Wrong on Both Ends

Students from the University of California-Berkeley are outraged about the decision for a 32% hike in tuition. Many students protested this increase, as they were concerned about the future of their education, careers and lives in general. Several protests included the occupation of buildings on several UC campuses and an alleged attack on the UC–Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau’s home (http://www.campusprogress.org/fieldreport/5135/above-the-law). Hundreds of students were arrested for the protests, but the most peculiar part of the incident is the University's reaction and choice of reconciling the situation.

There is clear conflict between the school's "Code of Student Conduct" and state, along with federal law, specifically the right to protest. A few of the students were suspended, while others received notices to leave their campus housing. The students were not provided due process by the school, which is a federal legal requirement/standard: Does this apply to University and educational proceedings? The school has altered its policy a few times since these issues began this January, which infers that the previous policy was not adequate to assist them presently. Many questions are present regarding this case: To what extent is the University legally able to penalize the students? Did the students' speech fall within the protection of the U.S. Constitution, or did they take things too far?

The students involved probably should not have taken the protest to the Chancellor's home; his space is private property and separate from the dealings of the University. There are several issues to be debated and decided upon due to this incident, and I am sure that the results will encourage major changes in University policy regarding its relevancy to state and federal law.