Some students and alumni were critical, saying it sends the wrong message.

After plans to build the fence were revealed last year, sophomore Cheyenne Millard told KCBS that she objected to the “symbolicness of the fence and what it means putting it up, it’s making a separation between the students and the chancellor.”

UC Berkeley graduate Bianca Huntley-Ortega, a protest organizer, told KCBS that the fence reflected poorly on Chancellor Nicholas Dirks — a “symbol that he’s not fighting for the interest of the students.”

Dirks, aware of what happened to his predecessors, has offered no apologies.

Most coverage of the costly fence has only vaguely alluded to the reasons UC officials might consider taking the unusual step of acting to secure the physical safety of the chancellor, citing past protests without offering many details. But two incidents show the risks chancellors faced before the fence was installed.

2009 attack likened to ‘terrorism’ by Schwarzenegger

On Dec. 11, 2009, a crowd of protesters later found to be led by anarchists tried to burn down the residence after a Friday night protest of tuition and fee hikes and budget cuts. Then-UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said the next day that “these are criminals, not activists. The attack at our home was extraordinarily frightening and violent. My wife and I genuinely feared for our lives.”

Besides trying to burn down the home, known as University House, a crowd of about 75 people smashed its windows, lights and planters before being dispersed by police. Eight were arrested; two were Cal students and the rest were associated with radical groups and movements with strongholds in the Bay Area.

The reaction to the incident was oddly muted. Instead of focusing on the fact that protesters hoped to burn Birgeneau and his wife Mary alive, a San Francisco Chronicle account referred to “vandalism” in its headline. Alameda County District Attorney Karen O’Malley made clear the case was not a priority, saying she lacked evidence to file serious charges against the eight people arrested.

Among those frustrated with O’Malley: then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who likened the protesters to “terrorists” and issued a statement: “The governor expects the DA to utilize all tools to identify and prosecute those responsible for the attack on Chancellor Birgeneau’s home. While the governor supports open debate, this protest crossed the line into criminal activity and those responsible should be treated as criminals.”

1992 incident: Armed intruder shot and killed

An even-scarier incident occurred on Aug. 26, 1992. This is from the L.A. Times’ account:

BERKELEY — A young machete-wielding political activist awaiting trial on charges of possession of explosives was shot and killed by police Tuesday after she broke into the campus residence of UC Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien.

University officials said that Rosebud Abigail Denovo, 19, entered the residence and triggered a silent alarm at 5:51 a.m. Campus police telephoned Tien, who quickly locked his second-floor bedroom doors.

Authorities arrived with an Oakland police canine unit, began a search and then escorted the chancellor and his wife, Di-Hwa Tien, from the residence. About 7 a.m., authorities said, Denovo was discovered in another second-floor bedroom, a short distance from the Tiens’ room.

Officials said that as Oakland Police Officer Craig Chew opened the door, the woman lunged at him with a machete. Chew fired three times with a handgun in self-defense, officials said.

Denovo got into the residence by melting the molding on a basement window with a propane torch.

UC Berkeley officials downplayed the cost of the fence, saying it would actually save money in coming years by reducing the need to have the house constantly patrolled. The annual cost of patrols was $200,000 before the fence and is expected to be much lower going forward.

Katy Grimes: I couldn’t decide if Vice Presidential incumbent Joe Biden was manic during the VP debate last evening, or just being condescending and rude to intimidate challenger Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

Rude, condescending, and just weird, Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times, while Ryan remained respectful and polite; it was a stark contrast. Joe’s OPD came shining through. Obnoxious Personality Disorder is not an official personality disorder, but it should be, especially after last night’s debate.

Biden’s smirks, laughs, eye rolls, huffing and puffing, only made him look like a petulant child, instead of the “statesman” he prefers to be called. Even veteran FOX journalist Chris Wallace said after the debate that in his years of watching debates, since the first Kennedy-Nixon debate, he had never seen anyone behave so disrespectfully or contemptuously as Biden.

After the bounce that the GOP got from the Romney-Obama Presidential debate, the expectations placed on Biden were high; he had to bring home a win for Obama-Biden.

But that did not happen. Even the CNN and Associated Press polls called the debate for Ryan last evening.

While moderator Martha Raddatz offered solid questions, she did not maintain control of Biden. She even interrupted Ryan many times, often just as he was making a point.

Ryan handled pointed questions on foreign policy, surprising many, and handed Biden his tush on taxes and the economy with numbers and facts.

Libya

The debate opened with Raddatz asking Biden if the terrorist attack on Libya and the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was a huge blunder. “It was a pre-planned assault by heavily armed men. Wasn’t this a massive intelligence failure Vice President Biden?” Raddatz asked about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where Stevens was brutally murdered.

Biden dodged the question and launched into his own speech about how great the President is.

But Ryan answered the question and said that  Stevens had been denied sufficient security by Obama administration officials. “It took the President two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack,” Ryan said.

“With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey. Not a single thing he said is accurate,” Biden snarled.

Raddatz told Biden to “be specific.”

Biden retorted that Ryan cut the embassy security budget, and then launched again into how great Obama has been on security.

Economy

Biden said that the economic recovery America is enjoying would proceed if Republicans “get out of the way.” Ryan deftly pointed out that the Democrats had complete control of Congress and the White House when Obama and Biden took over in 2009-10. “He had his chances. He made his choices,” Ryan said, and “this is where we are at.”

Obamacare

The debate moved to Obamacare allowing to Ryan bring up the unelected panel which would make important health decisions and ultimately what the future of health care would look like. Biden laughed again, and said that Sarah Palin had already argued the death panels with him in the last debate.

Foot-in-mouth-syndrome

Out of the blue, Biden brought up Romney’s campaign comment when he said that 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, see themselves as victims, and take no responsibility for their own lives.

“It’s about time they take responsibility” instead of signing pledges to avoid raising taxes, Biden said about Romney, Ryan and the Republicans. And somewhere during the debate, Biden brought up Grover Norquist and his “no-tax” pledge.

“This is a man who gave 30 percent of his income to charity, more than the two of us combined,” Ryan retorted. “Mitt Romney’s a good man. He cares about 100 percent of Americans in this country. And with respect to that quote, I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”

Ryan finally succeeded in wiping the smirk off Biden’s face, but only temporarily.

Medicare

Ryan said Obama’s health care plan will take $716 billion from Medicare, as well as create a new board that could have the power to deny care to the elderly patients who need it.

Democrats “haven’t put a credible solution on the table,” Ryan said. “They’ll tell you about vouchers. They’ll say all these things to try to scare people.”

In a throw-granny-off-the-cliff moment, Biden retorted that Ryan had authored two proposals in which seniors would be given government payments that might not cover all of their care. And he said that the Romney-Ryan plan would never achieve the savings they claimed.

It was clear that without a strong record to run on, both Obama and Biden are on the  attack, and Ryan let them know that he knows their plan. Quoting Barack Obama from 2008 when he was on the campaign trail, Ryan said that their strategy is obvious: “If you don’t have a good record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from.”

It’s exactly what Obama and Biden are doing, and why they steer clear from their four years in charge, and spend much more of their time on-the-attack. This debate was more evidence of the strategy. Thankfully, it’s over.

Politico has the debate transcript.