Crisis in Gaza revives student activism that some considered long gone

• May 5, 2024

“Is activism dead?”

Juxtapose that question about student advocacy with the large demonstrations and tent encampments that have taken over college campuses across the country in recent weeks, and it seems the answer is a resounding no.

Encampments — where students have erected tents, tailgating canopies and makeshift barricades — have seemingly exploded on college campuses across the nation in recent weeks. Students are protesting, calling for an end to the Israel-Hamas war and an end to universities’ financial ties with certain Israeli companies.

Many have been peaceful — at Chapman University in Orange on Friday, fewer than a dozen tents made up an encampment where students wrote letters and chanted. On some campuses, police have been called to break up encampments or remove students who have taken over buildings and prevented other students from accessing classrooms or libraries.

But at a few other places, that hasn’t been the case; at UCLA last week, counter-protesters engaged in a violent clash with demonstrators.

College campuses were once the epicenter for activism and demonstration — particularly during the Vietnam War era.

In more recent years, however, campuses have been quieter. That question – “Is activism dead?” – was a thoughtful one when it was posed by USC’s student newspaper, the Daily Trojan, seven years ago as part of a project exploring diversity on campus.

But that was 2017, before the militant group Hamas launched a surprise attack in Israel on Oct. 7, killing about 1,200 people and abducting another 250.

Related links

Israel-Hamas war a thorny issue for Southern California Democrats
Student protests are happening across the country: We answer your questions
Biden says ‘order must prevail’ during campus protests over the war in Gaza
Why campus protesters aim for anonymity with face masks, checkered Palestinian kaffiyehs
UCLA hoped to avoid police crackdown on protesters. What went wrong?

Before Israel unleashed its retaliatory siege; before the death toll in Gaza skyrocketed to an estimated 34,500 people.

And before the arrests of more than 2,300 people on American college campuses in recent weeks, among them protesters at USC and UCLA.

A kaleidoscope of tents

So why did — seemingly in the blink of an eye — college students take on the mantle of decrying what they perceive as injustice in a small area in another hemisphere?

While there’s something to be said about the rapidity of the encampments cropping up on campuses across the U.S., the issue itself — turmoil in the Middle East, debate over who the “good guys” are and even if there are any — has percolated for quite some time. The conflict between Israel and Palestine can be traced back to the late 19th century.

But now there’s media, particularly social media, and students are quickly and easily and often seeing images from the atrocities of the war.

“It’s a very visual tipping point,” said Rebecca Dolhinow, a Cal State Fullerton professor whose research includes youth social justice activism. “Students are back on campus and they’re feeling more comfortable here with the COVID threat less and less imminent.”

Organizers of demonstrations at Southern California campuses are using Instagram to list their objectives and demands, request specific supplies, share resources on legal rights and de-escalation techniques and advertise schedules for speakers. They’re also trading tips, what worked on their campuses, and are promoting other schools’ demonstrations.

This generation of college students, said David Foster, a history professor at the University of Kansas who studies activism in America, “has come to believe in a kind of Manichean world,” where there are only two sides to an issue, a dual struggle between good and evil.

“They tend to see the world in oppressors and the oppressed, and that’s good in a lot of ways,” said Foster.

“There’s an incredible sense of injustice here, and people are really appalled,” Dolhinow said. “It is something that for a lot of students, who otherwise aren’t keen on partisan politics, feel like this is a human rights issue, and they may not want to step out on abortion, may not want to step out on something else, but they feel they have to step out on this because it’s simply wrong.”

And Israel, Foster said, “has come to be a stand-in in international politics for a lot of students,” he said, as “a bad nation, maybe even an evil nation, in the eyes of some young people who are progressive.”

Back to the beginning

The right to protest, especially historically, is an integral part of the college experience, said Graham Piro with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonprofit that protects free speech rights on college campuses.

“In many ways, being in college is how you prepare to participate in American society when you graduate,” Piro said. “And the First Amendment gives us the right to voice our concerns.”

Students infamously exercised those rights in the ’60s and ’70s, staging large protests in opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Massive demonstrations sprung up on campuses across the country, including here in Southern California, but were more “militant” and “violent” compared to the pro-Palestinian demonstrations now, said Robert Cohen, an NYU history professor and expert in student activism.

