When the Means Obscure the Ends http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2009/03/02/when-means-obscure-ends
March 2, 2009 By Judah Bellin "In contrast, NYU's administration has sent the message that organized protest and passion for a moral cause will be met with force and expulsion. In effect, they are telling us, the college students of America, to avoid the next Kent State massacre and stick to Facebook. This publication disagrees." "Loud and Clear," Editorial, The Sun, Feb. 23 Are protests always justifiable? Protests on college campuses reached the height of their popularity in the 1960s, with the prominence of the Students for a Democratic Society and Black Power groups. However, they still maintain an almost-mythical status for many students and for this university in particular. Indeed, had you walked into the Tatkon Center a few months ago, you would have seen a picture of a black militant brandishing a gun in front of The Straight. Above the picture was a sign that read "Celebrate Diversity." And celebrate it we do: from a commemorative plaque in The Straight the Sun editorial quoted above, the 1969 takeover of The Straight lives on as an act of "civil disobedience" that was successful in achieving all of the protesters' demands. Thus the rebuke of NYU for not similarly providing their protesters with "discourse and a table full of administrators." However, it is unclear why "disobedience" merits formal recognition and respect, especially when it involves the usurpation of university property. One would expect that violating the university's stated terms effectively abrogates one's rights to its resources. Furthermore, it is unclear how either of these two protests could be deemed "civil." On the contrary: the takeover of The Straight was an affront to civility. According to a contemporary report in Newsweek, The Straight was first seized when 100 students ran down the halls at 3 a.m. shouting "fire" and forcibly evicting 30 parents and 40 University employees. When one woman did not move out fast enough, the students "ripped open her door with a crowbar." After a scuffle with some Delta Upsilon brothers, a leader of the protest proclaimed from a window that "another raid like we just had is going to be dealt with in a way which is going to hurt a lot of innocent people." That night, protesters brought guns, ammunition and hatchets into The Straight. If this behavior is "civil," one indeed wonders what would constitute "churlishness." The NYU protest, though less extreme in its tactics, similarly betrayed the "civility" attributed to it by The Sun. After reserving the Kimmel Lounge for a dance party, members of Take Back NYU barricaded the third floor exits to the Market Place cafeteria with chairs and tables. The barricade lasted from Wednesday night until Friday afternoon, effectively disrupting all business from the Market Place and thus risking the chance that the employees lose their daily pay. This was certainly ironic, in light of TBNYU's demand that all NYU employees be given a "living wage." To paraphrase Orwell, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish the pigs from the men and the men from the pigs. Such, however, is the all-too-common end of protest: the desire to make loud proclamations overwhelms the original message. The cause is swallowed up by the barbaric yawp and is thus rendered unintelligible. And indeed, The Straight takeover is too often remembered by its means, not by its purpose. This is not to say there are no situations that warrant serious protest. Truly, the evils of Jim Crow and segregation called for "moral grandeur and spiritual audacity," in the apt words of Civil Rights demonstrator Abraham Joshua Heschel. Indeed, the Civil Rights Movement was distinct from the previously mentioned protests in that it derived legitimacy not from thuggish high-handedness but by its transcendent urgency. The reliance on ideas, rather than violent proclamations, made the movement's disobedience "civil." However, this is not to preclude ardor. King's methods may have been civil, but he most certainly was outraged. We must therefore be wary of making militants and protesters our icons of free speech. To do so would be a glorification of crudeness over complexity, of brutish assertions over reasoned ideas. Certainly there comes a time to voice one's complaints about perceived injustice. But it is possible to do so without worshipping at the altar of vulgarity. Just listen to King's "I Have a Dream" or Gandhi's "Quit India." There was no sacrifice of forcefulness for thoughtfulness. And seldom does vulgarity have any lasting effect. An NYU undergrad related to me that after TBNYU took over the much-beloved Market Place cafeteria, a mass of students entered the Longue and, contrary to the pleas of the protesters, began chanting, "We want quesadillas!" The Civil Rights movement inspired a generation to make a great effort at the risk of humiliation and physical abuse. For TBNYU, the students were not even willing to give up their Tex-Mex. . --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sixties-L" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sixties-l?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
