By Charlie Eisenhood

Three days have now passed since the end of my long stay inside the barricaded Kimmel dining hall and I’ve finally had a chance to sit down and collect my thoughts about the experience. I have some information to share that I couldn’t publish during the occupation (for various reasons) and ideas about why the response from the NYU and outside community has been resoundingly negative. I’ve had the chance to speak with lots of students, faculty, and administrators today and over the weekend — opinions have been fairly consistent.

Most thought the demands were too scatter shot, even if they agreed with some or all of them Mystery alaska download. Most thought TBNYU’s hypocrisy was very damaging, especially surrounding the revised statement of non-violence and abstention from property damage. Opinions about the proper consequences have been more mixed — something I will touch on after the jump.

(For a really smart list of how TBNYU screwed up, go here)

First, let’s take a look at some key lines of the original non-violence/no property damage statement.

We do not intend any harm or damage to any living beings or to private property, and strongly criticize any will to do so. Any individual who wills such violence or destructiveness will be asked to leave the premises, and will not represent the interests of this occupation. … In our quest to construct an ideal university, we seek a university founded upon mutual respect, democracy and accountability, and we espouse methods consistent with that quest.

OK, let’s start here. As you know, the administration refused to allow access to the balcony of Kimmel. (This was, incidentally, the last bit of meeting that I heard before I was banned). So, TBNYU decided to access it themselves. How did they do this? With the tools they brought to defeat a deadbolt. Although they attempted to keep it hidden from me, it was quite obvious that they were trying to break the lock to get outside. But I was warned repeatedly that if I reported anything about what was “going on over there,” that I would be expelled from the room. (How they planned to do that without violating their non-violence pledge is unclear).

After they broke through, I went over to take pictures of the tools, broken lock, and the hole in the door where the lock once was. Somebody didn’t like that, and even though I told them I wouldn’t publish the photos until later, they had me delete them off of my camera entirely. I guess they didn’t want it to be known that they were planning on going outside all along.

As they broke out, they dropped the abstention from property damage language from their non-violence statement with this disclaimer:

Though we realize that this choice to revise our original policy may undermine ideological consistency of this action, we feel that reacting to the changing situation of the occupation is more important than adhering to any dogma, even our own.

Lovely rationalization! I guess that “strong criticism” towards property damage wasn’t ever very strong.

Then, of course, there were the two instances of new students busting in past guards to join the occupation. You can watch videos of this here and here. Once again, I saw intentional organization to get these new students in. Not only were top organizers on their cell phones calling friends to join them, but at one point, I was moved from my blogging post near one of the grates blocking access to the kitchen so they could try to open it and help students enter. They didn’t tell me that, of course. But I said, “Oh, you’re gonna try to get some more people in through here?” And one protester told me, “If you put that on your blog, we’ll fucking throw you out of here.”

Wow, thanks. Really nice of you.

I should mention that, despite the constant threats and many occupiers that openly hated me, there were some very nice people inside. Some shared their food with me and were conversational and pleasant. One woman had the maturity to say, “I just want to tell you that I really appreciate what you’re doing. Even though I don’t agree with everything you’re writing, you’re doing a really good job.” These nice people tended to be outweighed by open disdain from the leaders of the group.

Oh, and the leaders. There were definitely leaders. TBNYU can say what they want about a “non-hierarchical” organization, but there were clear planners and organizers. This is one of the big reasons their occupation failed both in terms of public support and university response to their demands.

When the occupying group gathered to discuss some upcoming decision, one person was always a “facilitator.” This person set the agenda and then selected people to speak and give their ideas about the decision. They would arbitrarily decide when that process was over and then hold a vote. Those in favor of the plan gave a thumbs up, those unsure a thumbs sideways, and those opposed a thumbs down. Unanimous thumbs up was required to approve a plan.