ROTC buildings were torched; students got hurt — or worse. Saturday marked 54 years since the Ohio National Guard opened fire on unarmed anti-war student demonstrators at Kent State, killing four students and injuring another nine people.

Students championed other causes around that time as well.

In 1967, UC Irvine had been open for less than two years before students organized a protest on its Gateway Plaza.

UC President Clark Kerr, a defender of free speech and debate on college campuses, had been fired by the Regents. Pictures from Jan. 27, 1967, show a large group of students rallying in support of Kerr.

Rewind some 30 years, and in 1934, more than 3,000 UCLA students took to Royce Quad in protest of the suspension of five students for alleged communist ties. That was about half the student population at the time, according to press archives, and the students were eventually allowed to return to school.

At UC Riverside, students protested during a visit from then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970. They clashed with police and threw avocados and oranges, longtime political science professor Ron Loveridge recalled.

And then there were, at many UC schools, protests in solidarity with the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley in the 1960s.

Notably, though, USC, a private school, does not have that same reputation for campus activism.

As Zev Yaroslavsky, a former L.A. County supervisor who graduated from UCLA, recently told the New York Times: “This is not the first university you think of when you think of protests and occupying the central quad and confronting the police. Berkeley and Harvard? Sure. But USC?”

But it was there, at USC, where nearly 100 people were arrested during a pro-Palestinian protest at Alumni Park on April 24.

A week later, more than 200 protesters were arrested at a Palestine Solidarity Encampment at UCLA.

There is certainly no question about the vitality of student activism — at USC or anywhere — today.

“Student activism, for much of the time I’ve been studying it, is something that’s been almost dormant. It’s not been full-throttled since, say, the Vietnam era,” said Dolhinow.

Sure, there have been causes young people have been passionate about in more recent years: police brutality, particularly in the wake of George Floyd‘s death in 2020; and the #MeToo movement that shed light on sexual harassment and assault and the abuse of power.

But those demonstrations were largely community-led rather than organized by college students, Dolhinow said. In recent years, student-led protests centered more on campus issues, like abuse by a faculty member or a problem within a department.

In 2014, for example, UCLA students held a demonstration after racist fliers were sent to Asian departments at both the Westwood campus and at USC.

“This isn’t something that happened here” in the U.S., Dolhinow said of the catalyst for the current demonstrations. “We’re protesting events that happened in another country, and a lot of students don’t know where this part of the world is. … They couldn’t put their finger on Israel on a map without help.”

What does success look like?

Rapidity aside, Foster and other experts liken the pro-Palestinian demonstrations to the South African anti-apartheid divestment movement that took off in the ’80s. Students then wanted their schools to cut financial ties with companies that supported South Africa.

Students “tried to make visible a problem that too few Americans understood,” said Foster. “And they did that by literally being visible, by creating encampments.”

But success — if there is any — may look different for the current crop of student activists.

“I don’t think they’re going to win their demands for divestment in most places,” said Cohen, the NYU professor.

“Unlike the anti-apartheid movement, there was no ‘apartheid constituency’ in the U.S.,” Cohen said of the previous movement. “But there is still strong support for Israel. … That’s not a demand that’s very realistic.”

Recent surveys have found that support for Israel or Palestine largely varies depending on age in the U.S.

About a third of people between 18 and 29 years old said they sided more with Palestinians than Israelis in a recent Pew Research Center poll, compared to 14% who sympathized with Israeli people.

On the other hand, 47% of those surveyed who were at least 65 years old sympathized more with Israelis; only 9% chose Palestinian people.

Related Articles

But that’s not to say demonstrators won’t have any impact at all, said Cohen.

At Brown University in Rhode Island, an encampment came down last week after university leaders agreed to hear students’ arguments in support of divestment from “companies that facilitate the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.”

Closer to home, Pomona College faculty voted in favor of divestment from “corporations complicit with war crimes and other human rights violations committed by the Israeli government in Israel/Palestine.”

Overall, though, divestment is “not a demand that’s very realistic,” said Cohen.

