In truth, I began the story of the protests already, especially with the backdrop of the Native American burial ground claim. However, because I dedicate this page to the chronology of the events more than any other, I nonetheless find the title appropriate.
Early remarks from RunningWolf contextualize the protest through its initial causes
In June 2020 — just over 13.5 years after the tree-sit protest began — Berkeley Citizen uploaded a sizable archive of tree-sit video and audio onto their website.1 This resource has been a particularly valuable resource in the undertaking of this project, allowing direct access to the protesters’ actions and reactions. One of the videos I found most significant during this endeavor is an interview with RunningWolf on just the tenth day of the tree-sit, December 11, 2006. My key takeaways are twofold. Firstly, he notes the lack of a police presence at the oak grove, calling it “an excellent sign that shows how safe we are being [sic] at this moment." Secondly and more importantly, RunningWolf provides a statement that captures the joining of the environmental and Native causes in the protest. Near the end of the video, the protest leader remarks, “Hopefully this will also branch out in my sector of the world, which is Native Americans. We all need to protect our woodlands, because the woodlands are protecting us, and that’s a simple equation.”2 While the more concrete point in those two sentences is one of ecological solidarity, his prefacing of it with a statement toward impacting the Native American community is a sign of the multi-layered motivation for the protest, and of his connection to the land through his Indigenous heritage. Placing his quotes in the context of the burial ground claims made two months later additionally presents a timeline and a continuing thread of the Native narrative being prioritized over the course of the protests — a narrative which as a whole seems to be overlooked, but continued through the tree-sit’s end.3
Lawsuits gave the conflict greater direction, for better or worse for the tree-sitters
While the protests were beginning, so too were the legal battles on which multiple parties banked to lead them to victory. The same day as RunningWolf’s interview was recorded, three groups — the City of Berkeley; the Panoramic Hill Association, a collection of nearby property owners; and the California Oak Foundation — filed lawsuits in Alameda County.4 These suits would later be consolidated by Judge Barbara Miller. It was ultimately the seismic concerns of the Panoramic Hill Association lawsuit that became the most contentious and protracted legal ground. This disconnect from the tree-sitters’ motivations that stuck with me as I continued this project. It made me think about how the groups overlapped enough to be brought together in the greater protest against the oak grove, and the extent (or lack thereof) to which their goals outside the project may do the same. This configuration presents both advantages and disadvantages of the “town” side in town-gown relations: their more diverse organizational backgrounds may allow more groups to contribute toward the causes in question, but this disjunct formulation simultaneously hinders their ability to put up a unified front in acting against the University.
Fencing-in of protesters began a more tense phase of the conflict
While the 109th Big Game was the setting both my individual and the community introduction to the tree-sitting protest, Cal’s next home game was when the next phase became visible to the masses. Three days ahead of the 2007 season opener against Tennessee on September 1, the University fenced off the trees in which the protestors were residing from the general public. The University called the fencing precautionary, “a necessary safety measure” for fans and protesters alike. However, the erection of the fence immediately brought the opposite of that when a scuffle with police broke out as they stood between on-ground protest supporters and construction workers.5 I found the irony palpable, but completely understandable when Brian Whitley’s article indicated that an altercation began when a police officer stopped a protester from lifting food and water over the fence. What often seems to be lost from the perspective of authority in such a conflict is the need for basic human decency; with upholding the law and following superiors’ commands their utmost priorities, matters which appear interfere with that in even the slightest way are dealt with severely. Supply deliveries may have been allowed afterward, but the damage had already been done, and the fence remained up.
Photographer Harold Adler’s quote, referring back to the fencing of People’s Park in 1969, made me think back to Thomas Bonk’s LA Times article. Here was “Protest Central” rearing its head once more, with the campus once again a hotbed of activism and immediate controversy.5 On top of that, the University’s methodology being reminiscent of a previous response to a protest is a more than coincidental statement of authority, but one which only further motivates those against said authority to act out. It was unsurprising, then, for the tensions to only further escalate from that point.
While further reports of police activity and arrests may help to advance my narrative, I find another Berkeley Citizen video more impactful. Following the erection of a second fence and multiple removals of protester property from inside the grove, the University attempted to cut off outside supply of resources.6 While a court ruling did not force their hand in the opposite direction, the University shifted to providing the remaining tree-sitters with what one of them, “Shem,” called “a starvation diet” of granola bars and water.7 A week later, on July 2, 2008, one of the most prominent tree-sitters came down out of medical need. Amanda “Dumpster Muffin” Tierney was demonstrably in poor condition, and Berkeley Citizen and tree-sit allies alleged that not only was Dumpster Muffin’s medical assistance delayed, but also that her on-site physician’s recommendation for hospital treatment was not followed.8 The details of the encounter are certainly of interest, but I was most affected by simply seeing Dumpster Muffin’s condition upon her descent. Her courage for fighting as long and hard as she did — some of which is shown in a news clip in part of the video — is commendable, and the draining nature of her stay in the trees is readily apparent. The combination of factors present makes me think of the extent to which the University is responsible for her condition, as well as that of the other protesters. The University may not be legally obligated to act, but here again is the argument for basic human decency. If they could afford to put up a fence and have a consistent police presence, they could also afford to allow the tree-sitters a higher standard of living while the legal side of the conflict was still to be decided.
