Protests and police on campus

[Langue_doc]

I will point out that, at least in the case of Columbia University, much of the incessant hullabaloo has been coming from non-Columbia-associated protesters on public streets adjacent to campus.

According to our local news, most of the disruptions are by students inside campus.

Inside the Week That Shook Columbia University
In a Washington war room, Columbia's president, Nemat Shafik, decided to call police officers to arrest protesting students. The backlash now threatens her leadership.

Live Updates: Columbia Negotiates With Campus Protesters Ahead of House Speaker's Visit
Administrators let a deadline for demonstrators to disperse expire, saying there had been progress in discussions. In a radio interview before his visit with Jewish students, Speaker Mike Johnson called for the school's president to resign.

Shafik named names at the hearing, which seems to have angered faculty. The professors in question were under investigation, but had expectations of privacy as far as the investigations were concerned.

[Langue_doc]

Is there a better word I should have used? Because it wasn't an accident, and it was a war crime (deliberately killing unarmed civilians and prisoners is forbidden by international law).

The war crimes continue unabated.

The UN's human rights chief has said he is "horrified" by the destruction of Gaza's Nasser and al-Shifa hospitals and the reports of "mass graves" being found at the sites after Israeli raids.

Palestinian officials said they had exhumed 283 bodies at Nasser, some with their hands tied. It is not clear how they died or when they were buried.

U.N. Calls for Inquiry Into Mass Graves at 2 Gaza Hospitals
Palestinian officials said scores of bodies had been found, some shot in the head, at one hospital after Israeli forces withdrew. Israel said it had dug up and reburied some bodies in a search for hostages.

[Ruralguy]

I'm going to stick with my original statement.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm going to stick with my original statement.

That's okay, I don't need to pick a fight, least of all with you.


It seems to me that the better option, here, was for the administration to let the students have their protest but ultimately refuse to divest/halt plans for their Tel Aviv campus (because that's what the administration wants, not because I endorse that response). This draconian response serves only to build bad blood/reputation and invite lawsuits (from students and faculty alike). Sure, some donors would have been pissy. But some donors are always pissy.

[Langue_doc]

Politicians continue to meddle instead of mediating.

House Speaker Says White House Should Act as Campus Protests Spread
Speaker Mike Johnson faced boos at Columbia as he criticized protesters after meeting with Jewish students. He invoked the possibility of bringing in the National Guard and cutting funding to universities.

New York governor tells Speaker Johnson to stay out of Columbia tumult

Hochul said Johnson would be better off taking up the bipartisan border security bill that, she said, would help deal with the ongoing situation involving migrants in the state of New York.

"It seems to me there's a lot more responsibilities and crises to be dealt with in Washington," Hochul said. "I'd encourage the Speaker to go back and perhaps take up the migrant bill, the bill to deal with closing the borders, so we can deal with the real crisis that New York has."

Republicans have been blasting the presidents of several elite East Coast schools for months over their handling of protests and the protection of Jewish students.

New York's House delegation this week called for the resignation of Columbia's president.

[ciao_yall]

I can't think of any example where a superior military power was actually able to dislodge a rag tag militia that can hide among the populace, take a few pot shots, and disappear back into the crowd.

It is forgotten that the French military won the Battle of Algiers and, indeed, controlled Algeria. Algeria gained independence because of support from outside. This was called "the internationalization of the conflict". This strategy has been imitated by the PLO, and now Hamas. Placing armed fighters among the civilian population is intended to cause lots of civilian casualties, which are then thought to stimulate outside support.

I don't think it will be successful because the Battle for Gaza is being fought by a neighboring, independent country with an existential interest in complete victory, something that metropolitan France never had -- French soil was not seriously threatened by the NLF.

Less dramatic historical memory surrounds the Malayan Emergency [1948 - 1960] because the British defeated the insurgents.

^ This.

Viet Nam is a great example.

The US Civil War was a classic example. On paper, the North should have won in 20 minutes. They had all the industry, weapons, wealth. What did they have to do to the South, and how long did it take, for them to finally get the South to surrender?

[Langue_doc]

The latest, from the NYT.

Chaos and Oppression
The central question for universities responding to protests is whether to prioritize the preservation of order or the desire of students to denounce oppression.

College Protesters Make Divestment From Israel a Rallying Cry
The campaign is likely to have a negligible impact on the companies or Israel, but activists see divestment as a clear way to force colleges to take action on the issue.

Conflict in Israel and Gaza, in Photos
A surprise attack by Hamas put Israel and the group that controlled Gaza at war. Here are images from the assault and what has followed.

[marshwiggle]

The latest, from the NYT.

Chaos and Oppression
The central question for universities responding to protests is whether to prioritize the preservation of order or the desire of students to denounce oppression.

It's fine for students to "denounce" oppression; what they need to be made to understand that history is a long game. Whatever they do right now is unlikely to have any visible impact, but the concerted actions of people with influence and authority, over time, will change things for the better.

[dismalist]

I can't think of any example where a superior military power was actually able to dislodge a rag tag militia that can hide among the populace, take a few pot shots, and disappear back into the crowd.

It is forgotten that the French military won the Battle of Algiers and, indeed, controlled Algeria. Algeria gained independence because of support from outside. This was called "the internationalization of the conflict". This strategy has been imitated by the PLO, and now Hamas. Placing armed fighters among the civilian population is intended to cause lots of civilian casualties, which are then thought to stimulate outside support.

I don't think it will be successful because the Battle for Gaza is being fought by a neighboring, independent country with an existential interest in complete victory, something that metropolitan France never had -- French soil was not seriously threatened by the NLF.

Less dramatic historical memory surrounds the Malayan Emergency [1948 - 1960] because the British defeated the insurgents.

^ This.

Viet Nam is a great example.

The US Civil War was a classic example. On paper, the North should have won in 20 minutes. They had all the industry, weapons, wealth. What did they have to do to the South, and how long did it take, for them to finally get the South to surrender?

It is also overlooked that the Viet Cong were destroyed upon their Tet offensive. But the war didn't end because North Vietnamese regulars got involved. What Hamas has learned from the Vietnam War is that to defeat the United States, or affect its policy, one has to get at the US home front propagandistically. This is what is unfolding now. But there is so little at stake for US voters, I doubt it will make any difference.

The US Civil War was a conventional war. It is an example of something else: The attempt to internationalize the conflict, as the NLF did successfully. The South initially embargoed cotton, hoping to starve British factories of inputs and thus getting Britain to declare war on the North. This failed miserably. It did what the North could not do the first year of the war -- blockade the South.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's fine for students to "denounce" oppression; what they need to be made to understand that history is a long game. Whatever they do right now is unlikely to have any visible impact, but the concerted actions of people with influence and authority, over time, will change things for the better.

So is the idea that they should just wait until they have influence and authority, and then they should work for incremental change?

They have very little power right now, but they're hoping to influence some of the people with more power to start changing things for the better. What's wrong with trying to exert some influence, even if they're not successful? Is that not part of long-term incremental change for the better?

[dismalist]

The latest, from the NYT.

Chaos and Oppression
The central question for universities responding to protests is whether to prioritize the preservation of order or the desire of students to denounce oppression.

It's fine for students to "denounce" oppression; what they need to be made to understand that history is a long game. Whatever they do right now is unlikely to have any visible impact, but the concerted actions of people with influence and authority, over time, will change things for the better.

It's not about denouncing oppression. They can denounce all they want. It's about interfering with other students' and citizens' lives. This has already gone so far as to close USC and put Columbia on-line. U Austin, on the other hand, shut down the interference right away.

Private universities can do whatever they please, for all I care. The most efficient will win.

[marshwiggle]

It's fine for students to "denounce" oppression; what they need to be made to understand that history is a long game. Whatever they do right now is unlikely to have any visible impact, but the concerted actions of people with influence and authority, over time, will change things for the better.

So is the idea that they should just wait until they have influence and authority, and then they should work for incremental change?

They have very little power right now, but they're hoping to influence some of the people with more power to start changing things for the better. What's wrong with trying to exert some influence, even if they're not successful? Is that not part of long-term incremental change for the better?

Remember the truckers in Ottawa, and blockading bridges to the U.S.? The idea that anyone who thinks they can support a righteous cause by engaging in illegal activity undermines the whole idea of what a democratic society is about. Legitimate protest is an opportunity to get people to hear your message, so that you have the chance to win them over to it. Extorting them into doing what you want in order to get on with their lives makes winning them over to your cause irrelevant.

[financeguy]

I've always wondered how many people take my stance when the side they agree with uses a tactic that makes their life difficult in some way or otherwise is unsympathetic for reasons other than the cause. My personal stance is that you may have my agreement but no longer my support. Here are a few examples:

-California had a 2008 ballot proposition regarding gay marriage which I was in favor of legalizing. I was held up during a traffic shutdown not quite as extreme as the Golden Gate but they f'd my day in a number of ways. Did I actively "support" that cause in any material way afterward such as donating or giving my own time even if I still agreed with it? Nope. There are other places to put my energy.

-I've discussed on this forum before that while I believe in bodily autonomy on the choice issue, I also will not use my own time or resources to "support" the furthering of that agenda since I perceive (based on polling, party affiliation, etc.) the average pro-choice female as voting for nanny state issues that negatively affect me to a disproportionate degree. Again, you have my agreement but not my support. There are many other issues I could give time, money or energy to.

The bottom line is that even if I agree with your side, that doesn't really guarantee any active involvement from me that may have value to you. I might give a limited amount of time or funds to causes I believe in and support in any given year. Many worthwhile causes exist that could be the subject of my limited resources. If I have to remove a group from consideration, one that has actively hassled me in some way by preventing me from accessing a bridge or engaging in a business activity without a thousand licenses and permits is easy to remove. I'll direct my support to any number of other worthwhile causes that are not promoted by people making my life more difficult.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's fine for students to "denounce" oppression; what they need to be made to understand that history is a long game. Whatever they do right now is unlikely to have any visible impact, but the concerted actions of people with influence and authority, over time, will change things for the better.

So is the idea that they should just wait until they have influence and authority, and then they should work for incremental change?

They have very little power right now, but they're hoping to influence some of the people with more power to start changing things for the better. What's wrong with trying to exert some influence, even if they're not successful? Is that not part of long-term incremental change for the better?

Remember the truckers in Ottawa, and blockading bridges to the U.S.? The idea that anyone who thinks they can support a righteous cause by engaging in illegal activity undermines the whole idea of what a democratic society is about. Legitimate protest is an opportunity to get people to hear your message, so that you have the chance to win them over to it. Extorting them into doing what you want in order to get on with their lives makes winning them over to your cause irrelevant.

Indeed, I do remember. And I remember being just fine with them demonstrating and even blocking traffic. I was not okay with their setting open fires, because that is a significant public safety risk. I was also not okay with their blaring air horns (which cause permanent hearing damage) in residential neighbourhoods, especially at all times of the day and night (clearly an attempt to inflict sleep deprivation on residents). You'll recall I also opposed the invocation of the War Measures Act.

As for the bridge blockade, I have no problem with a bridge blockade in principle, save that those assholes were armed with firearms. That's absolutely not okay, and a serious danger to public safety.


I would point out, also, that the Columbia students aren't actually blocking anything. They're peacefully encamped in a corner of the campus that's typically unused (due to pesticide spraying) and not blocking any thoroughfares. It's all the administration's doing that buildings are locked, classes online, etc. What's more, Columbia has, in the past, agreed to student divestment demands (e.g. from prison labour).

[marshwiggle]

It's fine for students to "denounce" oppression; what they need to be made to understand that history is a long game. Whatever they do right now is unlikely to have any visible impact, but the concerted actions of people with influence and authority, over time, will change things for the better.

So is the idea that they should just wait until they have influence and authority, and then they should work for incremental change?

They have very little power right now, but they're hoping to influence some of the people with more power to start changing things for the better. What's wrong with trying to exert some influence, even if they're not successful? Is that not part of long-term incremental change for the better?

Remember the truckers in Ottawa, and blockading bridges to the U.S.? The idea that anyone who thinks they can support a righteous cause by engaging in illegal activity undermines the whole idea of what a democratic society is about. Legitimate protest is an opportunity to get people to hear your message, so that you have the chance to win them over to it. Extorting them into doing what you want in order to get on with their lives makes winning them over to your cause irrelevant.

Indeed, I do remember. And I remember being just fine with them demonstrating and even blocking traffic. I was not okay with their setting open fires, because that is a significant public safety risk. I was also not okay with their blaring air horns (which cause permanent hearing damage) in residential neighbourhoods, especially at all times of the day and night (clearly an attempt to inflict sleep deprivation on residents). You'll recall I also opposed the invocation of the War Measures Act.

As for the bridge blockade, I have no problem with a bridge blockade in principle, save that those assholes were armed with firearms. That's absolutely not okay, and a serious danger to public safety.

Whether they have firearms or tire irons,  (which truckers surely do), they are a serious danger to public safety as long as they feel entitled to prevent anyone crossing the bridge.