While Cohen considers divestment largely unlikely, he noted that it is an election year, and that’s where students could have a greater, more visible effect.

“They probably will have an impact on politics because (the demonstrations) bring the war to people’s attention because at least some students don’t support the war will have some reservations about supporting President Biden” in November, he said.

​ Orange County Register 

USC encampment cleared in pre-dawn push by LAPD, campus police

• May 5, 2024

A pro-Palestinian encampment in the middle of USC’s main campus was cleared this morning by officers with the Los Angeles Police Department and USC’s Department of Public Safety, ending a high-profile demonstration that began in April.

No arrests or major confrontations were reported.

The encampment clean-up began round 4:30 a.m. although USC Annenberg Media reported at 3:51 a.m. that university police officers told student reporters they planned to come in around 4 a.m. and had set up a staging area for the media, which they alleged was too far away to witness any arrests.

Protesters shouted “Free Palestine” at 4:17 a.m., as officers began surrounding the encampment, Annenberg Media said. At 4:25 a.m., DPS officers gave protesters in the encampment 15 minutes to leave the area before facing arrest.

The officers started at 4:35 a.m. to remove the banners hung by protesters, moving them to the side of the park, Annenberg said. An officer reportedly told Annenberg Media reporters it is “a DPS operation.”

During this time USC officials alerted students that the campus was temporarily closed.

As the clean-up operation proceeded, reporters at the Daily Trojan, USC’s student newspaper, reported seeing “at least 50 Los Angeles Police officers … moving down Trousdale Parkway near the USC campus at around 4:15 a.m. with zip ties, less-lethal launchers and helmets.” The also reported seeing “three police vans, which appear to be used for transporting people who have been arrested.”

A news videographer at the scene said officers pushed 50 to 75 students out of the encampment and off the campus. The officers then cleared out the tents and other gear that was left behind.

The police action came after USC President Carol Folt wrote an open letter to the “Trojan Family” stressing the steps the university was taking to ensure that students can finish finals “in a quiet, safe academic environment — and that our graduating students can enjoy peaceful and joyous commencement ceremonies.”

Folt took a firm stand toward protesters who might continue to be disruptive.

“Let me be absolutely clear,” she wrote in the letter released Friday. “Free speech and assembly do not include the right to obstruct equal access to campus, damage property, or foment harassment, violence, and threats. Nor is anyone entitled to obstruct the normal functions of our university, including commencement.

“… When laws and policies that apply to everyone are repeatedly and flagrantly violated — there must be consequences.”

It is not clear how campus access, which had been restricted to students, faculty and staff for much of the past week, would be impacted now that the encampment has been removed.

USC became a focal point of Southland pro-Palestinian protests following its decision to cancel valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s commencement speech in response to complaints about online posts that critics called antisemitic. USC officials insisted the move was solely a security issue, not a political decision.

As tensions continued mounting — leading to the mass protest April 24 that resulted in 93 arrests — the university eventually opted to cancel its May 10 main stage commencement in Alumni Park altogether, but vowed to move forward with the usual array of smaller satellite graduation ceremonies for the school’s individual colleges.

Those ceremonies are set to begin Wednesday.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Electric bills could rise for folks in cooler coastal climes under new plan

• May 5, 2024

Nearly universally loathed: An income-based fixed service charge on electric bills.

It could have exceeded $100 a month for the wealthiest folks, according to early proposals, but “progressive” apparently only goes so far, even here in California.

Electric transmission lines in Chino in January. (Photo by Watchara Phomicinda, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)

Once lawmakers realized they had approved this provision — a handful of paragraphs stuck into a long, last-minute trailer bill in 2022 — howls of rage erupted from Democrats, Republicans, and an irate public-at-large. Lawmakers backed away in nearly stampede-like fashion. Bills to repeal it were floated by legislators from both parties. Flurries of competing proposals were filed with the California Public Utilities Commission.

None of the bills survived. And now, after much gnashing of teeth, tearing of hair and high theatrics, a $24.15 flat, fixed, monthly service charge for all residential customers except the lowest-income Californians goes to the PUC for approval on May 9.

