Last September’s co-ordinated protests at the ten campuses of the University of California system were followed by a statewide lull that lasted for several weeks — it was not until November that the state’s organizing began to pick up momentum. But I will be surprised if the aftermath of today’s protests follows a similar pattern.
http://studentactivism.net/2010/03/04/whats-march-4-looking-like-so-far/
----------
I've been thinking about the past in conjunction with the present, trying to figure out how to actually accomplish the demands. It comes down to a real dilemma. The state government and UC Regents are not going to back down or grant demands just because of a few protests. The only way to force them is by threatening their reliance on bonds instead of raising taxes on the rich and getting rid of a regressive tax code.
The only way I can think of getting the state to stop relying on bond sales is to ruin the state government and the UC Regent credit rating. The state's rating is already iffy. As far as I can figure, the market is performing IMF austerity measures on the state and public education system as condition of bond investment. So the question, how to stop this neoliberal process?
One way is to get student-labor groups together to convince local construction unions to honor an AFCSME (or some other union) system wide strike. If this could be pulled off it would cost the Regents and state millions a day. A delayed big construction job, is very pricey. At various points during construction, some critical trades are needed for work, only they can do. This forms a strategic weak point. So it may be possible to shut down jobs with just one relatively small union.
This amounts to killing the government and education to save them. It's the least painful way I can think of. Of course it wouldn't be necessary if enough teachers and instructors were willing to walk out. Or if enough students would boycott.
This brings up another issue. We know this is a class war, but the people we are trying to convince don't know it is a class war and they are losing.
Steven Robinson writes:
``Another reason may be that California wasn't moving as fast on charter schools as the Administration would like.'' SR
Sure it could be. Everything about this Race to the Top grant system was very fishy. Normally, or how it used to be, was that feds published guidelines. State agencies prepare proposals and submit them. The process is supposed to be open. This one sure wasn't. What's with the `competitive' bid system? This is clearly designed exactly opposite its title. It is definitely a race to the bottom.
CG