"If you actually have the time to protest, you're either not studying hard enough or you need to get a job on the side to learn the true value of hard work"

Odd that student organizers are some of the brightest students on campus, many of which work at least one job on the outside - some two or three - just to avoid even larger loans. If creating social change while being a full time student and working 20 hours a week isn't 'hard work,' than I'd urge you to tell us all how you spend your time - besides posting ill-informed messages on Indymedia.

"there is a growing Republican presence at UCSC."

The College Republicans have been at UCSC since 1970. After all these years, they can still only get a handful of students out to a meeting. Percent-wise, they may be increasing to a great degree, but that's only because going from 6 consistent members to 12 members is a big jump.

However, there are organizations that are growing MUCH QUICKER AND MUCH LARGER than the Republicans are. That's specifically why the Good Times' article is problemmatic - they act as if the Republicans are on some sort of dramatic rise, while the largest rise on campus is a rise in students' willingness to take direct action for justice. 1,000 students deciding to physically block both entrances to campus as a way of supporting striking workers is significant - no campus in the entire UC system (not even Berkeley or UCLA, which are MUCH larger) were able to get anything close to these numbers - and this was no petition, this was mass civil disobedience, showing an amazing level of commitment to justice at UCSC.

"Its not like your events get no coverage in Santa Cruz."

There's a very big difference between the way the corporate media portrays organizations like SAW and the SWCJ than they do the Republicans. At SAW and SWCJ mass nonviolent actions, they tend to pinpoint specific instances of vandalism or force, while wherever the Republicans show up, the media starts making wedding proposals. Even at SAW or SWCJ actions, the corporate media has been known to misrepresent student concerns, or not even quote students at all. This was the case in the Sentinel's coverage of the April 5th action that kicked military recruiters last year, where not a single protestor (of more than 300) was interviewed - only those opposed to the action. This reflects a bias on behalf of the corporate media, which is a major reason why SAW and SWCJ continue to use Indymedia as a way to speak for themselves.

"So being opposed to a strike makes you a racist? This is just ridiculous."

It's very possible and common for people to be racist, without identifying as such. A persons actions and voiced opinions make them racist or oppressive. While the Republicans do not say that they do not support low-wage AFSCME workers because the majority of them are people of color, their continued opposition to strikes represents both a classist and racist intermingling - as it suggests that for some reason, it is ok for white UC officials to receive upwards of $400,000 a year, while it is not ok for low-paid workers of color to receive a living wage. It may not be stated racism or stated classism, but its application becomes such.

Furthermore, it is not only the voiced opinions against strikes that construct College Republicans as racist, but their positions on other issues as well. I should also clarify that when I say College Republicans, I do not mean every single person, but rather their political platform that the Good Times article so clearly displayed as 'united.'