Folks in cool coastal climes would likely see bills increase, while folks in hot inland climes would likely see them decrease, according to the PUC’s in-house Solomon-the-Wise, charged with protecting the little guy.

Opponents call it a “utility tax” and say it’ll inflate costs for working and middle-income folks, with no cap to keep it under control going forward.

Here everyone might stop and take a breath. This is not a rate increase, the PUC insists, trying to raise its voice above the angry din. It is not a tax. It does not impose any new fees. It does not generate new profit for utilities.

“It simply reallocates how existing costs are shared among customers,” the PUC said in its primer when the proposal was announced in March.

“In fact, almost all publicly owned utilities in the state, and most utilities nationwide, use a similar billing structure. This proposal brings California in line with state and national trends.”

A mixed bag, the Sierra Club calls it. While the plan could shave some 10% off of electricity prices, low-income customers with bills below $120 a month could actually end up paying more, its analysis suggests.

The plan also lumps customers making $50,000 a year in with multi-millionaires, all paying that same $24 monthly charge. That  cuts against the income-graduated demand approved by the Legislature to begin with.

The deets

California utilities have been historically weird about how fixed charges are billed.

The burden for keeping the lights on — paying for transmission wires, transformers, poles, towers, the whole upkeep of the electrical grid that makes modern life possible — has been baked into rates for electricity itself.

So the more power you use, the more you pay for grid upkeep. And the less power you use, the less you pay for grid upkeep.

Conundrum: It costs just as much to get electricity to folks who use little — say, rooftop solar owners who only need grid power at night — as it does to get it to folks who use gob-loads, the thinking goes. Those costs should be spread more evenly, and that’s what this change is all about, officials say.

Under the plan the PUC will vote on May 9, the price of electricity would drop 5 to 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.

That would reduce bills for lower-income folks and those living in hellishly hot parts of the state, the PUC says. It also would advance clean energy goals (by cutting the kilowatt-hour cost, which makes it cheaper to electrify homes and vehicles). If you power your home and vehicles with electricity, you stand to save some $28 to $44 per month, according to the PUC.

If approved, this new “flat rate line item” would kick in in late 2025 and early 2026 for customers of the Big Three investor-owned utilities — Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and Pacific Gas & Electric.

Lower-income Californians would pay lower flat rates of $6 or $12 a month.

In a joint filing, the Big Three said the plan can “generally be seen as a positive first step” towards achieving the Legislature’s goals.

A monthly residential bill from San Diego Gas & Electric. (Rob Nikolewski/The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Yes!

The aforementioned PUC Solomon-the-Wise supports the change.

“The current electric rate structure penalizes households that have less control over their electricity use, such as those that live in a hotter region or have more residents under one roof,” said the Public Advocates Office in its analysis.

“Without a flat rate, these households would continue to pay more than their fair share of costs that do not vary by usage, such as costs for utility customer service, energy efficiency programs and activities related to providing basic service. It would also mean that electrifying the transportation and building sectors would be more difficult, as households currently have a disincentive to shift their energy use from fossil fuels to electricity due to high rates.”

The overall impact is modest, its analysis says.

Workers install solar panels on a house in Mission Viejo in 2016 (File Photo by Michael Goulding, Orange County Register/SCNG)

Lower income customers of PG&E would see average savings of some 60 cents to $18.09.  For everyone else, it could range from savings of $6.79 to an increase of $11.50 per month.

Folks in coastal cities in Orange and Los Angeles counties can expect to pay more, as bill increases will be concentrated in cooler climate zones, which already see lower bills compared to statewide averages.

The $24.15 per month flat rate mirrors that of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, one of the nation’s largest public electric utilities.

That compares to $12 at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; $18.21 at the city of Burbank’s electric utility; $30 at the city of Roseville’s electric utility; and $36.09 at the city of Riverside’s utility.

No!

Scores of local officials and consumer groups brand the proposal to restructure bills a “utility tax” and say it will raise costs for millions of working and middle class families.

“Overall, the Utility Tax would increase electricity bills for any Californian who does not use a lot of electricity because they live in an apartment or small home, conserve energy, or have solar,” Stop the Big Utility Tax, a coalition of some 240 groups, said in a prepared statement.

