Activists should pursue concrete changes in law

Wednesday, October 14, 1998

Activists should pursue concrete changes in law

PROTEST: Vocal demonstrations against David Cash don’t ensure
social justice

Students angrily pressing for the expulsion of David Cash from
UC Berkeley should redirect their efforts and focus on effecting
change through channels other than protest.

In the past weeks, students and other concerned citizens have
put pressure on the university to expel Cash, who failed to stop
friend Jeremy Strohmeyer from assaulting and murdering Sherrice
Iverson on May 25, 1997. Although the demonstrators have every
right to protest for Cash’s expulsion from the university, heckling
him and pressuring the chancellor to act against Berkeley’s Code of
Conduct are not the most effective means to reach a just end.
According to the code, Cash cannot be expelled because he was not
convicted of a crime. And while Cash’s failure to report the
assault he witnessed is reprehensible, cowardly and despicable, it
is not against the law in Nevada.

In May 1997, the then-18-year-old Strohmeyer carried struggling
7-year-old Iverson into a bathroom stall in a Nevada casino,
molested and eventually killed her. Cash followed him into the
bathroom, told Strohmeyer to let her go and then left, staying for
a total of two minutes. Upon returning from the bathroom,
Strohmeyer confessed to Cash that he had killed Iverson.

Although Cash gave a sworn testimony that he left the bathroom
before he saw Strohmeyer sexually assault or strangle Iverson, two
of Cash’s schoolmates say that he told them he saw Strohmeyer
molest Iverson.

Cash later commented in interviews with the L.A. Times and "60
Minutes" that he felt worse for his convicted friend, Strohmeyer,
than he did for Iverson. Cash said that he’s "not going to get
upset over someone else’s life … I’m not going to lose sleep"
over the death of Iverson.

Several Nevada lawyers say that Cash could be prosecuted for
perjury, by not mentioning that he saw the sexual assault, or as an
accessory to a felony, by helping the perpetrator avoid arrest and
trial.

Yet Cash was not tried for either offense.

Berkeley students, angry that Cash is not being held legally
responsible for his lack of action, have organized and continue to
ask for his removal from school. The Associated Students of the
University of California passed a bill (which was later vetoed by
the ASUC president) that called for Cash to withdraw voluntarily
from the university.

Groups such as Black Board, a Berkeley umbrella organization for
African American student groups, have even gone so far as to say
that race played a key role in society’s, the law’s and even the
media’s tepid treatment of Strohmeyer and Cash. Students have
marched on campus, handed out flyers and asked the chancellor to
formally expel Cash. The chancellor, though, cannot expel him
because "a student cannot be dismissed from the university without
charges of specific violations."

It is unfortunate that the law did not do more to punish someone
so reprehensible. The protesters have reasonable concerns, and they
have succeeded in voicing their anger. Now it is time to focus on
effecting change, which can only be accomplished through the legal
system. If the students are truly dedicated to pursuing lasting
change, protesting for unrealistic goals is not productive.

"Good Samaritan" laws are being drafted in many states. They
would allow criminal prosecution of any witnesses to "grave" crimes
who do not extend help. If the protesters are truly committed to
the issue – making it illegal to witness a crime without helping to
prevent it – they should pursue actions through legal channels and
create concrete and positive change. The activists should enact,
challenge and create laws. Only then can substantive change
occur.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]