I've been tracking down news items on UCB. As far as I can tell, there is plenty of in-depth organizing, but no central website, so I had to skip all around. Here's some background from November 17, 2009:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/17/why_are_we_destroying_public_education
Below is Bob Samuels of the AFT on Democracy Now from Nov 20:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iN61t4tLwU
Here is part of Tim Clark's letter. He's art historian at UCB:
``How do the occupations stand -- as spur or spark or spanner-in-the-works -- in relation to questions of the California economy and state financing of public education? For instance, how do the organizers see the occupations contributing to the building of a student fee strike in response to the 32% rise? This is one tactic being actively considered.
Such a strike would be directed straight at one main provocation among the present slew of attacks and attritions, have the possibility of gaining widespread support, and, if it succeeded, have real-world consequences. Or is this kind of strategy -- longer-term, involving a vast amount of painstaking organization, persuasion of the "moderate" student center, legal maneuvering, etc. etc. -- seen as hopeless and counter-productive? Are occupations MEANT to make such a channeling of energies harder? Certainly some of us suspect they do, or will...''
http://toodumbtolivearchive.blogspot.com/2009/11/tim-clark-further-thoughts-on-wheeler.html
This is Samuels latest about the UCLA Regents meeting:
http://toodumbtolivearchive.blogspot.com/2009/11/uc-aft-president-bob-samuels-statement.html
And here is a site that seems to have a calender of events:
To follow up on TC's letter with its ambiguity over occupations. I am afraid I agree from past experience. The only occupation I've seen that succeeded was the US federal building in SF over 504 in 1977. It was modeled on FSM. The cops have since evolved techniques to make that kind of move very difficult and expensive.
CG