TAKING IT TO THE STREETS City College students protest budget cuts outside the Ocean campus Creative Arts Building on March 4. Read about actions from all around the Bay Area in the special section inside. Section B CHLOE ASHCRAFT / THE GUARDSMAN
Volume 149, Issue 4
www.theguardsman.com
March 10, 2010
Vandals promoting March 4 Day of Action cost City College thousands Officials say cleanup expense will be equal to the price of saving one class By Liska Koenig THE GUARDSMAN
Police say numerous buildings on Ocean campus including Batmale Hall, the Community Health and Wellness Center, the arts buildings and some bungalows were vandalized by unknown individuals during the early morning hours of Feb. 23. The buildings were spray painted with slogans like “No More Cuts,” “Business as Usual,” “Education is Liberation” and “3/4/10,” referring to the date of the statewide rallies and marches to protest against cuts to education in California. “The janitorial staff alerted us about one site, but when we went out to see it, we realized the graffiti was all over campus,” said officer Christian Smith of the San Francisco Community College District Police Department. Buildings and Grounds, the City College
department in charge of campus upkeep, expects the cleanup to be as costly as $5,000 to $7,000. “You want to encourage students to be activists in terms of standing up for their rights and protesting — in terms of coming together to speak or march — that’s a democratic process. It’s what people should be doing, so I want to encourage that,” Chancellor Don Griffin said. “But then there are some people who are too exuberant, or they may not have the same level of awareness that they should have or will ultimately develop,” he continued. “And they may decide to do some things that are not appropriate, but that has not been the history at City College.” The total cost to reinstate a canceled class is $6,000 according to Griffin. Now an additional class could be cut from the college’s educational plan to cover the financial damage of the cleanup. VANDALISM: Page 6
RAMSEY EL-QARE / THE GUARDSMAN
The Washington family listens as SFUSD Board of Education President Jane Kim (right) advocates for the Board of Supervisors sanctuary policy amendment at a March 1 press conference. Tracey Washington (left) and her two sons faced deportation after the 13-year-old boy (back) stole 46 cents. ICE granted them a 60-day extension on March 3.
Juvenile probation refuses to apply sanctuary amendment
Washington family granted extension but reporting policy is unchanged By Fleur Bailey and Alex Emslie THE GUARDSMAN
Attempts to modify San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance, which would allow for greater protection from deportation of undocumented youth accused of criminal conduct, has stalled due to a conflict between the Board of Supervisors and the mayor’s office. Supervisor David Campos is arguing that probation officers should only contact US Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a youth has been convicted of a felony and not at the time of booking.
Campos introduced an amendment to the ordinance on Aug. 18, 2009 and called for a public hearing at City Hall on March 4. “I feel disappointed that we are in this position,” Campos said. “How is it that after a law was passed, we are here having to engage in a hearing? The immigration department gets it, that a procedure should be allowed. Even Washington gets it. We’re here today because the mayor’s office does not get the point.” The Board of Supervisors passed the amendments to the ordinance for confidentiality of juveniles immigration status on Nov. 10, 2009, but it
was vetoed by Mayor Gavin Newsom and has yet to be implemented. William Siffermann, chief probation officer at the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department, said they are only able to implement amendments to the ordinance if it complies with state and federal law, and had been advised by the City Attorney’s office that there may be legal implications in doing so. “The department cannot modify the present practices of the policy,” Siffermann said. “We believe that modification would be breaking federal law.” SANCTUARY: Page 6