As the latest university belatedly catches on a small and merry band of Sheffield students have started sitting in a room as well...
The authors of this blog don't profess to understand the details of all the different lefty groups within the student world but this latest action has been claimed by a group called ENS and led by someone called Daniel Randall...from a bit of research it seems these people support a two state solution and condemn Hamas for being the homophobic, msygonistic and anti-semitic organisation that they are - will that be reflected in any demands or will they just follow the bandwagon demands too?
We also hear that some groups oppose this latest action now...maybe a reader can explain why, have some groups finally sensed that these things do nothing beyond recruit more members for themselves?
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Lessons Learnt...
What happens next has to be the question? I'd be interested to see whether we see some 'direct action' like this on any other issue in the coming few months or will the student radicals settle down for exam time and coursework deadlines.
Maybe the next set won't be so divisive but will actually try to unite the student movemement around an issue we can all agree on like climate change, education funding or the ongoing Genocide in Darfur. The problem is it's not clear whether those topics will be such useful recruiting tools for the Stop the War Coalition and their like...
What do you think? Any predictions?
Maybe the next set won't be so divisive but will actually try to unite the student movemement around an issue we can all agree on like climate change, education funding or the ongoing Genocide in Darfur. The problem is it's not clear whether those topics will be such useful recruiting tools for the Stop the War Coalition and their like...
What do you think? Any predictions?
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
The latest addition to the bandwagon...
A group of students at the University of Newcastle have joined the bandwagon a bit late. In what can only be assumed to be a plea for attention from stop the war coalition head office they took over a room and have set about issuing one of the funniest sets of statements so far. This morning this gem was added to the blog:
"We have spent our first night in occupation of the Fine Arts Building on Newcastle University campus. We have finalised a list of demands "
Pull the other one - your list of demands is alsmost identical to every other list of demands, did it really take all night (N.B. the post appears to have gone up at 2:55am...some way off spending the night). After complaints about the university refusing to roll and over the bloggers have eagerly continued:
"We have been offered a facilitated negotiation process by John Hogan, and are still discussing whether to accept this and end the occupation or to continue and reject this offer which does not make any guarantees as to our demands being met."
Should we end our little stunt now and accept achieving nothing or continue and reach the same conclusion further down the line? Tough call but this blog is going to suggest you get back to your degrees...
The best post so far though is without a doubt the list of supporters or anonymous list of universities. It will shock everyone reading this to know that the Newcastle occupation is being supported by the organisations that helped arrange the occupations...Socialist Workers, PSC, Stop the War. We're eagerly awaiting the generic e-mail from Noam Chomsky.
As is so often the case with trying to keep up to date with this topic someone else always sums it up better and more concisely, so thanks to Danny for this:
Danny said...
Grow up.
11 March 2009 03:52
"We have spent our first night in occupation of the Fine Arts Building on Newcastle University campus. We have finalised a list of demands "
Pull the other one - your list of demands is alsmost identical to every other list of demands, did it really take all night (N.B. the post appears to have gone up at 2:55am...some way off spending the night). After complaints about the university refusing to roll and over the bloggers have eagerly continued:
"We have been offered a facilitated negotiation process by John Hogan, and are still discussing whether to accept this and end the occupation or to continue and reject this offer which does not make any guarantees as to our demands being met."
Should we end our little stunt now and accept achieving nothing or continue and reach the same conclusion further down the line? Tough call but this blog is going to suggest you get back to your degrees...
The best post so far though is without a doubt the list of supporters or anonymous list of universities. It will shock everyone reading this to know that the Newcastle occupation is being supported by the organisations that helped arrange the occupations...Socialist Workers, PSC, Stop the War. We're eagerly awaiting the generic e-mail from Noam Chomsky.
As is so often the case with trying to keep up to date with this topic someone else always sums it up better and more concisely, so thanks to Danny for this:
Danny said...
Grow up.
11 March 2009 03:52
Monday, 9 March 2009
The Hypocrisy of the Sit-Ins
I want to start this post with the qualification that i'm not actually averse to the giving of humanitarian to people in need (be that as a result of political conflict or natural disaster), I actually think its a really good thing and that universities should be doing more of it!
One of the main 'demands' of the sit-ins has been the sending of humanitarian aid to Gaza, this was also among the more succesful demands (presumably because like this blog universities thought it was a good thing too). Why then have these socially responsible and ethically focused students only now decided this is a worthwhile thing to push for? Equally importantly how did they decide that Gaza was more worthwhile then any other part of the world for humanitarian aid?
There has been a genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan for years now and the Socialist Workers Party et al have never once called for the sending of aid there from our universities? Comic Relief comes around about this time every year and I don't remember seeing the assorted left groups fight for universities to increase their contribution. The list and examples are endless but the question is a genuine one.
