Friday, August 31, 2007
Take action!
The Daily Cal issues a decree on the tree-football-hippie thing (now the tree-football-hippie-fence thing) which states that the fence was bad. It also notes:
There are some plausible explanations behind the university's decision to exact the fence. Come Saturday, over 70,000 people will converge for the first and one of the most important games of the season. Some fans, angry over a stalled stadium renovations, could be looking to take their frustration out on the tree-sitters.
Knowing the very likelihood of such events occurring, for the university not to take any action would have been negligent and unethical. In the university's eyes, building that fence was a way to protect both fans and protestors. So, since The Daily Cal thinks the university had to do something, but the fence was bad, it clearly has to propose a better alternative, right? Right? Oh, I guess not.
The Daily Cal also successfully avoids noticing other motivations for the university, such as avoiding liability. This is what's prevented them from going up and removing the protesters by force. This is also probably the primary motivation behind the fence.
The damage from the erection of the fence has been done; it has added more kindling to fuel the protest. The university’s best move now is to reduce the situation to what it was before—when no one really bothered what was going on in the oaks. But I thought the situation before, where the university didn't take action, would have been "negligent and unethical."
. . .
|
. . .
|
