• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Students protest at NYU

When you do this kind of protest, you need ONE..repeat..ONE major issue on which to concentrate. A shotgun approach just does not work.
And to make the bulk of the issues ones about the cost of a college education is not going to impress a lot of people out there.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
I heard about this. I live right by there so I also saw the "protest" outside the Kimmel Center while the "occupation" was going on. Pathetic.

Protesting for what's right, being informed, being involved, being active, standing up for your community and fellow people- that's wonderful. That's what every young man or young woman in America should be doing. (Or not doing- a free society should also allow its citizens to not vote, not participate, not be engaged, if that's what they choose to do with their rights.)

However, anything worth doing is worth doing right. You aren't doing your cause, your group or your school any favors by making such a fool of yourself.

Edit: And protests should generally be conducted in a graceful, respectful and intelligent way.

Throwing a trash can through the window of a Starbucks to protest the violence in Iraq is unacceptable and beyond hypocritical. .
Click to expand...

Well, unless you have a bunch of pictures of Starbuck's 1st Mounted Brigade
spraying boiling coffee at trembling insurgents, or drowning Shi'ites in Frappacino.
 
dudalb said:
When you do this kind of protest, you need ONE..repeat..ONE major issue on which to concentrate. A shotgun approach just does not work.
And to make the bulk of the issues ones about the cost of a college education is not going to impress a lot of people out there.
Click to expand...

Aside from having one issue, you also need to show:
-That you had absolutely no other choice other than to take as drastic a step as confiscating property you don't own and making demands like common criminals demanding ransom.
- That your position has broad support from the people you're claiming to represent (in this case, the NYU student body)

If not, the protesters just come across as thugs and whiners who are trying to accomplish through intimidation what they couldn't through dialogue and reason.
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
Aside from having one issue, you also need to show:
-That you had absolutely no other choice other than to take as drastic a step as confiscating property you don't own and making demands like common criminals demanding ransom.
- That your position has broad support from the people you're claiming to represent (in this case, the NYU student body)

If not, the protesters just come across as thugs and whiners who are trying to accomplish through intimidation what they couldn't through dialogue and reason.
Click to expand...

I'll go one step farther
-That your protest puts actual, meaningful pressure on the specific people
with the power to fill your demand.

In this case, the university officials who might decide to meet these demands can clearly see that.

-The protestors do not represent a portion of the students large enough to
put those officials' jobs in danger.

- If they reward this protest action, the gaurantee that these actions will
be used more often. If they ignore the demands, there is no negative
consequence for them.

When people use protest thoughtlessly, they weaken the usefulness of real protest when it is really needed.
 
I wonder what would have happened if the protesters were simply ignored -- just move the classes in the floor they occupied to other rooms and do nothing?

In a week they would have come back to class, fearing extended absence would hurt their grades. And, besides, they're running out of clean clothes. Not to mention dad would be angry when he hears about it.

Arresting and charging them, in this particular case, seems like an overreaction...
 
The University did just let it happen for a few hours. The kids took over the student lounge on a Friday evening. Big deal.

The administration let them stay until 1 AM Saturday morning without consequence. By 12:45, all but 18 had left. And the #1 demand they had was total amnesty.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
From their website:

What do you want budget disclosure for, anyway?
Click to expand...

No, you don't actually need to know why. In any case, the "why" is because of cheap credit making it easier to get college loans, and, with extra cash floating around, universities raised their prices accordingly.

  • Sexism and racism: secrecy protects discrimination in employee pay.
Click to expand...

Correct. It also protects discrimination in student admissions.

Let's reveal both, shall we? Full details. I have no problem with the truth. Do you?


  • Fair wages: all NYU employees deserve a living wage. We need to make sure they get it
Click to expand...

Tuition just went up another 15%. Have a nice day.

  • Financial aid: it still sucks.
Click to expand...

What do you want for Magical Money From Nowhers That You Deserve-eee-oo-eee-ooo?


  • Expansion: our tuition dollars fund NYU’s rapid expansion. We deserve to know how our tuition is affecting the community around NYU.
Click to expand...

