I have a daughter that will be starting college next year. As I read your piece I realized had she committed to Columbia she would at this point in time either sit out a year from college and resubmit all her applications or go to Columbia. I am guessing the administration was well aware of the importance of their timing.
How exactly did this "encampment" disrupt campus? It doesn't sound like anyone is claiming this was anything but peaceful. How has Columbia dealt in the past with other protests? Have there been similar ones with "encampments" that did NOT result in arrests?
And would Columbia have done anything differently if the protestors just marched each day instead of "camped?"
I'm guess the answer is this is a new kind of response, but hard to tell from the reporting.
It's the flip side of all those noble-sounding quotes "good schools" make about "Raising the Leaders of Tomorrow"...by teaching them NOT to rock the boat, and what can happen to those who do.
Isn't this why institutions like The New School, Sarah Lawrence College, and Bard were founded, in response to the extremely White Bread Male Ivy League (and just off-Ivy League) universities?
I support all the student protesters, at Columbia and elsewhere. It is important to reflect, though, on why it is so often elite expensive private universities that are in the limelight. Is it because most journalists went to those institutions and are obsessed with them? Is it because there is a particularly glaring contradiction between having access to an elite education and seeing how the world works in practice- genocide, police violence and all? And/or because lengthy protests, skipping class and putting your degree on the line are acts accessible only to a small group of students? Working-class students also oppose genocide and state violence, but maybe their options for protest and attention are limited.
We were far from elitists, we were outraged
I have a daughter that will be starting college next year. As I read your piece I realized had she committed to Columbia she would at this point in time either sit out a year from college and resubmit all her applications or go to Columbia. I am guessing the administration was well aware of the importance of their timing.
How exactly did this "encampment" disrupt campus? It doesn't sound like anyone is claiming this was anything but peaceful. How has Columbia dealt in the past with other protests? Have there been similar ones with "encampments" that did NOT result in arrests?
And would Columbia have done anything differently if the protestors just marched each day instead of "camped?"
I'm guess the answer is this is a new kind of response, but hard to tell from the reporting.
It's the flip side of all those noble-sounding quotes "good schools" make about "Raising the Leaders of Tomorrow"...by teaching them NOT to rock the boat, and what can happen to those who do.
Isn't this why institutions like The New School, Sarah Lawrence College, and Bard were founded, in response to the extremely White Bread Male Ivy League (and just off-Ivy League) universities?
I support all the student protesters, at Columbia and elsewhere. It is important to reflect, though, on why it is so often elite expensive private universities that are in the limelight. Is it because most journalists went to those institutions and are obsessed with them? Is it because there is a particularly glaring contradiction between having access to an elite education and seeing how the world works in practice- genocide, police violence and all? And/or because lengthy protests, skipping class and putting your degree on the line are acts accessible only to a small group of students? Working-class students also oppose genocide and state violence, but maybe their options for protest and attention are limited.
Interesting POV that rings true.