“Framing this as a debate over how ‘patient’ the University is, happens to be a convenient rhetorical strategy for the university, because it presupposes the activists’ guilt,” he told the Vanguard. “It makes it seem as though the blockade spontaneously arose out of a vacuum rather than being a justified reaction to a predatory deal between US Bank and the Regents. The University is using the charges to prepare its case against a possible attempt by the bank to hold the university liable for the bank’s departure,” he said. Mr. Raskin calls this “a frivolous charge, of course, since the contract explicitly states that the bank is responsible for its own security,” adding, “The bank accused the university of being too soft on the blockade, so the university urgently needs to ruin a dozen lives to dispel any suspicions of leniency.” Mr. Shiller noted that, while both sides have threatened each other with lawsuits, neither has filed suit. Moreover, he said, “Talks continue with U.S. Bank on the future of the partnership.” At the same time, other banks have expressed an interest to step in.
Read full article [here].
by David M. Greenwald, The Davis Vanguard.