How do you "deserve" to know? In a free society, people make offers to each other, freely, and the others may accept or not.

You are free to ask, but you deserve nothing here.

In any case, it's affecting "the community around" you by pumping dollars into it.

  • Abu Dhabi: NYU-AD is a very risky investment, and is being constructed by a government known for its abuse of human rights
Click to expand...

Correct. That doesn't seem to be stopping the Hollywood Elite from buying houses on their new giant islands and in the even newer Burj Dubai 2600-foot tower.
 
Quad4_72: Here is some evidence to support my previous claims.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/699...ar-old-rnc-protester-after-run-in-with-police

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/30/rnc.protest/index.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/3/amy_goodman_grills_st_paul_police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1EcFgWqcss&NR=1
(Skip past the introduction to about 2:30)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIm-IWaOPjo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh4iv3k1feU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqsqQ7VLMM0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f144QJ7-eIo

Most of these are pretty self explanatory though if you have specific questions I will do my best to answer them.

Also I have much more evidence in the form of personal testimony from people who were at the RNC.

In that last video, notice the guy with the guitar being pushed over by the police. I'm friends with a few people who were there to witness that first hand and this individual was simply standing in the way without any violence. Rather than simply restraining him and arresting him, they pushed him over, he got back up, they did it again, then they proceeded to arrest him but also kicked him when he was already on the ground and handcuffed. My friend told them to stop. So they maced him.

In addition at my campus we held a panel discussion about the RNC and media censorship. Mike, a registered nurse from Regents Hospital who is also a part time independent journalist was one of the RNC medics treating the people who had been maced. According to Mike there were originally 60 clinics set up in the area to treat protesters who had been injured or maced. After a day or two half of them had been shut down and some of the medics had been detained. While he was treating protestors the riot police called to one another to grab the medic, so he had to flee the area. While treating people he repeatedly saw instances where peaceful protestors and even people who weren't part of the protests being maced. Some people who had already been maced, taken down, handcuffed and were not struggling were then maced again just for good measure.

I'm not going to pretend all the protesters were innocent because I know they weren't. There were some who were violent and were destroying property and throwing things at people. And those people who started unprovoked violence deserve what they got.

As for the illegal protesting thing... The city gave permission for and set aside a small specific area for protesting. However this area was not sufficient to accomodate the number of people who wanted to protest. The area where protesting was allowed was generally packed full, and even with this there were still all these people in other areas doing their "illegal" protest. If the government gets to decide when, where, and how many people can protest, it's not a protest, and there is something very very wrong.
 
Last edited:
I would probably support about 90-95% of their demands, but yes, it's terrible for the efficiency of the protest. Having so many demands practically guarantees that the public will not really hear anything about the political reasons for the protest, and they will assume they are just protesting for the sake of it.

There's always going to be a fair number of 'lifestyle' protestors at this kind of event, who are not really focused to change anything in particular. From my own involvement in somewhat similar causes, I find these people extremely annoying. You just can't reason with them, because at the end of the day they don't care if the protest has any effect or not. They just want to protest, the protest itself is its own sole objective. They seem to be doing it in order to find inner peace with themselves or whatever.. or I don't know what.. but at least the outside world is not part of their equation at all. Mind you, I'm not saying these people don't care about the issues. They evidently do. But I would say that they are not seriously interested in change.
 
The_Animus said:
Quad4_72: Here is some evidence to support my previous claims.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/699...ar-old-rnc-protester-after-run-in-with-police

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/30/rnc.protest/index.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/3/amy_goodman_grills_st_paul_police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1EcFgWqcss&NR=1
(Skip past the introduction to about 2:30)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIm-IWaOPjo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh4iv3k1feU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqsqQ7VLMM0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f144QJ7-eIo

Most of these are pretty self explanatory though if you have specific questions I will do my best to answer them.

Also I have much more evidence in the form of personal testimony from people who were at the RNC.

In that last video, notice the guy with the guitar being pushed over by the police. I'm friends with a few people who were there to witness that first hand and this individual was simply standing in the way without any violence. Rather than simply restraining him and arresting him, they pushed him over, he got back up, they did it again, then they proceeded to arrest him but also kicked him when he was already on the ground and handcuffed. My friend told them to stop. So they maced him.