“A Big Utility Tax will keep growing over time, and does nothing to control the high cost of electricity. The Utility Tax is uncapped, which means it will keep rising, along with rates. A big Utility Tax simply adjusts who pays what, but does nothing to address the root causes of high electricity prices.”

Amen to that.

It’s important here to understand how utilities make their money.  As we told you in our recent story about the watchdogs who watch the watchdog that watches the PUC that’s supposed to watch the utilities, electric companies don’t make money from selling electricity. They make money from the return they’re allowed on capital investments. So there’s an incentive for utilities to spend more money on infrastructure than they have to.

“As a former commission president, I know what keeping energy prices down requires,” wrote Loretta Lynch, now an attorney in San Francisco, in a recent essay in the San Francisco Chronicle. “(A) sharp pencil to control relentless spending requests from utilities that allow them to generate more profits, adherence to legal mandates that require it to protect ratepayers and allow only ‘just and reasonable’ costs, and the backbone to just say no to the utilities’ unceasing demands that customers pay for programs that are ineffective or unnecessarily expensive.

“None of this is happening, and Californians should be outraged,” she wrote. “It is up to the state Legislature to inject sanity into the regulatory system and protect California families and businesses from ruinous, undeserved rate increases.

Change!

Consumer groups and the utilities themselves beseech the PUC to adjust the fixed charge proposal in myriad ways.

Some want low-income customers to pay nothing.

Some want more tiers at the top, so wealthier Californians pay more than their middle-class brethren.

Some want the fixed charge to be higher.

Some want this or that to be factored in to the fixed charge.

Some want this or that to be excluded from the fixed charge.

There have been dozens upon dozens of “exparte communications” between PUC officials and interested parties — who are trying to convince regulators that their position is the right one — over the past few weeks.

Many hundreds of public comments have poured in as well. Solar panel owners are particularly incensed.

“Any fixed charge is a breach of contract, for those of us who purchased solar panels and use no net electricity from the grid,” said Randall Stolaruk of Huntington Beach. “This completely changes the cost tradeoff for those who have already made the solar investment to protect against these escalating costs and to help the environment. If you go through with this, I sure hope it’s hauled into the courts….”

Expect fireworks on May 9 — and for a long time thereafter.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

When a financial plan is no plan at all

• May 5, 2024

When is an estate plan not a plan? When is an estate plan worse than no plan at all?

I wish this was the opening to a fun riddle, but sadly, when estate plans (wills, trusts, powers of attorney, health care directives) are unclear or out of date, it’s never funny, and can often be disastrous.

Said vs. meant to say

More often than I’d like to see, someone has gone to the trouble of having their estate plan created, but they sign the documents without understanding its terms. Sometimes, misunderstandings result because assets or circumstances changed, but the plan was not updated. Sometimes what’s in the documents does not match what mom or dad have told the kids, resulting in hurt feelings and often litigation.

A typical “plan” and sentiment is that a trust is to take care of the surviving spouse if there is one, and then “to my children equally” (often in fancy legal terms like “descendants” and “per stirpes,” both of which sounds like things you’d find in a pharmacy). But what if one child has been living in mom’s house taking care of mom in her final years, and mom has promised to leave that child the house? What if one child has worked in dad’s business and dad has always said to the hard-working child, “One day, this will all be yours”?

If a trust states, “to my children equally,” and says nothing about specific assets to specific children, the trustee’s hands are tied. Thus, in the above house example, the only way the house could be distributed to the caretaking child is if there are enough other assets to give the other children an equally valuable share. Even then, the trustee may need the consent of the other children. If the caregiving child was expecting the house and 1/3 of the other assets, they’re going to be out of luck. This is true even if that child was paying the mortgage on the house, unless the child can prove they were purchasing the house from their parent and thus entitled to some portion of the house as a purchaser rather than an heir.

The bigger problem

Even when a trust says “house to child A,” problems can arise. It should be clear whether child A gets the house “off the top” before all other assets are split among the children, or if child A gets the house as part of their share.

For example, assume dad dies with a trust holding a house worth $600,000, and other assets of $900,000, for a total of $1.5 million in assets.

