I wrote a long rant today on the Berkeley Oak Grove Protest in response to a post on the Berkeley LJ. I’m reproducing it here for view, posterity, and candor.

The Daily Cal’s version of the Open Letter that Prompted My Response

IMO, the whole thing is kind of an emotionally-charged psycho negotiation. But at heart, it’s a negotiation.

As pointed out, this is a demand letter disguised as a letter for dialog. While I do support bringing influential parties from both sides to the negotiation table, what’s screwy about this letter is that, in fact, the last thing the tree-sitters want (given their demands) is an honest negotiation.

The first rule of negotiation is knowing what you really want; and this is where the tree-sitters are blinded by rhetoric. That money-quote chasingred described (equating trees and humans or whatnot) is merely a result of that; I doubt they actually believe that human life is equal to a tree (or hope they don’t?). Mainly, in their minds, they have painted anything less than full capitulation by the University as failure. The real money-quote of the letter is, as pointed out, “help save the oaks and build the new training facility in an alternate location” — this is their sole victory condition.

On the University’s side, they would very much like to build the facility in that location. They have money for it (private, whatever — that’s a whole other kettle of fish) and it is, in fact, their land. It was their land when they planted the trees in the first place.

IMO, the legal high ground is entirely on the side of the University. Even free speech has it’s limits; I’m not up on my constitutional law, but an argument could certainly be made for the tree-sitters posing a clear and present danger or even imminent lawless action, especially now that the courts have gotten involved and ruled that the tree sitters should leave. IMO, they by all means have the right to stomp around campus, distribute flyers, write open letters like this one, etc… content should be free, they should push the limits of where and how they distribute it — and they did! (kudos from a free-speech perspective) — but they’ve clearly crossed the boundary here.

So really, the negotiation comes down to a moral argument instead of a legal one. Again, I’d say the tree-sitters are blinded into a false dichotomy. What they don’t realize is that they could “win” the moral argument without keeping the trees. And this is where the negotiation could take place — hammering out some environmentalist agreement, limited mainly by their imaginations and staying within reason. Revitalize the Eucalyptus Grove (and make it safe — hell, with all the UCPD watching the tree sitters….). Negotiate a UCB effort to study some environmental problem. Get some money thrown toward rainforests (as someone suggested). Hell, transplant a few of these so-called old-growth trees to somewhere else on campus. Any number of possibilities.

And I betcha the University would come to the table on that one, because let’s consider the weapons for each side:

Right now, the tree-sitters have:

• Endurance
• A higher “moral” starting ground from the public opinion
• Scare tactics, threats
• Liability/Danger Threats
• Position (they’re called tree-sitters for a reason)

The University has, in broad terms:

• Money (ours, some of it)
• Influence
• UCPD
• A growing public opinion
• Time

What I’m suggesting is that the tree-siters give up their threats and position for money and influence. Everybody wins, noone gets hurt, the building goes up in a legal way, and the tree sitters win a moral victory.

As suggested, the tree-sitters will lose in the long run if they maintain their current strategy. The UCPD will attrition them out of the trees (ancient art of siege) and the people will shun them, and favor the resolution of the conflict in favor of the university and the public interest.

When they sat in the trees for a month, they had a much higher public opinion than they do now, after being in the trees a year. That would have made their bargaining position better, had they gone for the moral victory as soon as the legal one was even tipping to the side of the University. Now, the more scary they become, the more blind rhetoric they spew, the more trouble they cause, the more the public will come to distrust them. It’ll seem as though the tree-sitters are against progress, their moral argument shattered.

They should negotiate while the negotiation is good, because it’ll be a smaller and smaller victory as time goes on.

(Disclaimer: Personally, I started pretty neutral; I don’t like the idea of so much emphasis being put on throwing a ball around, but then again, it doesn’t affect me too much. The trees are nice, sure, but the rhetoric around them is kinda nuts. I was okay with a protest and tree-sitting until it became a problem (a line crossed a long time ago))