In addition at my campus we held a panel discussion about the RNC and media censorship. Mike, a registered nurse from Regents Hospital who is also a part time independent journalist was one of the RNC medics treating the people who had been maced. According to Mike there were originally 60 clinics set up in the area to treat protesters who had been injured or maced. After a day or two half of them had been shut down and some of the medics had been detained. While he was treating protestors the riot police called to one another to grab the medic, so he had to flee the area. While treating people he repeatedly saw instances where peaceful protestors and even people who weren't part of the protests being maced. Some people who had already been maced, taken down, handcuffed and were not struggling were then maced again just for good measure.

I'm not going to pretend all the protesters were innocent because I know they weren't. There were some who were violent and were destroying property and throwing things at people. And those people who started unprovoked violence deserve what they got.

As for the illegal protesting thing... The city gave permission for and set aside a small specific area for protesting. However this area was not sufficient to accomodate the number of people who wanted to protest. The area where protesting was allowed was generally packed full, and even with this there were still all these people in other areas doing their "illegal" protest. If the government gets to decide when, where, and how many people can protest, it's not a protest, and there is something very very wrong.
Click to expand...
As long as the protesters understand that people they force to take other paths/miss appointments or have things of actual importance canceled may tend to look unfavorably on positions they might otherwise have agreed with due to such blocking, I suppose they should be given priority over people actually trying to carry on with their lives.
 
Merko said:
I would probably support about 90-95% of their demands, but yes, it's terrible for the efficiency of the protest. Having so many demands practically guarantees that the public will not really hear anything about the political reasons for the protest, and they will assume they are just protesting for the sake of it.

There's always going to be a fair number of 'lifestyle' protestors at this kind of event, who are not really focused to change anything in particular. From my own involvement in somewhat similar causes, I find these people extremely annoying. You just can't reason with them, because at the end of the day they don't care if the protest has any effect or not. They just want to protest, the protest itself is its own sole objective. They seem to be doing it in order to find inner peace with themselves or whatever.. or I don't know what.. but at least the outside world is not part of their equation at all. Mind you, I'm not saying these people don't care about the issues. They evidently do. But I would say that they are not seriously interested in change.
Click to expand...
For the groups/individuals who like to protest just to be protesting, I'd love to see an organization that found some flaw in their political correctness (not that difficult since certain of these have positions at variance with others) and have "protests" of them at their apartments, place of labor and/or classroom.
 
The_Animus said:
Quad4_72: Here is some evidence to support my previous claims.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/699...ar-old-rnc-protester-after-run-in-with-police

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/30/rnc.protest/index.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/3/amy_goodman_grills_st_paul_police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1EcFgWqcss&NR=1
(Skip past the introduction to about 2:30)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIm-IWaOPjo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh4iv3k1feU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqsqQ7VLMM0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f144QJ7-eIo

Most of these are pretty self explanatory though if you have specific questions I will do my best to answer them.

Also I have much more evidence in the form of personal testimony from people who were at the RNC.

In that last video, notice the guy with the guitar being pushed over by the police. I'm friends with a few people who were there to witness that first hand and this individual was simply standing in the way without any violence. Rather than simply restraining him and arresting him, they pushed him over, he got back up, they did it again, then they proceeded to arrest him but also kicked him when he was already on the ground and handcuffed. My friend told them to stop. So they maced him.

In addition at my campus we held a panel discussion about the RNC and media censorship. Mike, a registered nurse from Regents Hospital who is also a part time independent journalist was one of the RNC medics treating the people who had been maced. According to Mike there were originally 60 clinics set up in the area to treat protesters who had been injured or maced. After a day or two half of them had been shut down and some of the medics had been detained. While he was treating protestors the riot police called to one another to grab the medic, so he had to flee the area. While treating people he repeatedly saw instances where peaceful protestors and even people who weren't part of the protests being maced. Some people who had already been maced, taken down, handcuffed and were not struggling were then maced again just for good measure.