If child A is getting the house, and the “remainder” (also referred to as “residual”) is going to all three kids equally, then child A gets $900,000 of assets (the house plus one-third of the $900,000 of other assets), and the other children each get $300,000. If, on the other hand, child A has the right to the house as a part of their one-third share, they are only entitled to $500,000 (one-third of $1.5 million) and will need to buy out their siblings’ share of the house.

Without specific terms, whichever way the trustee goes, this trust is likely to be contested by one child or another, and the legal fees will eat up a significant portion of the estate. Probate might have been cheaper.

Timing

When a gift is to be distributed is another important and overlooked issue that can nullify a plan.

If dad is leaving the family business to the child who works in the business, the trust again should make clear if that’s “off the top” or part of that child’s share. But what if dad’s spouse is still alive? Is the surviving spouse meant to continue receiving income from the business? Is the gift only made once both spouses are deceased (particularly a concern with children from different marriages)?

What if the child is no longer working in the business at the time of dad’s death? At the time of surviving spouse’s death? The trust should cover these conditions — e.g., the child only received the business as part of their share of the trust assets, after the surviving spouse has died, and only if the child is still working in the business.

Formula trust

Estate planning attorneys often draft trusts with complicated formulas for how a trust is divided. We do that not because we’re showoffs or charge by the word (that only seems true) but because tax laws change, asset values change, and we don’t know when you’re going to die. But sometimes, if the law changes drastically, or your assets significantly change, these formulas can up-end a plan.

When a trust is drafted, the formula could benefit the surviving spouse (i.e., the largest share under the formula is set aside for the spouse), but as laws and assets change over the years, that could reverse, and the formula may benefit the children more, or perhaps unintentionally reduce a spouse or child’s share to zero.

Make sure you consult with counsel every few years and confirm the formula still works.

Old trusts

If you have a trust that was put in place before 2012 and hasn’t been updated yet, you should have it reviewed. Tax laws have changed significantly, and where pre-2012, it was commonplace that a trust would split into two at the death of the first spouse to save on estate taxes, this is no longer the case. And in fact, splitting the trust into the “old school” two trusts may cause higher income taxes.

An estate plan is a living document for so long as you are a living person. Just as you buy new clothes, move homes, and change your diet and exercise habits, your trust is going to need an update as well. Just like those jeans you wore in high school, a plan is not a plan if it no longer fits you.

Teresa J. Rhyne is an attorney practicing in estate planning and trust administration in Riverside and Paso Robles, CA. She is also the #1 New York Times bestselling author of “The Dog Lived (and So Will I)” and “Poppy in The Wild.”  You can reach her at [email protected]

​ Orange County Register 

Long Beach shooting injures 7; 4 critically

• May 5, 2024

Seven people were wounded in a Long Beach shooting, authorities said.

The shooting occurred about 11:15 p.m. Saturday in the area of South Street and Paramount Boulevard, according to Long Beach Police Department spokeswoman Alexis Lauro.

Four of the victims were in critical condition and three had non-life-threatening injuries, Lauro said. Some of the victims were taken to hospitals in private vehicles.

Suspect information was not available, she said. The shooter or shooters fled the scene before officers arrived.

The motive was unknown, Lauro said.

OC Hawk and OnScene.TV, video news agencies, reported numerous shell casing were found in the street and the parking lot of a nightclub on South Street.

The Press-Telegram staff contributed to this report.

Evidence markers are seen on the ground as police look for evidence after a shooting Saturday night in Long Beach. (Photo by OC HAWK)

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Canelo Alvarez retains undisputed championship with unanimous decision over Jaime Munguia

• May 5, 2024

By MARK ANDERSON (AP Sports Writer)

LAS VEGAS — Canelo Alvarez held off a feisty challenger Saturday night, proving to be the stronger and more effective boxer to retain his undisputed super middleweight championship, winning by unanimous decision to hand Jaime Munguia his first loss.

Tim Cheatham scored the fight 117-110, David Sutherland had it 116-111 and Steve Weisfeld 115-112.

Alvarez (61-2-2), who closed as a minus-380 at BetMGM, overcame a somewhat slow start to dominate Munguia (43-1) before a crowd of 17,492. The champ took full control after knocking down Munguia in the fourth round.

