What pissed you off today?

[Stadler]

I was just told they started setting up tents at the university I work for.

Should be fun!


Though my school is a commuter school, and I doubt the students will want to stay on campus too terribly long.

I laughed out loud at that last line. 

[Stadler]

I think it's related in the sense where you see Op-Eds in the NYT with these whiney trustafarian professors who have never worked a real day in their life complaining that the protests are disrupting campus life. To me that kind of pathetic response just highlights how cartoonishly corrupt these big private schools are.

You are WAY out of your depth on this one. I don't know if you bothered - I'm going to assume you didn't - to look up Professor McWhorter, but if you did, you'd know he has a Bachelor of Arts from Rutgers (great school), a Masters of Arts degree from New York University (a great school) and a PhD degree (a doctorate) from Stanford University (one of the best schools in the country).

He has worked, trust me.  Maybe not at digging ditches, or on an assembly line, but he has worked. 

I do agree with Adami, though, that while poorly expressed (sorry, no offense) the underlying point is a good one about the nature and intent of the work, 4'33".

[Lonk]

We have become a society fixated on "free" and it's going to ultimately be a contributor to our downfall.  While we hear of the extreme cases - people with $500,000 of debt and a useless degree - that's not a fault of the higher education system.  THAT'S A BAD PERSONAL DECISION.  Full stop.  Over a lifetime, college graduates are expected to earn over $1M more than those that don't have a college degree; there are always exceptions, of course, but it's a simple math problem to determine whether a college degree is a viable option or not. 

Sorry to be pedantic, but I also think this is another sign of American insecurity. It doesn't seem enough for people to say "not for me".  We have devolved into a society that not only has to separate, but has to denigrate.  "College isn't for me" has vagueness and seems to have taken on a slightly negative connotation (i.e. "I couldn't cut it") and so has to be offset with denigrating and castigating college as some sort of "sham" or bogeyman that has to be attacked in order to self-affirm: "Not only isn't it for me, but whether I could cut it or not is immaterial because it's BILLSHOT!"  (This is reminiscent of the Taylor Swift thread; there are more posts that say "her new album blows and she sucks, WTF?" than the simple, and far more accurate, "hey, I listened to it, and it's not for me."  We seem to have adopted this incessant need to assimilate our opinion into the fabric - and fact - of the society around us.

We might be steering into P/R territory here, but here is another point of view.

As a society, we have been putting more and more pressure into going to college. Heck, most jobs now require at least an associate degree. The issue that we are now seeing is that a college degree have lost value. What was once looked at as an huge achievement, is now looked at as just another requirement for a job. Also, the culture in the US surrounding colleges is all messed up. When you are applying to college, you don't get the "if this is not for you" sentiment. You get the "you have to have the college experience, so you must go to this state school, take out loans to make sure that you dorm, and deal with the consequences later". So when you combine societal pressure to go to college and the culture surrounding colleges, you get what we have today.

I was fortunate enough to know better. I applied to University at Buffalo, got accepted and I couldn't be happier (I didn't even have a backup school because I had my mind set in going there). But the moment I saw the "financial aid" package, and the loans I would need to take out, I backed out. I ended up going to a local college (same one Adami works in, I think) and graduated debt free. Today is literally my last day grad school, and I'm graduating debt free. Not everyone has that privilege and I understand that, though.

[El Barto]

Exactly. Why are we disrupting everyone else's life because you have nothing better to do than protest something half a world away at some random college campus? Go over and fucking fight if you feel so strongly about it. Just get the fuck out of my face with your self righteousness.

Spend much time at Yale, do you?

[El Barto]

You are WAY out of your depth on this one. I don't know if you bothered - I'm going to assume you didn't - to look up Professor McWhorter, but if you did, you'd know he has a Bachelor of Arts from Rutgers (great school), a Masters of Arts degree from New York University (a great school) and a PhD degree (a doctorate) from Stanford University (one of the best schools in the country).

He has worked, trust me.  Maybe not at digging ditches, or on an assembly line, but he has worked. 

I do agree with Adami, though, that while poorly expressed (sorry, no offense) the underlying point is a good one about the nature and intent of the work, 4'33".

