, Suite 205
Berkeley, CA 94704
phone: (510) 849-1628  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

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

This message was launched into cyberspace to xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx

So far, I haven’t participated in any union votes, mainly because I didn’t want to be part of (and hence, at least at my personal level, legitimize) the farcical imitation of democracy, but maybe I should vote.

Why? Well, let’s just say … I’m heartened by the ballot heard around around the world yesterday. If Massachusetts voters can vote for a small-government Republican, perhaps UAW 2865 members can finally say enough is enough—or at least, one day we will get to the bottom of what dirty tactics my beloved union uses to get 99% approvals on its measures.

I just got this email from my beloved union (private email redacted):

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
To: xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: UAW Job Opportunity
Date: Wed,  6 Jan 2010 00:07:12 +0000 (UTC)

January 5, 2010

UAW is now hiring for social media jobs related to getting the word out about
its various campaigns. If you have experience with social media and think
you have what it takes to make UAW campaigns “go viral,” please send a CV
or resume along with a cover letter that highlights your experience in these
areas to uaw2...@uaw2865.org; attn: Christine Petit. Please also include
your availability for work (part-time or full-time; if part-time
approximately how many hours per week).

Applicants who get their materials in by 5pm on Thursday, January 7 will
have top priority; but because UAW has many ongoing campaigns, we will
consider applications received after that date as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2070 Allston Way, Suite 205
Berkeley, CA 94705
phone: (510) 849-1628  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

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

This message was launched into cyberspace to xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx

Er, what? Getting the word out about “its various campaigns”? If I know the kind of policies UAW 2865 has supported in the past, I am sure these are the policies I donate money to candidates (usually $100 at a time, when I can afford to) to oppose.

Is this what my dear union wastes my union dues on? Weren’t they supposed to be taking $10 a month from my salary so that they can fight for us at our workplace, not advance radical left-wing agenda? Or am I just expecting too much from the corrupt union leadership?

P.S. No, getting out of the union won’t really fix this problem. Their idea of “fair share” for non-union member is something like $9 per month instead of $10 per month. Either way, it’s more than the amount I pay for any utility besides rent (my cell phone service being the only one, for which I pay $100 a year).

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)?