The lead-up to the bout was unusually polite, with both fighters saying they were proud to represent Mexico on Cinco de Mayo weekend.

Alvarez saved his harshest criticism during week not for his opponent, but for Munguia’s promoter. Oscar De La Hoya used to be in Alvarez’s corner, but they clearly are on opposite sides now and nearly even came to blows Wednesday at the news conference after trading allegations.

Munguia the most aggressive boxer the first three rounds, even getting Alvarez into the ropes in the third. Alvarez, though, showed in the fourth he wasn’t going anywhere, using a left and then a right to the face to send Munguia to the canvass with 38 seconds left.

Alvarez then proceeded to sting Munguia over the next four rounds with shots to the face. Munguia put together his own sets of flurries, but they did little noticeable damage to Alvarez.

That is until the ninth round when Munguia landed some blows to the face that sent Alvarez backward, including into the corner at one point. But Alvarez responded with his own combinations, including coming out of the corner, in the fight’s most action-packed round.

The 10th and 11th rounds were close, but largely the same trends followed of Alvarez delivering the harder shots.

Munguia came out in the final round fighting as if he knew he was trailing on the judges’ card, but did little damage. It was Alvarez who again came through with the best blows, using a combination with about a minute left to Munguia’s head and following with several more shots to end the fight.

Related Articles

In the other main-card fights:

— San Antonio’s Mario Barrios (29-2) successfully defended his WBC interim world welterweight title by defeating Argentinian Fabian Maidana (22-3) by unanimous decision in the co-main event. Each judge scored the bout 116-111.

Barrios prevailed despite fighting with his right eye nearly completely closed.

“Maidana fought hard for 12 rounds like I expected,” Barrios said. “Once my eye started swelling up, it was hard to find my range. But we stuck to the fundamentals, tried to find openings and came out with the victory.”

— WBC interim world featherweight champion Brandon Figueroa (25-1-1, 19 KOs) of Welasco, Texas, knocked out Jessie Magdaleno (29-3) of Las Vegas with a left uppercut to his kidney with one second left in the ninth round ended.

— Lithuania’s Eimantas Stanionis (15-0) easily retained his WBA welterweight title by claiming a unanimous decision over Venezuelan Gabriel Maestre (6-1-1) with scores of 117-111, 118-10 and 119-109.

​ Orange County Register 

Santa Margarita boys volleyball sweeps Servite to advance to CIF-SS Division 2 final

• May 5, 2024

ANAHEIM – Ethan Saint had a team-high 25 kills for Santa Margarita on Saturday as the Eagles swept Servite in three sets, 27-25, 25-18, 25-22, in a CIF Southern Section Division 2 semifinal at Servite High.

Santa Margarita (24-4) will play Redondo (24-6) in the final on Saturday, May 11  The two teams have not played against each other this season.

The CIF-SS office on Monday will announce the site for the contest.

Servite (19-14) might be selected to play in the CIF Southern California Regional playoffs that begin May 14. The regional brackets will be released May 12.

Santa Margarita will be playing in its fifth CIF-SS boys volleyball championship match. The Eagles are 3-1 in finals and won championships in 1997, ‘98 and 2001.

Eagles senior outside hitter Brooks Ignosci had 15 kills and 12 digs. Freshman setter Chase Wallin had 40 assists.

Santa Margarita coach Sinan Tanik got the all-around team effort he wanted.

“When I take pride in my team the most is when everyone is contributing,” said Tanik, in his third season as Santa Margarita’s head coach after playing and coaching for many years in Europe and in Turkey. “Yes, we have our heavy guns. But when everyone is contributing that is very important.”

Santa Margarita defeated Servite twice in Trinity League matches during the regular season, including a 3-2 win at Servite and a 3-0 win at Santa Margarita.

“Every time you play Servite you’ve got to play well,” said Saint, a 6-3 senior outside hitter who signed with UC Santa Barbara. “We came out with a lot of energy and our team played well.”

The match featured many high-velocity spikes and athletic digs in all three sets.

A Saint kill gave Santa Margarita a 15-10 lead in the first set, the Eagles’ biggest lead of that set.