I figured as much. Thanks for saving me the time of checking myself. 

[TAC]

Spend much time at Yale, do you?

Never been.

[Stadler]

We might be steering into P/R territory here, but here is another point of view.

As a society, we have been putting more and more pressure into going to college. Heck, most jobs now require at least an associate degree. The issue that we are now seeing is that a college degree have lost value. What was once looked at as an huge achievement, is now looked at as just another requirement for a job. Also, the culture in the US surrounding colleges is all messed up. When you are applying to college, you don't get the "if this is not for you" sentiment. You get the "you have to have the college experience, so you must go to this state school, take out loans to make sure that you dorm, and deal with the consequences later". So when you combine societal pressure to go to college and the culture surrounding colleges, you get what we have today.

I was fortunate enough to know better. I applied to University at Buffalo, got accepted and I couldn't be happier (I didn't even have a backup school because I had my mind set in going there). But the moment I saw the "financial aid" package, and the loans I would need to take out, I backed out. I ended up going to a local college (same one Adami works in, I think) and graduated debt free. Today is literally my last day grad school, and I'm graduating debt free. Not everyone has that privilege and I understand that, though.

I'm not sure we're really arguing here.  I see the pressure; my daughter graduated from a pretty prestigious high school and applied to schools; she got a FULL RIDE to my alma mater - a public ivy, so a good friggin' school - and was told "well, if you want to settle for the local state school..."   But that's not necessarily proof of any of the assertions by others here.  It's not a slam dunk but that doesn't mean that it's a "sham".  You just (seemingly) made the right choice for you. 

(And congratulations!!!!)

[TAC]

.

[cramx3]

We might be steering into P/R territory here, but here is another point of view.

As a society, we have been putting more and more pressure into going to college. Heck, most jobs now require at least an associate degree. The issue that we are now seeing is that a college degree have lost value. What was once looked at as an huge achievement, is now looked at as just another requirement for a job. Also, the culture in the US surrounding colleges is all messed up. When you are applying to college, you don't get the "if this is not for you" sentiment. You get the "you have to have the college experience, so you must go to this state school, take out loans to make sure that you dorm, and deal with the consequences later". So when you combine societal pressure to go to college and the culture surrounding colleges, you get what we have today.

I was fortunate enough to know better. I applied to University at Buffalo, got accepted and I couldn't be happier (I didn't even have a backup school because I had my mind set in going there). But the moment I saw the "financial aid" package, and the loans I would need to take out, I backed out. I ended up going to a local college (same one Adami works in, I think) and graduated debt free. Today is literally my last day grad school, and I'm graduating debt free. Not everyone has that privilege and I understand that, though.

COngrats on being debt free, that's like unheard of from people coming out of not jsut undergrad, but grad school too.

On the bolded, I think things are starting to swing back a bit and I've seen more jobs not require a degree.  Like some jobs really don't require higher education so I think some companies are starting to recognize they can find good talent without a degree.  I don't think it's enough to change things, but maybe things are moving away from college being a requirement. 

[Lonk]

I'm not sure we're really arguing here.  I see the pressure; my daughter graduated from a pretty prestigious high school and applied to schools; she got a FULL RIDE to my alma mater - a public ivy, so a good friggin' school - and was told "well, if you want to settle for the local state school..."   But that's not necessarily proof of any of the assertions by others here.  It's not a slam dunk but that doesn't mean that it's a "sham".  You just (seemingly) made the right choice for you. 

(And congratulations!!!!)

Thanks!

And I guess it didn't come across since I was typing that quickly. But I agree with what you were saying that higher ed is not a sham. I was just trying to say that simply saying "College is not for me" seems to be a more risky option than it was say 20-30 years ago.

COngrats on being debt free, that's like unheard of from people coming out of not jsut undergrad, but grad school too.

Thanks! It was a huge sacrifice, financially, but it was something I wanted to do.