The reality is that the humanitarian aid calls were the soft side of the political sword, the hope being that they painted the protestors as reasonable and then maybe the university would give in to some of the harsh political demands being made. This is accompanied by the fact that attacking Israel helps to unite the left (and recruit for the SWP), has a broader appeal then the genuine lefty mission of bringing about the revolution and brings in elements of the student body who otherwise have nothing in common with the left. It's not very principled but it is pragmatic.
The ultimate irony of course has been that at the same time as the students have expressed outrage over Gaza nothing has been said by the same people about Sri Lanka. Tim Marshall said it better then I could in his blog http://blogs.news.sky.com/foreignmatters/Post:71d5e02f-ffd6-40db-bc02-e18dbf646030
I would love for someone to explain this...
One of the main 'demands' of the sit-ins has been the sending of humanitarian aid to Gaza, this was also among the more succesful demands (presumably because like this blog universities thought it was a good thing too). Why then have these socially responsible and ethically focused students only now decided this is a worthwhile thing to push for? Equally importantly how did they decide that Gaza was more worthwhile then any other part of the world for humanitarian aid?
There has been a genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan for years now and the Socialist Workers Party et al have never once called for the sending of aid there from our universities? Comic Relief comes around about this time every year and I don't remember seeing the assorted left groups fight for universities to increase their contribution. The list and examples are endless but the question is a genuine one.
The reality is that the humanitarian aid calls were the soft side of the political sword, the hope being that they painted the protestors as reasonable and then maybe the university would give in to some of the harsh political demands being made. This is accompanied by the fact that attacking Israel helps to unite the left (and recruit for the SWP), has a broader appeal then the genuine lefty mission of bringing about the revolution and brings in elements of the student body who otherwise have nothing in common with the left. It's not very principled but it is pragmatic.
The ultimate irony of course has been that at the same time as the students have expressed outrage over Gaza nothing has been said by the same people about Sri Lanka. Tim Marshall said it better then I could in his blog http://blogs.news.sky.com/foreignmatters/Post:71d5e02f-ffd6-40db-bc02-e18dbf646030
I would love for someone to explain this...
Some Interesting Links
I don't take responsibiltiy for these but they are interesting reading nonetheless...
Specifically about the sit-ins and why they are flexbile with the truth about what they achieve:
http://benjamin-gray.com/2009/02/they-cant-be-maths-students.html
On a seperate issue a blog by Joel Braunold (NUS Executive) about being a Zionist which has been reproduced elsewhere:
http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/joelbraunold/276166.aspx
A Facebook group opposing the university sit-ins (one of many but this seems to be a general one):
"Learning free from fear - I oppose university occupations!"
Specifically about the sit-ins and why they are flexbile with the truth about what they achieve:
http://benjamin-gray.com/2009/02/they-cant-be-maths-students.html
On a seperate issue a blog by Joel Braunold (NUS Executive) about being a Zionist which has been reproduced elsewhere:
http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/joelbraunold/276166.aspx
A Facebook group opposing the university sit-ins (one of many but this seems to be a general one):
"Learning free from fear - I oppose university occupations!"
Friday, 27 February 2009
What about Anti-Semitism
It has to be dealt with at some point in case people don't read the introduction so here goes:
Taking over a room, putting out banners, handing out leaflets and bringing in speakers isn't anti-semitic (often annoying but not anti-semitic). What can't be ignored though is that there has been a huge rise in anti-semitism as a response to the Gaza situation and the Jewish community in this country clearly feels under attack, the perception and reality are both there. The sit-ins in and of themselves are not anti-semitic. Most of the people taking part are most likely not anti-semitic. Even the intentions are not necessarily anti-semitic.
What is it then about these protests then that causes Jewish students specifically to feel so uncomfortable, intimidated and harassed? Aside from the dramatic rise in attacks on Jews (verbal, graffiti and the like) there are things within the mainstream campaigns that cross the line into racism. Other things are so grossly insensitive that surely the protesters realise the offence that will be caused and then either don't care or its a stated aim.
An example: In Leeds there was a banner hung from the 'liberated space' which proudly declared 'Victory to the Intifada.' The author of that banner might well have meant that victory for the non-violent political resistance but the lack of nuance doesn't make that clear. In fact the Intifada is largely understood to be the physical resistance as supported by organisations like Hamas. The proponents of the Intifada (Hamas and also Hezbollah in the north) have made explicitly clear that all Jews are targets, worldwide:
Nasrallah - "if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
Mahmoud Zahar - "They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people."
What then are Jewish students meant to think when the protesters proudly call for a victory to the intifada? Could the protesters really be so stupid as not to realise the implication of the banner and the offence they would cause?
The other major issue throughout this whole series of protests deserves an entire post of its own - the use of the Holocaust as a political tool. I can't get my head around why the analogy of the Holocaust is only drawn to Israel. At the anti-Iraq war demos I haven't seen many "end the holocaust in Iraq" banners - that is reserved for Israel. The Jewish connection have anything to do with that? Even if not though, again, do those who use that analogy not realise the offence it causes or not care?
Maybe the organisers will explain?
