So, why did the campus coalition issue a set of “occupation” demands different from the campus coalition demands? Rather, was it a good thing that they went ahead and engaged in occupation?
“Take Back NYU decided to occupy because after two years of trying to get the administration to talk to us and listen to our demands, we were unsuccessful, said Green “They consistently refused to engage in any dialogue with us.”
As explained on the “Support the NYU Occupation!” Facebook group page, members of the coalition decided they had waited too long, been pushed around “through endless red tape, through never-ending tuition hikes, through unfair labor practices, through secrecy and lies, through power being consolidated in a tiny group of (mostly) rich white dudes who know nothing about our lives as students.” The members refused to “dignify the University’s lack of response with our own inaction.”
Green and others engaged in this action because of a belief that students should “stop allowing schools to act as corporations where they put profits over students.” Yet, unfortunately, news articles and statements from the press do not focus on this belief as the underlying reasoning of the occupation; the Palestinian cause takes center stage.
Nick Jensen, NYU student and a 2009 YP4 Fellow, explained, “When Take Back NYU members and other students from other schools (note, the initial group was not even all NYU students) decided to "occupy" the Kimmel Student Center Dining Area, it was a shock to all. More shocking though was an outrageous list of demands, none of which seeming to have a common theme or similar purpose. TBNYU has no specific mission that I can now identify because in addition to full itemized budget disclosure (everything from staples to each professors salary), they demand scholarships for Palestinian students (note- no international students receive need-based financial aid), and full veto power of the budget and endowment.”
“The original intent of TBNYU is something that I would have supported, to a degree, but they have shown they are unprofessional, disrespectful, and arrogant,” said Jensen. “And this is how a vast majority of NYU students see them as well. There is nothing they could do to hurt their cause more.”
Campus occupation is a form of direct action. Like membership drives, petitions, call-in campaigns, pickets, boycotts, and town hall meetings, a direct action can help a marginalized community (like the NYU students) overcome that which is resisting social change (NYU administrators) and be very beneficial to a cause. However, it seems like students at NYU became tired of how long their organizing had been taking and shoddily threw together a student revolt.
The NYU students (and others) possibly thought that if they stepped it up to the next level by integrating a demand for Palestinians they might build more support. (A foreign policy or human rights issue may be more energizing on campus then budget or financial issues. How many anti-Board of Trustees protests have you seen?)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