I'm not going to pretend all the protesters were innocent because I know they weren't. There were some who were violent and were destroying property and throwing things at people. And those people who started unprovoked violence deserve what they got.

As for the illegal protesting thing... The city gave permission for and set aside a small specific area for protesting. However this area was not sufficient to accomodate the number of people who wanted to protest. The area where protesting was allowed was generally packed full, and even with this there were still all these people in other areas doing their "illegal" protest. If the government gets to decide when, where, and how many people can protest, it's not a protest, and there is something very very wrong.
Click to expand...

To be honest I am a little confused. What did those video clips have to do with the protests at NYU? Not to mention I saw countless acts of illegal protest in all of your links.
 
If you go back and read my original post you quoted, and asked evidence for, I was referencing the RNC not the NYU.

The question came up as to what tactics are and are not okay in protesting and whether illegal protesting harms the cause or the protesters. I was arguing as to why I was torn on the issue. I can understand why people say that illegal protesting, and in some cases violent protesting hurts their cause by driving others away. But I also understand why sometimes it is a necessity.

fuelair said:
As long as the protesters understand that people they force to take other paths/miss appointments or have things of actual importance canceled may tend to look unfavorably on positions they might otherwise have agreed with due to such blocking, I suppose they should be given priority over people actually trying to carry on with their lives.
Click to expand...

I've come to believe that the people who would look unfavorably on their positions are useless anyway. These people even if they did agree as a result of a legal peaceful protest would only agree in name. By that I mean they would agree, forget about it, and do nothing to fix the issue the protesters were trying to bring attention to.
 
The_Animus said:
If you go back and read my original post you quoted, and asked evidence for, I was referencing the RNC not the NYU.

The question came up as to what tactics are and are not okay in protesting and whether illegal protesting harms the cause or the protesters. I was arguing as to why I was torn on the issue. I can understand why people say that illegal protesting, and in some cases violent protesting hurts their cause by driving others away. But I also understand why sometimes it is a necessity.



I've come to believe that the people who would look unfavorably on their positions are useless anyway. These people even if they did agree as a result of a legal peaceful protest would only agree in name. By that I mean they would agree, forget about it, and do nothing to fix the issue the protesters were trying to bring attention to.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it is not necessary in any country with free elections and access to courts. May make protesters feel good, but... By the by, I would hope no thinking person would make a political/value decision on the basis of someone elses protest. Data/information that is verified fully should be the source of decision making.
 
fuelair said:
Sorry, but it is not necessary in any country with free elections and access to courts. May make protesters feel good, but... By the by, I would hope no thinking person would make a political/value decision on the basis of someone elses protest. Data/information that is verified fully should be the source of decision making.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The state of our elections and court system is in disarray. They are irreparably broken. It's a classic case of the frog in boiling water pheonmenon. We've been desensitized over time so that we don't care that it's broken, or feel there is nothing we can do about it.

Our elections are no longer based on ideals and ideas for the benefit of the country but on who has the most money and who can lie the best to the most people. Look at Obama. This last election had one of the highest voter turnouts in the history of the country. Everyone was fired up and desperately hoping for real change because people are sick of the BS candidates. After being elected it took him next to no time to break numerous campaign promises. But that is the norm now isn't it?

I was watching a PBS frontline video on advertising called The Persuaders. This is available online for free if you wish to view it. That is what our election are. A contest of who is the better marketing/advertising team.

And the courts/law...
Let's say I'm in my home smoking a joint and for some reason the police are informed about this and I get arrested. I did nothing to harm anyone, but not I am no longer eligible for financial aid for college. Meanwhile a man who raped and murdered a woman is arrested. Murders, rapists, burglers, arsons and other criminals are still eligible for financial aid.

If you find this topic interesting I guarantee you can find enough examples of our political and legal system being broken to fill many many days of reading.
 
Last edited:
The_Animus said:
I disagree. The state of our elections and court system is in disarray. They are irreparably broken.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't want to hijack this thread into a 'argument about what's wrong with the US,' but says who? And compared to what? We've had remarkably orderly elections and the past election is a great example of a time when people were quite fed up with the administration in office and elected one quite different.