[hefdaddy42]

The song invites you to sit in silence and listen and absorb your surroundings. Except when it's about a protest I disagree with, then it's just "distracting noise"

The point is this guy is missing the entire point of Cage's piece if he thinks there are "noises" that this piece shouldn't be listened to with. Someone mentioned a marching band as background, and I don't see how that'd be any different. The point of the piece is to listen to what is "here and now" and if it's a marching band, or loud protests, what is the difference? The point is to STFU and listen. And publicizing that there are exceptions to that are the most obvious way to signal you have no idea why the Cage piece is important. Hard for me to comprehend how someone that closed minded and, frankly, dumb, got a job teaching at a university that is supposed to be as prestigious  as Columbia

The political nature of these "noises" is obviously the thing the guy takes issue with and it's incredibly dubious and obviously a bad faith argument for him to try and make it about distracting noise. I highly doubt John Cage only intended his piece to be listened to under conditions only a milquetoast liberal would be comfortable with. It's art, get offended and think a bit!

Disagree.

The point of 4'33'' is to get the audience to sit and listen to the ambient noise IN THE ROOM.  The people, the shifting in seats, sneezes, etc.  It's meant to be performed in a concert hall, like any other recital.  I don't think overly loud nonsense from outside the building is the point.  It's to connect with all of the other people in the room through shared silence and ambient noise.  Shenanigans occurring outside the building are not ambient noise.  They are a distraction from the ambient noise in the room.  So the professor is exactly right, IMO.

So, what did you mean by saying he had never worked a day in his life?

[ReaperKK]

COngrats on being debt free, that's like unheard of from people coming out of not jsut undergrad, but grad school too.

On the bolded, I think things are starting to swing back a bit and I've seen more jobs not require a degree.  Like some jobs really don't require higher education so I think some companies are starting to recognize they can find good talent without a degree.  I don't think it's enough to change things, but maybe things are moving away from college being a requirement. 

I work for a large bank and most positions I've hired for (starting at pretty much six figures) does not have a degree requirement. A lot of jobs posted list a degree as a desired qualification and not mandatory.

[lordxizor]

Pretty much all of the positions at my company have experience in lieu of a college degree as an option, but its typically 2 years of work versus 1 year of college education. The only exception I can think of are engineer positions that require an engineering degree

[XJDenton]

Most PhDs, especially is the US, are pretty damn gruelling. Long hours for not much pay. The idea that academia is cushy is a falsehood.

[ganpondorodf]

This is me, so what is it telling?

And Police State? Really?

If you need it explained to you, you won't get it. Anyone who makes it to adulthood without understanding why you should care about other people, even strangers half a world away, is not going to be convinced by anything a moron like me could say.

And yes, really

[TAC]

If you need it explained to you, you won't get it. Anyone who makes it to adulthood without understanding why you should care about other people, even strangers half a world away, is not going to be convinced by anything a moron like me could say.

And yes, really

Yes, I have made it to adulthood with the understanding that caring for the plight of strangers halfway across the world is novel. I don't happen to believe that these are poor innocent students are doing that.

And calling the police to clear out a disruptive gathering does not qualify it as being a police state.

[King Postwhore]

I've lives in the United States my whole life and only dealt with 1 asshole cop who was just sarcastic.

I can travel wherever I want with no restrictions. Yes, I'm white. 

[Stadler]

If you need it explained to you, you won't get it. Anyone who makes it to adulthood without understanding why you should care about other people, even strangers half a world away, is not going to be convinced by anything a moron like me could say.

And yes, really

No offense, but the "if you need it explained to you, you won't get it" argument is, pardon the pun, sort of a cop out.  We can care about other people, near or far, known or stranger.  That doesn't mean that the other people are right all the time, or that we need to forgo any disagreement or debate about how they want to be helped.  Or that the means of drumming up more caring is right or just.

It's crazy to me that in this day and age, the police are called BY SOMEONE ELSE, and they respond BECAUSE IT'S THEIR CHARTER, THEIR DUTY, and yet... their presence is somehow "their fault".   You know full well - and if you doubt me, go on any social media network and look at local posts - that if the police didn't respond, they'd be in the drink on that one too. 

