When I use the word “culmination”, in this case I mean this in the sense that things seem to have come to a head at this point, not out of strategy, but impatience. I think that that world really quantifies several of the factors that led to this protest. If you followed it as much as I did, and I’m sure you did, you could get a sense of the feeling that a majority of their tactics and approaches to the protest felt very rushed. This is something that must be taken in consideration, as I would deem that it did not allow for any modicum of success by its very nature

Now, if I may, I would like to state what I disagree with from what you have said.

1. I agree with you that, in terms of the economic climate as of late, it is very important to stress a measure of transparency, I do think it is important to note that this would make NYU one of the first private not-for-profit organizations to publish its budget publicly. I do not know of any other organization that publishes its budget outside of its employees unless it is a publicly traded commodity, as a measure of transparency is required to provide investors with piece of mind.

2. In this case, the spin was gravely important, because, by midday Thursday, an overwhelming majority of NYU students and civilians who live in the area were polarized against the protest because of it. Clearly, the administration has learned its PR tricks from a clear and diverse study of propaganda. It’s hard to accept in many ways, but spin is what mass media and communication have become about in the 21st century, and public opinion is everything. By affecting this situation in the way the did, NYU got out of it with a brilliant bit of press for itself.

3. I feel you misinterpreted what I was getting at, which is not that your ultimate goal is capture or abuse, but the fact that you have to consider these as possibilities and allow that you will be accountable for your actions. I have to disagree when you say that a demand for amnesty gives off the impression that you are justified in your protest. I talked with several fellow students who weren’t just irked, but irate that they would demand amnesty, as this created the impression that they wanted no sort of consequences for their actions. In a day in age when our own government is looking to create the impression that everyone be held accountable, why should we not follow in solidarity with this? I agree that violence is not only shocking, but a deterrent from serious protest, but it must be considered as a possibility, and contingencies MUST be in pace to counteract that.

4. The negotiation process in this case was handled badly because they set it up in a way that was directly without advantage. When you hold a building hostage, you have to be stern with the authority that wants it back. You leave yourself open to negotiation on your terms rather than theirs. If they don’t want to play ball, they have to accept that negotiation cannot take place.

Points 5 and 6 bear no further discussion because you and I are in complete agreement.

7. I agree with Annie Costa when she says that your last sentence sums up everything effectively and concisely about the protest’s ultimate legacy.

I do have to say that an “Us vs Them” approach is not counterintuitive in the sense that it is a clearly effective psychological game that works wonders and horrors when it is used properly (The Bush Administration’s use of this tactic to start the Iraq War was such a case, though it has brought unspeakable horror and incalculable loss to our country, as well as shaming us all as US citizens). My point is that you ultimately want to polarize people to a point that is not an extremity, but one that creates strong feeling and attitude towards what you are working towards. I do not feel this was in any way achieved by the protests as they were executed.

Sincerely,
Jack Manley

To Dave Shukla: I don’t think you could have said it better. This was the most accurate description of why the protest failed, boiled down, all into one sentence.

As one of the organizers of the New School occupation, I think you simply get it wrong. In a collegial spirit, I would like to suggest the following observations on each of your “7 errors”.

Point by point:

1. You may be too kind. There was more than one demand that was neither achievable nor strategic. Opening Bobst to the public, however admirable, is certainly one that detracted from the heart of the protest, admirably expressed in TBNYU’s principal banner to “Make NYU Affordable”. The focus of the demands, no less than 7 of them, were on the budget and the endowment. What these things are, how they are decided upon, by whom, and to what effect. Calling for increased transparency, democratic review, and accountability in decision-making over university finances during this economic crisis are focal points that can, and should, be fought for tooth and nail.

2. While you are right that it was intelligent PR by the NYU administration to announce that they granted what the students had taken for themselves, this was not what undermined their effort. Such obvious spin would have been meaningless to the thousands upon thousands of students who could have been sympathetic to TBNYU’s goals, if that organizing effort had been made. Where were the hundreds of faculty who are now signing petitions? Where were the majority of NYU students? Being compelling to the students on whose behalf action is taken, and in whose name those actions are presumably invoked, was the key to TBNYU’s failure. Being able to relate to one’s fellow students and their concerns, and present proposals for reform that are compelling and worth standing behind simply was not accomplished prior to taking action – and this failure made it possible for the NYU administration to respond to the protest in the way that they did.

3. In most cultures, it’s a bad thing to be captured. To be sure, there is a definite tradition of purposeful breaking of laws in civil disobedience, but to say that the end goal should necessarily be to be arrested (to build further support) is churlish at best. The point of an occupation isn’t the same as sitting down at a lunch counter, or in the president’s office. Occupying a building is an act of reclamation, and a show of strength in so doing. Calling for amnesty implies that one is justified in taking action, and if granted, legitimates all of the concerns demanded of the party that has the power to grant those demands. It is a tacit admission of responsibility. The NYU administration clearly had the space to refuse to do that. If there was sufficient social pressure, as there had been on Bob Kerrey at the New School during the moment of acute institutional crisis that third week of December, the outcome might have been different, and the students would not need to worry about being suspended from campus or evicted from their dorms.

4. Again, is the point of an action to provoke a university administration to call in NYPD to crack some heads for some media coverage? Who would risk their safety for such little gain? Who would bother with demands? Look at any neighborhood group, any labor group, any environmental group that takes part in non-violent direct action. Demands are always made. The action is always purposeful – it is the pathway to getting what you want. It is not the end in itself. Preventing any sort of negotiation process is a surer way to fail than to not organize your community at all. Eventually, you will have to leave the building. What do you leave it with?

5. I agree with you. One method for doing what you suggest – coordinating with outside support – is to circulate your letter of nonviolence and set of agreements. Another is to, again purposefully, have a significant part of your group outside the action, organizing on the ground. This of course assumes the requisite cultural preparation – where the vast majority of your audience/constituency/public is on your side – and that simply did not happen.

6. Security guards should never be targets of an occupation. In 1998, New School students occupied and went on strike to increase their wages. You are right, no one should have been touched. But when you have such an open tactic, you invite recalcitrant effects.

7. TBNYU members have been saying that they’ve been waging a campaign for two years, and that they had exhausted all other alternatives. It is not clear whether that was indeed the case, or whether there have been earlier times when gentler tactics would have been more appropriate – and effective. It certainly is not clear why this action was judged, prior to its execution, as either a) strategic, b) necessary, c) achievable, d) realistic, or e) timely.

In terms of movement building, however, I think both you and TBNYU students need to clarify what the use of “culmination” means – as many have thrown around this phrase “this action was the culmination of two years of campaigning”. More important, it is never “Us vs. Them”. That is a piss-poor psychological trap that can jaundice one’s thinking in times of duress. Focus on the behavior, what is wrong with it, and what can change it in the direction you want. As for permanently discrediting one’s power base and preventing future student action, these are live and very important questions. If you judge an action, any action, in the scope of a campaign by the following metrics: “did it build social power?” “did it empower more people to take action?” “did it institutionalize change?” “does it allow us to do tomorrow what we cannot do today?” then above all else, a certain amount of honesty and self-reflection is needed if, individually or collectively, students can move forward.

Warmly,
Dave Shukla.

The comment thread on yesterday’s post about the NYU protests raised some interesting points. I think my favorite was NaG’s:…

Best of luck to you. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

-emily stainkamp
occupier, organizer, suspendee