The_Animus said:
It's a classic case of the frog in boiling water pheonmenon.
Click to expand...

You mean as the water gets hotter, the frog tries to jump out?

The_Animus said:
We've been desensitized over time so that we don't care that it's broken, or feel there is nothing we can do about it.
Click to expand...

Who is 'we'? I think our system has some issues, but I don't think it is broken. That you happen to think it is doesn't mean people don't care -- it means people disagree.

The_Animus said:
Our elections are no longer based on ideals and ideas for the benefit of the country but on who has the most money and who can lie the best to the most people.
Click to expand...

So when was this idealistic time when elections were based on ideals and ideas only?

The_Animus said:
Look at Obama. This last election had one of the highest voter turnouts in the history of the country. Everyone was fired up and desperately hoping for real change because people are sick of the BS candidates. After being elected it took him next to no time to break numerous campaign promises. But that is the norm now isn't it?
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on what you consider 'real change.' Obama has been in office for a little over a month, and I can name numerous things he has changed -- some of which I don't agree with, but I acknowledge he is changing policies. Just off the top of my head: he repealed Bush's abortion funding ban, he cut Medicare Advantage payments, he's still committed to closing Gitmo, he's sending more troops to Afghanistan, he signed a massive stimulus bill, he's raising taxes on top income earners, etc. etc.

The_Animus said:
I was watching a PBS frontline video on advertising called The Persuaders. This is available online for free if you wish to view it. That is what our election are. A contest of who is the better marketing/advertising team.
Click to expand...

Better than an election based on who you know in the back room. Abraham Lincoln wasn't nominated and elected based on 'ideas and issues,' he was nominated by a relatively small number of core people at a party convention on a 16th or 17th ballot. Our elections are now arguably as populist as they've ever been. So yes, politicians must persuade the masses, which involves advertising and so forth. As the electorate, it's our job to look through that. If we don't... well, shame on us.

The_Animus said:
And the courts/law...
Let's say I'm in my home smoking a joint and for some reason the police are informed about this and I get arrested. I did nothing to harm anyone, but not I am no longer eligible for financial aid for college. Meanwhile a man who raped and murdered a woman is arrested. Murders, rapists, burglers, arsons and other criminals are still eligible for financial aid.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing you disagreeing with a specific policy or law, with the system itself being "broken."
 
The_Animus said:
I disagree. The state of our elections and court system is in disarray. They are irreparably broken. It's a classic case of the frog in boiling water pheonmenon. We've been desensitized over time so that we don't care that it's broken, or feel there is nothing we can do about it.

Our elections are no longer based on ideals and ideas for the benefit of the country but on who has the most money and who can lie the best to the most people. Look at Obama. This last election had one of the highest voter turnouts in the history of the country. Everyone was fired up and desperately hoping for real change because people are sick of the BS candidates. After being elected it took him next to no time to break numerous campaign promises. But that is the norm now isn't it?

I was watching a PBS frontline video on advertising called The Persuaders. This is available online for free if you wish to view it. That is what our election are. A contest of who is the better marketing/advertising team.

And the courts/law...
Let's say I'm in my home smoking a joint and for some reason the police are informed about this and I get arrested. I did nothing to harm anyone, but not I am no longer eligible for financial aid for college. Meanwhile a man who raped and murdered a woman is arrested. Murders, rapists, burglers, arsons and other criminals are still eligible for financial aid.

If you find this topic interesting I guarantee you can find enough examples of our political and legal system being broken to fill many many days of reading.
Click to expand...

With no offense, you may note if you check the quote that I said thinking person. People who are not thinking - or are doing so at a very limited level - will not respond to protests except in a negative manner. Most people who are thinking will respond to MOST protests in a negative manner figuring the protesters ought to be doing something real about the assumed problem, not just blocking paths and being annoying.. Most people who participate in most protests are thinking, if at all, in a non-rational manner -they assume protesting in the way they are protesting will automatically bring others to agree with them - or to care about what the protesters claim to be caring about. People are manipulated easily because the media has learned how to do that. Pointless public protests do not do that so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom