Why isn't the UC embracing Occupy instead of resisting it?

I think this statement is correct and encourage those who agree to add their names to it (particularly if affiliated with the UC).  It also provides a reason to ask something I've been wondering about Occupy UC and the administration's reaction to it.

If I were the Chancellor of a UC, or any high-level administrator of a university, it would be thrilling to watch students engage in any high-level organizational activity resembling what the UC students have done.  In what classroom exercise can one inculcate and encourage the skills represented by the these gatherings?  Think of what's required: organize a large group of people; engage in passionate political speech; coordinate messaging; mediate conflict; design General Assemblies that address important concerns without becoming muddied with personal issues.  And all this has been accomplished with the kind of discipline and commitment that leads to nonviolent yet creative responses to overreach by state and university forces.  You cannot teach this amazing constellation of abilities in a classroom, yet it's popping up in student bodies across the university system.

Why would any Chancellor try to inhibit this?  Given that basic concerns about public safety and daily operations are addressed - as for instance was done at the Davis protest - I'm actually surprised that the UC isn't embracing Occupy UC as a point of pride in its students.  That it initially went the opposite way makes me wonder why.  Are these administrators continuing to react to 60's protests?  Is there some form of elite peer pressure at work, where for instance other similarly wealthy professionals are advocating that Occupy UC be dismantled on principle?  The stated motivations of Chancellor Katehi's order don't match what Occupy was actually doing in the Quad, so far as I can tell, which makes me ask if the administration was responding to what they see subjectively rather than what's actually happening.