I've already said that I have familiarity with Yale; it's in my backyard. I was on their campus (indirectly) as little as a month ago.  I also am aware of an official policy issued by my alma mater (a state school) regarding these issues.  I can unequivocally tell you that the protests aren't JUST about "caring for other people half a world away".  Certainly some people do, and some of the protestors do.  That's not how Yale - and many college campuses - work. 

These incidents, these events are less and less about the subject matter of the debate, and more and more about the current state of affairs in our country.  We don't like something?  Argue about it.  If we don't like the argument or more importantly, the other side doesn't just capitulate to our way of thinking?  Two options: violence or claim the other side is stupid and/or racist.  How about digging and doing the hard work?  Not stereotyping and making a compelling argument about the issue at hand, not the basis for the issue (or the counter argument)?

[cramx3]

If you need it explained to you, you won't get it. Anyone who makes it to adulthood without understanding why you should care about other people, even strangers half a world away, is not going to be convinced by anything a moron like me could say.

And yes, really

I think you can both care about people and still get it.  I actually think that's part of becoming an adult.  Understanding you can't change things across the world.  Shit, you can't even help your neighbor most likely (Not you specially, just generally including myself). Unless you are going to go out there yourself, and I have great respect for anyone that donates their life to helping others, but that's also a sacrifice I'm not willing to make admittingly (and seemingly neither are the protesters).

I also have to say, even if it's not Soros, if protesters are being funded, it kind of ruins the whole thing right?  Like if your motive is a pay check, who cares what your point is?  I've got to believe this is not the majority of protesters, but it muddies the waters for the ones who do it righteously.

[El Barto]

These incidents, these events are less and less about the subject matter of the debate, and more and more about the current state of affairs in our country.  We don't like something?  Argue about it.  If we don't like the argument or more importantly, the other side doesn't just capitulate to our way of thinking?  Two options: violence or claim the other side is stupid and/or racist.  How about digging and doing the hard work?  Not stereotyping and making a compelling argument about the issue at hand, not the basis for the issue (or the counter argument)?

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Tim. Does your take apply to the kids protesting Vietnam on college campuses back in the day? Do we presume their motives were simply agitation, rather than genuine concern? As I said then, too, I like that college kids are actually passionate enough about something to raise hell, and writing them off as just aimless troublemakers or attention seekers is a touch too cynical even for me.

[chknptpie]

As someone who donated to one of the campus protests near me... I don't understand why the students need to be forcibly removed. They are on lawns... they aren't in offices, they aren't in classrooms, they aren't in walkways or in the streets... If collages and cops just let them camp, I'm sure they'd get bored of it - for sure the media would after a couple days - and then what? It loses all importance.

[TAC]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Tim. Does your take apply to the kids protesting Vietnam on college campuses back in the day? Do we presume their motives were simply agitation, rather than genuine concern? As I said then, too, I like that college kids are actually passionate enough about something to raise hell, and writing them off as just aimless troublemakers or attention seekers is a touch too cynical even for me.

I realize that I didn't answer you.

Regarding Vietnam, I don't really know. I mean, we were directly involved with our own troops, so I don't know if it changes the dynamic at all. I think it does.
In my gut, I feel like those were probably more organic by people that were directly affected by the war.

This doesn't feel the same to me. I threw the Soros thing out there and whether he's contributing or it's someone else, I just feel like these kids are getting fired up for someone's agenda.
They're probably camping in tents and clothes made in China. I just feel like these kids got all stirred up, and I guess I question the authenticity of the whole thing.

I'm really not a cynic.

[El Barto]

I realize that I didn't answer you.

Regarding Vietnam, I don't really know. I mean, we were directly involved with our own troops, so I don't know if it changes the dynamic at all. I think it does.
In my gut, I feel like those were probably more organic by people that were directly affected by the war.

This doesn't feel the same to me. I threw the Soros thing out there and whether he's contributing or it's someone else, I just feel like these kids are getting fired up for someone's agenda.
They're probably camping in tents and clothes made in China. I just feel like these kids got all stirred up, and I guess I question the authenticity of the whole thing.

I'm really not a cynic.