Servite relied on USC-signed, 6-6 senior outside hitter Eamon Rigdon and fellow seniors Quinn Rosenkranz and Connor Truong to lead their charge in the first set. The Friars took a 23-22 lead and a 25-24 lead but could not get the win, with Santa Margarita taking the set 27-25.

Santa Margarita grabbed momentum midway through the second set and went on to a 25-18 win.

As in the first two sets, Servite had an early lead before Santa Margarita put together a mid-set run to win it 25-22.

“Servite is a really good team at every position,” Tanik said. “This year I think we matched up very well against them.”

Saint said the Eagles must play like they did Saturday in order to beat Redondo in the final.

“I think we just need to stay sharp,” Saint said. “Serving and passing are always big, and playing good defense and blocking. Just the whole game, really.”

​ Orange County Register 

San Clemente boys volleyball sweeps El Dorado to grab spot in Division 3 final

• May 5, 2024

SAN CLEMENTE — The last time the San Clemente boys volleyball team played in a CIF-SS championship match, none of the players on the current team had been born.

San Clemente swept El Dorado 25-20, 25-17, 25-16 at home Saturday in the Division 3 semifinals to advance to its first championship game since 2003.

The Tritons (26-6) last won a CIF championship in 1976. In 2003 San Clemente lost to Loyola in the Division 1 final.

“I think it’s always about CIF and I want this program to have that type of culture,” San Clemente coach Justin DeBlasio said. “I’m grateful that it’s finally here. It’s been a long time, it’s been a lot of work and we still have another job to do.”

Last season was the first losing season for San Clemente in many years, dating back to at least the year 2000.

“I think we are all super locked in and focused after our season last year,” San Clemente senior Kai Schmitt said. “I think we all knew that we needed to get it done this year.”

San Clemente has won 13 consecutive matches, 10 of them coming via sweeps. The Tritons have lost only three sets during the winning streak.

El Dorado (29-6) was the Crestview League champion and entered Saturday with seven consecutive wins, six of them being sweeps. The Golden Hawks reached the Division 4 championship game last season.

“We knew walking in that this was going to be the big game,” El Dorado coach Brit Brown said. “Tons of respect to San Clemente. They brought it, we brought it too and I’m so proud of my team.”

San Clemente will play St. Margaret’s in the championship game Saturday, May 11, at a site to be determined.

This will be the third consecutive championship game for St. Margaret’s, which lost in the Division 3 championship game in 2023.

Serving and passing were the key to San Clemente’s success against El Dorado. The Tritons had seven service aces and junior setter Jettie Presho was spreading the ball around well to set up big swings.

“We always try to get him to move the ball around and let our hitters know they are one-fifth of the offense,” DeBlasio said. “He’s got so many weapons and that makes it so much tougher for other teams to scout us. They don’t know where the ball is going.”

San Clemente does not feature one hitter that has eye-popping stats but instead has a balanced offense with multiple players tallying more than five kills.

Junior Jack Loper (Stanford commit)  led San Clemente in kills. Marcus Kosolcharoen and Pepperdine signee Will Whidden also had over five kills.

Schmitt, a Stanford signee, had three aces and was also effective around the net.

El Dorado features outside hitter Max Smith who entered Saturday with the second most kills (383) in Orange County this season. San Clemente’s length and athleticism at the net made it challenging for El Dorado to score. Smith’s 13 kills were his lowest during the playoffs.

“We kind of knew that he was going to be their go-to option so we keyed on that,” DeBlasio said. “We had high hands. I don’t think he’s seen that level of physicality with the hands with the teams they have played against so that worked to our advantage.”

“We knew they were going to be big,” Brown said. “We had a game plan going in. I think we just wanted it so bad that we were almost afraid to make mistakes and held back a bit.”

Trent Chaffin had six kills for El Dorado and setter Ryan Chia had 33 assists.

DeBlasio likes the way his team is playing and how they attacked El Dorado.

“We got back to our competitive mindset,” DeBlasio said. “Instead of waiting for the other team to give up, it was us working our game plan, winning the serve and pass battle and being physical. It’s a rare combination in high school and that’s what has worked well for us.”

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register