Judge Miller’s ruling sealed the protests’ fate
On June 18, 2008, the end phase of the protest began when Judge Barbara Miller of the Alameda County Superior Court issued a 129-page ruling, nearly fully in favor of the University. Judge Miller’s ruling found a lack of evidence for disturbance of burial sites (page 67) and an appropriate strategy to mitigate environmental impact (61). Most importantly for the outlook of the protests, Judge Miller ruled the Simpson Center proposal sound, only requesting clarification on financial compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act (3).9 The tree-sitters’ causes were more than admirable, but at the end of the day, that isn’t what wins in court; here, compliance does, and that’s what the University had — particularly after they clarified expenses, upon which Judge Miller issued what would ultimately be her final ruling in favor on July 22.10
It is important to remember in the context of the legal defeat that the efforts of the tree-sitters and those associated with them were still not fully in vain. The length of their fight raised attention to their causes, as well as essential matters of checking institutional authority. None of these are isolated issues, and they stand to be key facets of town-gown interaction in a continuously developing and accelerating world.
Also important to note is that Judge Miller’s rulings did not spell the immediate end of the protests. Rather, that occurred on September 9, when the last tree-sitters — including the aforementioned “Shem” — accepted to descend “when university officials agreed to include the community in future land-use decisions.”11 This line from Carolyn Jones’ report caught my attention, and I tried to follow up on it, but the trail ran dry essentially instantly. I was left with angry postings from RunningWolf decrying various City of Berkeley and UC actions, and nowhere in there or elsewhere did I find evidence of cooperation.12 There’s potential that I didn’t search for the correct word or phrase, but with so much material from public institutions readily available, I believe that the ‘promise’ made to the tree-sitters simply was lip service, a means to an immediate end. In that way, the University succeeded, as the last tree in which protesters were sitting was felled that afternoon. The Simpson Center was opened in September 2011, and it was unveiled to the public in September 2012, alongside a renovated California Memorial Stadium.13
***
Berkeley Citizen, “Berkeley Memorial Oak Grove Video Shorts,” 2020, https://berkeleycitizen.org/oakgrove/oakgrove25.htm.
Berkeley Citizen , “Zachary Running Wolf - First Days of the Oak Grove Tree-sit,” https://berkeleycitizen.org/oakgrove/oakgrove30.htm.
Shadi Rahimi, “UC-Berkeley Tree Protest Closes with Ceremony.” Indian Country Today, October 3, 2008, https://ictnews.org/archive/uc-berkeley-tree-protest-closes-with-ceremony.
“California Memorial Stadium Timeline,” UC Berkeley News, Accessed May 13, 2022, https://www.berkeley.edu/news/features/stadium/timeline.shtml.
Bonk, "A branch office."
Charles Burress, “UC Removes Tree-Sitters' Gear Before Ruling,” SFGATE, February 9, 2012, https://www.sfgate.com/green/article/UC-removes-tree-sitters-gear-before-ruling-3209287.php.
Richard Brenneman, “Treesitters, University Win Split Court Ruling,” The Berkeley Daily Planet, June 30, 2008, https://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-06-26/article/30436?headline=Treesitters-University-Win-Split-Court-Ruling.
Berkeley Citizen, “Tree-sitter Medical Attention Delayed - Memorial Oak Grove,” 2008, https://berkeleycitizen.org/oakgrove/oaksnews22.htm.
Panoramic Hill Association v. The Regents of the University of California, June 18, 2008, https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/06/19_ruling.pdf
Panoramic Hill Association v. The Regents of the University of California, July 22, 2008, https://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/mcl/judgement-7-22-08.pdf.
Carolyn Jones, “Berkeley Tree-Sitters Finally down to Earth.” SFGATE, February 9, 2012. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-tree-sitters-finally-down-to-earth-3195608.php.
“Runningwolf Campaign - Home,” Runningwolf, Accessed May 13, 2022, http://www.runningwolf.org/.
Connor Byrne, “Training Day: Cal Unveils the Simpson Student-Athlete High Performance Center,” The Daily Californian, September 3, 2012, https://www.dailycal.org/2012/08/31/training-day-cal-unveils-the-simpson-student-athlete-high-performance-center/.