Taking over a room, putting out banners, handing out leaflets and bringing in speakers isn't anti-semitic (often annoying but not anti-semitic). What can't be ignored though is that there has been a huge rise in anti-semitism as a response to the Gaza situation and the Jewish community in this country clearly feels under attack, the perception and reality are both there. The sit-ins in and of themselves are not anti-semitic. Most of the people taking part are most likely not anti-semitic. Even the intentions are not necessarily anti-semitic.
What is it then about these protests then that causes Jewish students specifically to feel so uncomfortable, intimidated and harassed? Aside from the dramatic rise in attacks on Jews (verbal, graffiti and the like) there are things within the mainstream campaigns that cross the line into racism. Other things are so grossly insensitive that surely the protesters realise the offence that will be caused and then either don't care or its a stated aim.
An example: In Leeds there was a banner hung from the 'liberated space' which proudly declared 'Victory to the Intifada.' The author of that banner might well have meant that victory for the non-violent political resistance but the lack of nuance doesn't make that clear. In fact the Intifada is largely understood to be the physical resistance as supported by organisations like Hamas. The proponents of the Intifada (Hamas and also Hezbollah in the north) have made explicitly clear that all Jews are targets, worldwide:
Nasrallah - "if [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
Mahmoud Zahar - "They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people."
What then are Jewish students meant to think when the protesters proudly call for a victory to the intifada? Could the protesters really be so stupid as not to realise the implication of the banner and the offence they would cause?
The other major issue throughout this whole series of protests deserves an entire post of its own - the use of the Holocaust as a political tool. I can't get my head around why the analogy of the Holocaust is only drawn to Israel. At the anti-Iraq war demos I haven't seen many "end the holocaust in Iraq" banners - that is reserved for Israel. The Jewish connection have anything to do with that? Even if not though, again, do those who use that analogy not realise the offence it causes or not care?
Maybe the organisers will explain?
St Andrews - A Case Study
The sit-in at the university came to an end with the following headline for the protest press release "ST ANDREWS STUDENTS DECLARE VICTORY ON SEVENTH DAY."
This is in stark contrast to these statements by the university:
"The University's position on these issues has been completely consistent throughout and we have not changed our position. We respect and defend the rights of individuals to make peaceful protest. Our neutrality however remains non-negotiable...will not support any political cause over another. We are pleased to report that the group occupying Lower College Hall has this afternoon agreed to abandon its sit-in.
"The University is grateful for offers of support from students in creating a specific endowed scholarship for any overseas student whose studies have been affected by war, unrest or natural disaster, regardless of nationality, and as long as they have the academic capacity required by the University of St Andrews...We will not however restrict the offer of such scholarships to one nationality it must be open to people of all nations."
"We believe that all the issues should have been raised, and could have been resolved, through the existing processes of dialogue between the Students Association and the University, which we continue to value as proper, democratic, fully representative of the student body, and accountable to it."
In case these comments are ambigious - the university also gave this quote to The Courier newspaper - “For the sake of clarity, the university did not concede to any of the occupiers’ ‘demands’. Our position was consistent throughout and did not change. The actions and reviews we have detailed were under way long before this incident began, reflect existing policy or are a result of ongoing democratic discussions with the students’ association.”
This is yet another example of the protest claiming some sort of victory when in fact they achieved nothing new and nothing that couldn't have already been achieved through dialogue. There are countless other examples of this from LSE at the start (where the university largely committed to continuing existing reviews) to Glasgow where the only real achievement has been the very welcome work towards humanitarian fundraising (including for an Israeli charity).
This is in stark contrast to these statements by the university:
"The University's position on these issues has been completely consistent throughout and we have not changed our position. We respect and defend the rights of individuals to make peaceful protest. Our neutrality however remains non-negotiable...will not support any political cause over another. We are pleased to report that the group occupying Lower College Hall has this afternoon agreed to abandon its sit-in.
"The University is grateful for offers of support from students in creating a specific endowed scholarship for any overseas student whose studies have been affected by war, unrest or natural disaster, regardless of nationality, and as long as they have the academic capacity required by the University of St Andrews...We will not however restrict the offer of such scholarships to one nationality it must be open to people of all nations."
"We believe that all the issues should have been raised, and could have been resolved, through the existing processes of dialogue between the Students Association and the University, which we continue to value as proper, democratic, fully representative of the student body, and accountable to it."
In case these comments are ambigious - the university also gave this quote to The Courier newspaper - “For the sake of clarity, the university did not concede to any of the occupiers’ ‘demands’. Our position was consistent throughout and did not change. The actions and reviews we have detailed were under way long before this incident began, reflect existing policy or are a result of ongoing democratic discussions with the students’ association.”
This is yet another example of the protest claiming some sort of victory when in fact they achieved nothing new and nothing that couldn't have already been achieved through dialogue. There are countless other examples of this from LSE at the start (where the university largely committed to continuing existing reviews) to Glasgow where the only real achievement has been the very welcome work towards humanitarian fundraising (including for an Israeli charity).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)