Well, my 56yo stepbrother is dirt poor and unemployed. If Soros wanted to pay him to protest he'd be all over it. That'd doesn't happen, though, and he is highly up in arms about it. He's very upset that his government is financing and defending what he considers to be genocide. No, he doesn't have skin in the game, aside from his citizenship, but he does take it quite personally. Looking at him I have no problem recognizing that a bunch of college kids might feel just as strongly about it. As I keep saying, they're at an age where they should be passionate about something, and a bunch of people being slaughtered with your own tax dollars (not to mention the school's financial investments that further support it) seems like a pretty good cause to me.

[Harmony]

As I said in another thread - it is easier to blame "kids" protesting than it is to do a modicum of research into the reasons why and hold the appropriate people responsible for the issues at hand.

It is like the end of every Scooby Doo episode.

[cramx3]

As I said in another thread - it is easier to blame "kids" protesting than it is to do a modicum of research into the reasons why and hold the appropriate people responsible for the issues at hand.

It is like the end of every Scooby Doo episode.

Holding the appropriate people responsible seems to be the hard part in my mind.  But also, with regards to the specific situation, even a modicum of research might not get you very far considering the history here.  It's honestly quite daunting to try and get a full grasp of what's going on, and also, to do so without a strong bias being presented to you in your efforts to understand.

[TAC]

Well, my 56yo stepbrother is dirt poor and unemployed. If Soros wanted to pay him to protest he'd be all over it. That'd doesn't happen, though, and he is highly up in arms about it. He's very upset that his government is financing and defending what he considers to be genocide. No, he doesn't have skin in the game, aside from his citizenship, but he does take it quite personally. Looking at him I have no problem recognizing that a bunch of college kids might feel just as strongly about it. As I keep saying, they're at an age where they should be passionate about something, and a bunch of people being slaughtered with your own tax dollars (not to mention the school's financial investments that further support it) seems like a pretty good cause to me.

But I'm still 55! lol

I hear ya. I hope you're right, believe me.

[El Barto]

But I'm still 55! lol

I hear ya. I hope you're right, believe me.

Something you might not be aware of is that the "demand" from the protesters is that Columbia divest from companies that support Israel. In essence their tuition are actually contributing to what they see as genocide. While you're right that the Vietnam protesters actually did have skin in the game (the draft), I'd say that these protesters do, as well. While the amount of their $13b endowment that contributes to Israel is very small, and indirect, I think it's a valid thing for them to be protesting.

Yes, I know it's Al Jazeera, so it's hateful anti-American and antisemitic drivel, but this is a brief write up on it.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/29/apartheid-to-fossil-fuels-columbias-history-of-divestment-before-gaza

The underlying goal for any divestment is to redistribute the university’s endowment funds to focus on investments that are seen as more ethically sound while also using that money to encourage governments and other institutions to change their policies.

Columbia has an endowment fund of $13.6bn. Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of campus groups that is one of the organisers behind the current protests, has identified a series of investors that it wants the university to sever ties with. They include BlackRock, the asset management giant; Airbnb, which has offered rentals in the occupied West Bank; Caterpillar, whose bulldozers Israel has used; and Google, which has faced protests from staffers over Project Nimbus, which provides artificial intelligence services to Israel.

These investments constitute an almost negligible amount of Columbia’s endowment funds, but in February, the university made it clear that it had no intentions of divesting from firms tied to Israel.

[ganpondorodf]

Re: what i was saying about people not following/understanding the rules of the road... I was driving home today and a cyclist came rolling down the wrong side of the road at an intersection. Before I could finish thinking 'dude, wtf', I was looking in my rear view mirror as he smashed into the kerb by a gas station and fell off onto the grass out front. I dunno if people like to ride their bikes around hammered at lunchtime or what but it was weird.

Do you ever get driving days where it just feels like all the weirdos are out?

[Harmony]

Holding the appropriate people responsible seems to be the hard part in my mind.  But also, with regards to the specific situation, even a modicum of research might not get you very far considering the history here.  It's honestly quite daunting to try and get a full grasp of what's going on, and also, to do so without a strong bias being presented to you in your efforts to understand.

