It’s now been 16 years since the tree-sit ended, and it’s been more than a dozen since the Simpson Center opened. No physical evidence — no plaque, no carving into concrete — remains from the 648-day effort. After all, the University won. Yet before I reflect on that victory and what it means, I want to take a little time to acknowledge where the protesters may have left an impact.
A few days over three years after the last protesters descended from their oak perch, the Occupy movement began in New York. When it reached the Bay Area shortly thereafter, both Oakland and the UC Berkeley campus became notable centers of occupation. The Occupy movement’s causes and tactics were not far removed from that of the tree-sitters. Key sites were physically occupied by masses of people in order for their demands — including equality and a truer democracy in order to achieve fairer representation — to be recognized by the authorities which limit them. The tree sitters were on the University’s mind when the Occupy Cal protests began in November 2011.1 On the protesters’ side, RunningWolf fancies himself and the other protesters as “the modern-day inspiration” for Occupy, of which he was a notable figure in Oakland, tree-sitting once again.2, 3 The extent of the Memorial Stadium tree-sit’s impact is questionable, but I can understand RunningWolf’s perspective at least in a local context; the success of the live-in protests in the oak grove may very well have rubbed off on protesters at the University or at the plaza in front of Oakland City Hall.
However, as much as the “town” side can claim smaller wins of various veracity, the protests ended in a decision definitely in favor of the “gown,” the University of California. Much of the significance of the 15-month affair, then, can be judged by the University’s response to the protests in light of their victory. As evidenced by the various sources I have provided in prior sections, the University response was relatively benign for approximately the first nine months. Once the school did take action, though, it was swift and rarely compromising. Despite the support the protests garnered, the interactions between authorities and tree-sitters boiled down to requests for capitulation, rather than meaningful dialogue. In fact, the one time dialogue that looked possible was seemingly never followed up upon by the University.
It is with this lens that I turn to the greater discourse of town-gown relations. There is a tendency for the learning institution to use its wealth and power to quell the concerns or demands of the greater public, when doing so only damages the working relationship between the entities and sows greater doubt in each. This division is exacerbated by the reactionary nature of universities to the sociopolitical climate around them. As Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz wrote in her report “Town-Gown Collaboration in Land Use and Development”: “By their nature, colleges and universities are dynamic and constantly challenged by changes in political economy, funding, demographics, communities, and educational theory and practice.”4 Sungyu-Eryilmaz’s report was written for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a think tank whose platform benefits from this sort of cooperation, but even with a potential skew it provides insight into how academic institutions see themselves in relations with the broader community. When it comes to the tree-sitting — which occurred just a year before the report’s release — I view the “constant challenge” as framing universities as taking a defensive stance in response to the world shifting around them. Such an understanding certainly fits UC Berkeley’s response to the tree-sitters, especially after their spurning of their final-day ‘promise.’
A university and the land and people around it are inexorably linked. This reality is physically impossible to escape at UC Berkeley, with the city emanating outward from campus. Yet the one-sided action taken by the University in response to the lengthy tree-sit suggests their goals may be too self-centered. If such vaunted institutions “are part of a large, complex system and… their fates are intertwined,”5 then cooperation across the town-gown divide is essential for success, which can only truly be shared between the parties. The lack of that in the battle for the Memorial Stadium site leaves the ‘official’ legal victory of the University hollow, and even those who support the school may be left unfulfilled by the result.
This study also presented another advantage for the “gown” over the “town” in the form of ease for unity. The University of California may be a massive institution, but its structure and oversight allows it to present a single viewpoint on issues which concern it. Meanwhile, this unity is nigh impossible for the masses. As seen with the tree-sitters and the Panoramic Hill Association, entities may coincide on particular issues, but their diverse formations and orientations make reaching a fully agreed viewpoint difficult if not unmanageable. A common enemy (in this case, the University) is far from enough to smooth tensions and differences. Between the strength of the UC’s claims and the division present within its opposition, the end result is what I referred to recently as “a plate of gown, with a town side salad.” This is a hurtful diet for the city of Berkeley or any other town or city to have, because the city will end up eating at the University in trying to achieve equality. The likely result will be more pushback, further battles, and even less collaborative resolution than is already present.
***
Jaehak Yu, “Encampments Sticking Point between Protesters and Administration,” The Daily Californian, November 14, 2011, https://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/11/encampments-sticking-point-between-protesters-and-administration/.
8-ZACHARY RUNNINGWOLF: REAL NEWS / TREE-SIT TRADITION / ACTIVISM - GEZI GARDENS 6-3-12, YouTube, June 11, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHGRSLotLnk, 2:42.
“Tree-Sitter Continues to Occupy Oakland,” NBC Bay Area, November 14, 2011, https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/tree-sitter-continues-to-occupy-oakland/1905088/.
Yesim Sungyu-Eryilmaz, Town-Gown Collaboration in Land Use and Development (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: 2009), 5.
Sungyu-Eryilmaz, Town-Gown Collaboration, 28.