Here’s where it got tricky: the facilitator was almost always one of the leaders. They were then able to set the agenda and steer the conversation towards their ideal plan. It just so happened that the leaders of the occupation were also the more radical and driven members of the group. The required unanimous vote, performed openly, increased pressure on the members to fall into line with the leaders and give approval. Peer pressure, I think, radicalized the group.

Other times, the negotiators (also comprised of top organizers) made decisions without the approval of the group. At one point, some student Senators met with the TBNYU negotiating team. When the negotiators returned, I asked them how the meeting went. I was told, “Predictable.” I overheard one of the negotiators later telling the group, “We have nothing to report from the meeting with the Senators.”

Over the weekend, I spoke to one of the Senators involved in the meeting. He told me that the administration (meaning Linda Mills, the senior Vice Provost, and Lynne Brown, senior Vice President of University Relations) was not willing to meet directly with the protesters as long as they occupied Kimmel, but that they would meet with Senators who could act as a go-between. I guess this was “predictable” and “nothing” to the TBNYU negotiating team — but who knows why they wouldn’t give that a shot?

But now let’s get real. Pun intended.

Despite the affectation of seriousness, the whole occupation ultimately felt like a joke. From wild exaggerations about crowd size to topless girls to chants like “This is what democracy looks like!” (except, no, not at all) to veganism to keffiyehs, it was a weird, funny, occasionally exciting event, but not a serious protest. The most exhilarated I saw the protesters was when there was a crowd outside at 1 AM on Friday morning: they craved support, intrigue, chanting, and slogans; the demands felt like an after thought. They wanted glory, to “be remembered.” And in that quest they didn’t even stop to think about violating their own guiding principles in order to chant and cheer from the balcony. Didn’t it just feel like a silly stunt?

Also, if you watch the final moments video taken by Alex Lotorto, who I interviewed here, you’ll see more crazy stuff, including a guy screaming “fucking snakes!” at the administrators and an inventory of personal items that Lotorto fears might be confiscated. It’s like a caricature of a protest.

In terms of appropriate response and punishment, I guess I’m not very sympathetic. It was made clear that 1 AM Friday morning was the cutoff time and that any students remaining after that time were liable to be expelled and arrested. Many protesters left at around 12:45, fearing punishment. After 1 and the scuffle on the streets (which was comprised of minor incidents and not a riot — I hyperbolized that night. The police did use pepper spray, however, and some belligerent protesters were beaten), the administration offered the safe harbor agreement again. The students, if they chose to leave peacefully, would have been basically granted amnesty, with punishment only arising if there was future misconduct. Their negotiators would have also been able to sit down with administrators to discuss the demands.

In another secret meeting, though, the remaining 18 protesters agreed to forego the safe harbor offer and instead to remain until morning. It was made clear that they would face consequences and that they would not receive this offer again.

Now they are facing consequences. Considering the property damage, the guard sent to the hospital after an influx of new occupiers, the police presence and pepper spraying, and the negative media coverage, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that they are being suspended. And here lies the biggest fail: TBNYU managed to make NYU’s administration and students the victims.

When I left in the wee Friday morning hours, I asked the guards to contact Bob Butler. After a short wait, another administrator met me and escorted me out of Kimmel through a side entrance. I am not being punished.

*

Let’s go back to the final sentence of TBNYU’s non-violence statement: “In our quest to construct an ideal university, we seek a university founded upon mutual respect, democracy and accountability, and we espouse methods consistent with that quest.”

You wanted mutual respect (equal treatment), democracy (judicial hearings), and accountability (responsibility for your actions). You’re getting it.

*

Questions for me? Drop them in the comments. I’ll do my best to respond to as many as I can. But this will be my final official post on the occupation. I return to the national beat tomorrow. Thanks again for your support.

I’d like to note that in my video of TBNYUers panicking, it may have seemed (as it did to me then) that some of the protesters were fleeing out of the occupied area. It seems that they were just jumpy about police; most ultimately remained in the building and were suspended on Friday.