Inaction and Incoherence: Why the Occupation of 90 Fifth Ave. Failed
Friday, December 9th, 2011
The smell of fresh paint still lingers in The Student Study Center at 90 Fifth Ave. The long, rectangular tables are once again lined up along the windows, and students sit quietly in sleek, black chairs staring at their laptops. It’s hard to believe that two weeks ago, this place was occupied by protesters — that the walls were covered in graffiti, the windows blocked with hand-painted signs, the escalators barricaded. But it was indeed occupied, and thanks to the administration, it stayed occupied for an entire week.
While it’s great that The New School is supportive of student activism, I can’t begin to fathom the administration’s rationale behind allowing occupiers to remain in 90 Fifth Ave. In an email sent out on November 18, the day after the occupation began, President David Van Zandt said that the university, although politically neutral in regards to the occupation and Occupy Wall Street, would allow the protesters to stay.
“The New School supports free expression and the right to protest,” wrote Van Zandt.
But the occupation of 90 Fifth Ave. was neither “free expression,” nor was it a protest — it wasn’t even student activism. “Student activism” implies action. The occupiers in the Student Study Center didn’t organize marches and rallies, propose policy reforms, or advocate for their cause. Instead, they spent the week of the occupation smoking, drinking, vandalizing walls and wasting hours at General Assembly meetings that accomplished little to nothing. Sure, they got people’s attention — but any “activism” that took place was hidden from the rest of the university community, and any accomplishments they made have yet to surface.
Originally, the occupation of 90 Fifth Ave. was an extension of the Occupy Wall Street movement — protesters, both students and non-students, wanted to continue the dialogue that they had started in Zuccotti Park, to transform the Student Study Center into a hub where people could discuss political, economic, and social issues and plan programs and protest events.
Unfortunately, though, the occupation of 90 Fifth Ave. ended up nothing like OWS. Zuccotti Park was a public, open space, only a few blocks away from the corporate headquarters and government offices that were the source of OWS protesters’ complaints. The occupiers down there worked around the clock to make their presence known; they frequently organized rallies and marches, as well as a variety of programs within the park where people could meet and discuss political and economic grievances.
At 90 Fifth Ave., however, protesters alienated themselves inside the second floor of a privately-owned building, where their presence was neither seen nor heard. At first, they did invite the entire university community to come join, and they even held a few discussions, lectures and teach-ins. But after a few days, this spirit of inclusiveness was gone, replaced with one of paranoia.
This cold, exclusive environment was only amplified by the press freeze that the occupiers issued in the Student Study Center. Activism involves actively engaging with not only the public, but the media as well. OWS became an international phenomenon because the protesters worked with — and not against — the media to make their presence known. By banning the press form entering the building at 90 Fifth Ave., the student protesters prevented their message from ever leaving it.
The New School shouldn’t have let them stay in the building at 90 Fifth Ave. What these occupiers really need is an education on how to effectively organize and execute a nonviolent protest by hosting workshops and lectures. They had admirable intentions, but they failed to execute them. If The New School really wants to support student activism, it should first teach students how to make their voice heard — otherwise, we’ll just come across as disgruntled students.
While it’s great that The New School is supportive of student activism, I can’t begin to fathom the administration’s rationale behind allowing occupiers to remain in 90 Fifth Ave. In an email sent out on November 18, the day after the occupation began, President David Van Zandt said that the university, although politically neutral in regards to the occupation and Occupy Wall Street, would allow the protesters to stay.
“The New School supports free expression and the right to protest,” wrote Van Zandt.
But the occupation of 90 Fifth Ave. was neither “free expression,” nor was it a protest — it wasn’t even student activism. “Student activism” implies action. The occupiers in the Student Study Center didn’t organize marches and rallies, propose policy reforms, or advocate for their cause. Instead, they spent the week of the occupation smoking, drinking, vandalizing walls and wasting hours at General Assembly meetings that accomplished little to nothing. Sure, they got people’s attention — but any “activism” that took place was hidden from the rest of the university community, and any accomplishments they made have yet to surface.
Originally, the occupation of 90 Fifth Ave. was an extension of the Occupy Wall Street movement — protesters, both students and non-students, wanted to continue the dialogue that they had started in Zuccotti Park, to transform the Student Study Center into a hub where people could discuss political, economic, and social issues and plan programs and protest events.
Unfortunately, though, the occupation of 90 Fifth Ave. ended up nothing like OWS. Zuccotti Park was a public, open space, only a few blocks away from the corporate headquarters and government offices that were the source of OWS protesters’ complaints. The occupiers down there worked around the clock to make their presence known; they frequently organized rallies and marches, as well as a variety of programs within the park where people could meet and discuss political and economic grievances.
At 90 Fifth Ave., however, protesters alienated themselves inside the second floor of a privately-owned building, where their presence was neither seen nor heard. At first, they did invite the entire university community to come join, and they even held a few discussions, lectures and teach-ins. But after a few days, this spirit of inclusiveness was gone, replaced with one of paranoia.
This cold, exclusive environment was only amplified by the press freeze that the occupiers issued in the Student Study Center. Activism involves actively engaging with not only the public, but the media as well. OWS became an international phenomenon because the protesters worked with — and not against — the media to make their presence known. By banning the press form entering the building at 90 Fifth Ave., the student protesters prevented their message from ever leaving it.
The New School shouldn’t have let them stay in the building at 90 Fifth Ave. What these occupiers really need is an education on how to effectively organize and execute a nonviolent protest by hosting workshops and lectures. They had admirable intentions, but they failed to execute them. If The New School really wants to support student activism, it should first teach students how to make their voice heard — otherwise, we’ll just come across as disgruntled students.
More by this Author
Featured Articles
