One other student said she’d been “harassed” four times by Occupy people (and they’d only been on campus 13 school days). She complained, she said, to Dean Evans, who told the poor thing that her hands were tied because “the school is being held hostage.”
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Brilliant! It should be a great way to help enrollment.
And now we have such thoughtful contributions on Slog basically saying, "But... but... A is bad!!!"
Fine. Prove your argument. And don't indulge in lazy thinking or dishonest intellectualism. (that means no repeating the invalidated issues of public hygiene, theft, etc.)
The larger issue here is that no one wants to take responsibility for hosting an extremely politicized encampment (not even many of the churches that generally house homeless encampments - and there are MANY encampments at many churches) and/or possibly encur the wrath of local police and city government. I can't say that I blame them, having seen what police have been doing in response to occupations on public and private property across the country.
At first, I was kind of surprised that some of the more "progressive" organizations out there haven't offered to host occupations (or at least not kick them off when they arrive, a la Trinity in NYC). But the more I think about it, the more I believe they're buckling to the same pressure that local authorities are feeling across the country. I would start pointing figures, but I don't have the evidence and wouldn't want to commit my own logical fallacy. :)
Pages of discussions about drug abuse, drug dealing, fights, sexual abuse. All right there. All in their own voices.
Of course as OS falls apart you'll notice they've stopped putting up the minutes now. I guess with 100 campers sitting around on their asses getting stoned, drunk or misplacing their fetuses, everyone's too busy to bother spreading their message anymore.
If it's not important that they camp wherever they please, then why aren't they camping in front of City Hall, where the mayor has repeatedly told them they would be welcome?
I'm also not sure the camping isn't an end, rather than a means; for many people in the Occupation, the point is to create (and ultimately expand) spaces where the existing sociopolitical order can not exert authority, and is replaced by a working model of a more just society. This is known as "prefigurative politics".
That's not a goal of every participant, of course, but it is for some. And for them, the General Assembly is not just a means of organizing a protest, it is the core of a new kind of civilization.
It seems to me that this new civilization does in fact have some problems with drugs, alcohol, and sanitation that have yet to be adequately addressed. One can correctly point out that these problems are often wildly overstated. This has indeed been done many times, but it has not yet solved any of the actually existing problems.
I just really don't know how this sentence fits in to the rest. Is he dismissing it as unlikely? Or unconcerning?
I don't have the foggiest notion of what you mean by scare-quoted "proper" civil discourse, nor do I have any idea which hallmarks of it you find in my comment. Do you think you could describe them specifically, or is it more a case of something just not smelling right?
I do understand the frame of reference in which Occupy's encampment constitutes speech; I am suggesting that it is also regarded, by its participants, as something other than speech.
The hallmarks, such as they are, were in reference to :
"not a goal of every participant, of course, but it is for some"
i admit, that is on it's face it is fair, but at the same time the subtext still paints it with too broad a brush. imo.
"this new civilization does in fact have some problems with drugs, alcohol, and sanitation that have yet to be adequately addressed. One can correctly point out that these problems are often wildly overstated. This has indeed been done many times, but it has not yet solved any of the actually existing problems."
it is good you realize those problems exist in every sort of societal situation, but perhaps instead of "solving"* them, a better approach would be to mitigate them in a realistic and humane way.
*=goddamn, seems i'm addicted to scare-quotes, sorryz.
Killpatrick's security guard theater on Thursday night ensures that I will not be enrolling at SCCC after this quarter. If he is that afraid of a gathering of people with ideas, he has absolutely no business as the president of a college, where people gather to share ideas.
The cognitive dissonance is great at this school. The lies they make up do more damage than occupiers ever could.
I once unwittingly moved into a house that was infested with rats. I started seeing them shortly after I moved in. After a couple of weeks they were everywhere and getting increasingly brazen about running around right in front of my roommates and me. Increased access to food can make a rat population go fucking nuts. There may not be *more* of them; they may merely be in public places more.
It's nice to know that this fucknut doesn't believe the students at his institution or, indeed, give a shit about their welfare.
It's possible that OS is attracting more of these people, or coalescing them to be more brazen; but I'll bet that all of those annoyances are just easier to complain about now that they can be bundled together and labeled as 'The Occupy Movement'.
I don't know why OS is occupying a community college, but I know that one has long had problems with transparency. At the very least it's pretty disingenuous to pin all the problems of the neighborhood onto the newest group of lefty organizers to set up camp. Maybe SCCC is watching what's happening at CUNY in New York, and are getting nervous about organizers taking a look their own Board of Trustees?