Thursday, November 12, 2009

Fiction 101: Report by District Investigator Released

In a report laced with speculation, exaggeration, and downright misrepresentation,
Nancy Solomon, a Los Angeles lawyer hired by the district, presents as fact what campus police and a couple college employees "believed," "thought," and "felt."

The redacted (names removed) report includes police testimony describing "around one hundred" people "surging" at and "shoving" officers outside the 100 building.

Of course, those of us who were there that day know that nothing of the sort occurred.

Here's your angry mob of a hundred:

Here's your surging crowd:

No yelling, no shoving, no riot.

If you were there on Oct. 22, please attend the next Governing Board meeting and give your version of events. The November meeting will be Wednesday, Nov. 18, and begins at 7:00 p.m., but come early and fill out a yellow speaker card. The meeting is currently scheduled to be held in Room 214, seating capacity 85, so bring a warm jacket too.

And remember the Free Speech Rally tomorrow at 11:00 am (no yellow cards required)!


  1. In the report, there is a police officer who admits to putting his hands on a student and a professor first. He says that he had "to push him." Subsequently, the police officer seems to be appalled that the individual slapped his hand away and noted that he could have arrested this individual for striking an officer. Really? He was the first to put his hands on someone. I would blow up if someone put their hands on me without provocation as well.

    Also, one of the officers says six students sat down behind the prof., and another says 25 students sat down behind her. Which was it?

    As much as I support these professors, I am disappointed that the two gentlemen did not stand up and defend their actions; instead, they say that they only wanted to cross the police line to "use the restroom." How is this supporting your students? How can you expect your students to stand up and be heard and put their own butts on the line when you back down?

  2. C'mon! I was there. The closest it got to 100 was when the rally ended and most of us were trying to get to our cars walking past the Admin Building. I'd say there were about 50 engaging the police officers and about 20 of us standing off to the side to see what was going to go down.

    Now I didn't see everything, but I was close enough to tell that the teachers were leading this thing and that the students only became increasingly agressive/loud when they were around and following their lead. I was getting uncomfortable with the situation, and not wanting to get arrested, I stood off to the side to watch.

    Now for those teachers to back down in their "official" comments is down right disingenous. They were there to see Chopra, not take a leak. Way to have our backs! What? Is there a clause in your contract that says your tenure-ship is nullified if you get arrested?!

    Finally, what's up with the redacted copy? We know who the teachers were, heck, they announced who they were themselves the day after the whole thing went down. I want to see the clean copy, not the redacted copy. Aside from being a hard read, who knows what else the campus could be hiding.

  3. Look, you were NOT there if you were trying to get to your car and stopped to oggle feet away. First of all, THE TECHERS DIDN'T LEAD anyone; they SUPPORTED! Pictures tell the real story! There were about 25 people not 50!! Again, pictures don't lie like you. There were NOT 50 nor even 25 engaging the cops-more like 3-4 at a time! GEEZ! Only the people at the very front on the line were talking, arguing, trying to convince to the cops, the others were just standing. You had to BE THERE to know!

  4. false fabricated news...maniacs!

  5. November 13, 2009, 7:19 a.m. Anonymous said...

    Is this Rempt, Lopez or Costa? C'mon fess up. If they supported, then why are they running away from it in their comments in the investigation posted on this Web site?

    If you read closely, I was on my way to the parking lot pinhead. Do I have an exact number? No. Your reference to the picture is convenient because it's a tight shot.

    I'm calling a spade a spade. I can't stand Chopra. But I also can't stand being used by teachers that run away from their comments when it really counts.

  6. Re. recent comments: Welcome to the real world, kids. Nothing is as simple as it seems. There are no heroes, just humans doing what humans do. There are no villains either, just humans doing what they do and really screwing up.

    Bottom line: the initial issue here was the devastating cuts to classes, and that's where our attention should stay focused. Everything else is pure distraction.

  7. To 7:19 Anonymous, looking for blood, explain what you mean by "running away from it in their comments?" Who ran away? What ARE you talking about?

  8. Wow, why is everyone getting heated amongst themselves. Well, this will never work if everyone starts arguing with everyone. Sometimes you gotta put your differences aside and stand as a front.

    Remember the Chinese Civil War? When the Japanese invaded, those two sides united to fight off the Japanese. So....Pull yourselves together. Fight the Chopra :P


  9. The only students who sat down did so AWAY from the police line, on the grass - which is where several people WATCHED what was going on. Yes, I was there from very close to the beginning until the very end. The only person I saw get 'pushy' was one of the officers, and then that was to keep a sign out of his face.

    I also parked near the president's space. His care wasn't in the lot. It was my impression he wasn't there. I told several people so. So did Andrew Rempt, who arrived AFTER I did. He had also noticed Chopra's missing car.

    With him KNOWING that Chopra wasn't in the office, why is it dishonest to say that they knew Chopra wasn't in?

    The instructors IN NO WAY led this, and IN NO WAY were they responsible for the actions of the students. They were up front for maybe 3-4 minutes out of half an hour. The rest of the time it was the STUDENTS speaking to the police - SPEAKING.

    The shameless dishonesty on the part of the campus police has just come to the fore. EVERY PHOTO taken shows people standing around, talking. Only one shows any physical action - and that shows one of them grabbing a professor. The police claim that these photos are "sanitized," but NOBODY has yet been able to produce a single photo showing violent student action. Why? It didn't happen.

  10. nick, i sat in front of the police line along with a fellow friend of mine.....and i will like to say that i too spoke to police....

  11. Hi Anonymous,

    I'm sorry for being unclear. About your first part - you sitting in front of the police: I should have said, and I didn't, that I "did not see anyone sit." That's the type of thing I've said here and other places. It was my mistake, and I'll retract it. I never saw anyone sitting. The photos I took were from about ten feet out, and I saw no one sitting. If you did, I missed it.

    As for talking to the police, I know that many people talked to the police. That's not in question. In fact, I'd say it was remarkable that so many people had conversations with them, yet they still felt threatened and like the crowd was going to attack.

    Personally, I don't think the fact that students chose to SPEAK to police should be at issue. What is infuriating is that the administration has chosen to lash out at the professors for this action - and have used the police as a weapon to do so.

  12. thats true. very VERY true. why does the administration have to think that a protest NOT turned riot is going to threaten their safety and well being? i dont understand

  13. Finally, I can respond to the "I have to use the bathroom" business that's at the top of these responses.

    Like much of what's in the investigator's report, this is NOT what happened and is NOT what was said.

    --P. Lopez

  14. I was right next to P Lopez. He said he was a professor and had business to take care of. That's what he said.

  15. yeah. I could tell that he was just innocent bystander that got caught at wrong place at the wring time

  16. I never claimed to be an "innocent bystander that got caught in the wrong place at the wring [sic] time." Those are your words, not mine.

    And I don't feel the need to take anonymous potshots at people, either.

    --P. Lopez