I'm not talking about history.  I'm talking about what is happening right now.  That being our tax dollars are being used to blow apart the bodies of innocents and starve those innocents who survive.  War crimes are happening.  Genocide is happening.  RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

[TAC]

Something you might not be aware of is that the "demand" from the protesters is that Columbia divest from companies that support Israel. In essence their tuition are actually contributing to what they see as genocide.

Yes, I am aware of that.

Going down a rabbit hole of where a school or whatnot invests is really seeing what the sausage is made of. I'm sure the mutual funds that their parents have profited from to send them to Columbia in the first place is off limits though.

[Skeever]

I'm not the biggest fan of protests as a tactic, but doing one outside the public offices of a public official seems to be the right place for it. A campus courtyard seems to fit the bill.

[Stadler]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Tim. Does your take apply to the kids protesting Vietnam on college campuses back in the day? Do we presume their motives were simply agitation, rather than genuine concern? As I said then, too, I like that college kids are actually passionate enough about something to raise hell, and writing them off as just aimless troublemakers or attention seekers is a touch too cynical even for me.

I'm going to cop out and say "it's not the same".   I think there are people down at Yale and now at Uconn that DO have an emotional investment in the protest. I do think there are people that are taking the approach you take in another post, that being "stop spending my money on genocide!" (more on that later).   But I think that 1967 and 2024 are just too different.   In 1967, they had their signs, the occasional interview, and the (fairly honest and straightforward) reporting of people like Walter Cronkite, who steadfastly refused to inject his opinions into the proceedings.   Now, we have social media, we have "spokespersons", and we have the Jake Tapper's of the world that think we actually give a shit what their "take" is on this.  The microphone is amplified to the nth degree. 

They interview the "spokesperson" for the protestors at Yale last night on our local news and she was as professional as you get. She had her talking points down cold.  There was almost no emotion to it, just the "on point messaging" (in quotes because no one in 1967 even knew what "on point messaging" was).   It's not like 1967 was any more pure; it wasn't. There were just as many people there for the party as there was for the draft, but it WAS more innocent and I really believe that.


As for the "investment of the endowment", I want to be clear, I support their right to protest 100%. I think it's fundamental to a healthy, operating democracy.  I disagree with some of the methodologies that they use, though; we're back to something I said above. This is less reasonable disagreement where the two sides meet, arrive at a compromise that neither are really thrilled with but both can live with, and we move on.   I've steadfastly refused to weigh in in any great detail on the issues in the Middle East, but I can say - hopefully without offending - that assuming that it's as easy as one side is committing genocide of innocent victims (or that one side are racist antisemites and the other is simple defending their borders) are grossly simplistic and borderline ignorant.  If they care enough, they have to know two things: one, who Columbia is investing in before they signed up for this Ivy League education (let's not ignore that Columbia is an elite school, recently ranked as high as 12th bu US News and World Report) and two, that once they give their money to a university, the investments are in the hands of Trustees (think about the etymology of that word for a second). 

[hefdaddy42]

I'm going to cop out and say "it's not the same".   I think there are people down at Yale and now at Uconn that DO have an emotional investment in the protest. I do think there are people that are taking the approach you take in another post, that being "stop spending my money on genocide!" (more on that later).   But I think that 1967 and 2024 are just too different.   In 1967, they had their signs, the occasional interview, and the (fairly honest and straightforward) reporting of people like Walter Cronkite, who steadfastly refused to inject his opinions into the proceedings.   Now, we have social media, we have "spokespersons", and we have the Jake Tapper's of the world that think we actually give a shit what their "take" is on this.  The microphone is amplified to the nth degree. 

They interview the "spokesperson" for the protestors at Yale last night on our local news and she was as professional as you get. She had her talking points down cold.  There was almost no emotion to it, just the "on point messaging" (in quotes because no one in 1967 even knew what "on point messaging" was).   It's not like 1967 was any more pure; it wasn't. There were just as many people there for the party as there was for the draft, but it WAS more innocent and I really believe that.


As for the "investment of the endowment", I want to be clear, I support their right to protest 100%. I think it's fundamental to a healthy, operating democracy.  I disagree with some of the methodologies that they use, though; we're back to something I said above. This is less reasonable disagreement where the two sides meet, arrive at a compromise that neither are really thrilled with but both can live with, and we move on.   I've steadfastly refused to weigh in in any great detail on the issues in the Middle East, but I can say - hopefully without offending - that assuming that it's as easy as one side is committing genocide of innocent victims (or that one side are racist antisemites and the other is simple defending their borders) are grossly simplistic and borderline ignorant.  If they care enough, they have to know two things: one, who Columbia is investing in before they signed up for this Ivy League education (let's not ignore that Columbia is an elite school, recently ranked as high as 12th bu US News and World Report) and two, that once they give their money to a university, the investments are in the hands of Trustees (think about the etymology of that word for a second).

I agree with all of this.

The idea that one side is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong, to me, seems a little naive, and not understanding the history.  And the history of the area CANNOT be separated from current events.  Not there.  It just can't.

They should absolutely protest if they feel strongly about it.  But the knowledge base of those protesting is worrying to me, as are some of their actual tactics.  I saw footage yesterday of pro-Palestinian protesters denying a Jewish student an unobstructed path to the building where he had a class.  Fuck that, they are lucky it was that kid and not me.  That, to me, is not being a good citizen in your protests.  It's not different than protesters obstructing a bridge, to the point where emergency vehicles can't go through.  That is not the way to win supporters to your side.

[cramx3]

I'm not talking about history.  I'm talking about what is happening right now.  That being our tax dollars are being used to blow apart the bodies of innocents and starve those innocents who survive.  War crimes are happening.  Genocide is happening.  RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

This is no different than any other day of our lives on this planet.  The urgency was long before I was born and I don't believe throwing away education to act quick.

I'm not the biggest fan of protests as a tactic, but doing one outside the public offices of a public official seems to be the right place for it. A campus courtyard seems to fit the bill.

I agree with that.

[Ben_Jamin]

This was a statement sent to the students and faculty of UNM regarding the protestors occupying the Student Union Building where people go to eat, study, and hang out.

Good afternoon fellow Lobos –

We are communicating with you regarding an incident at our Student Union Building (SUB) that began yesterday evening. What began as protest ended in criminal acts.

A group of persons marched across campus in protest, but then entered the UNM SUB and declared their intent to occupy the building until their demands were met. They remained unlawfully in the building past closing time and proceeded to vandalize the building, damaging furniture, walls, and doors, writing graffiti with markers, paint, and chalk, on the walls, on banisters, in bathrooms, and more. Beyond this property damage in the SUB, graffiti was spray-painted across campus. Students who were trying to study in the SUB were verbally harassed.

UNM has long served as a place where free speech and the right to engage in peaceful protest have been permitted and protected – but only up to the point where such protest substantially disrupts university operations or crosses the line to criminal acts. We are obliged to ensure that our campus is safe and open to all.

The takeover of the UNM Student Union Building is not acceptable. The vandalism of the building, a precious gathering place on our campus, is not acceptable. Barricading its doors and blocking its stairs are not acceptable. Intimidating students who are simply trying to study and learn, is not acceptable.

Those who occupied the building were not peacefully protesting, they were engaged in criminal activity by entering, remaining in, and damaging the SUB after its closing hours.

Those who were in the building past its operating hours were told to vacate the SUB and given time to do so. They were told that failure to comply could result in arrest. Those who did not comply were arrested. Sixteen arrests were made, five of whom were students; we understand that the other 11 were not affiliated with UNM.

There is no desire on the University’s part to engage in confrontation, and we had previously allowed protest at our Duck Pond, but disallowed camping in accordance with long standing policy. However, the continued damage being done to the SUB, as shown on the occupiers’ social media, and their continued threat to deny this important facility to the rest of campus unless their demands were met, compelled this carefully considered, difficult choice.

We ask that people respect each other’s diverse viewpoints as well as university policies and state laws so that we can all feel safe and welcome here. We will communicate further with campus concerning these events and our path forward.


UNM Leadership