Some of the organizers of today’s “Unwelcoming Condoleezza Rice” protest at Claremont McKenna College contacted the Port Side in hopes of clarifying their intentions and the tactics for the demonstration.
In light of the recent change in location of Condoleezza Rice’s talk, and the increasing hype surrounding the talk and demonstration, we feel the need to issue a statement of our intentions. We would like preface by saying that these are only the intentions of those writing this statement, whose names are signed below.
The change of venue and shortened speaking time was not our goal. We were never trying to obstruct Rice’s right to freedom of speech, nor the rights of those attending the talk to listen. Our true objective is to provide a supplementary educational experience through structured dialogues regarding Rice’s controversial role in policy-making throughout the Bush Administration.
In addition to clarifying the objectives of this demonstration, we would also like to share its origins with the public. The connection being made between this demonstration and Occupy Claremont is only partially true, as many of those involved in the planning of this demonstration also participate in Occupy activities. The idea of “Unwelcoming” Rice was indeed first voiced during a General Assembly at Pitzer, by a student who had participated in the protest of Karl Rove’s visit three years prior. In the first meeting, however, students agreed that they did not want to simply repeat the Rove protest. We instead imagined the demonstration creating a space for education, dialogue and debate. The general public was invited and included in the planning process in order to take into account as many voices and concerns as possible.
The nature of the demonstration has morphed as we have read more articles, spoken with more people, and incorporated new suggestions and critiques. We would like to thank all who have expressed opposing viewpoints and constructive feedback for contributing to this event. The articles published in the Port Side and Forum have added to the event by stimulating discussion and debate, which are some of the demonstration’s main goals.
This event is meant to be inclusive, not exclusive. It has not been designed solely for those who have chosen not to attend Rice’s talk. On the contrary, we would like to encourage those who are attending the talk to come to the teach-ins before and after. They will begin at 5 p.m., which originally would have allowed for an hour and a half of teach-ins before her talk, but now only permit 30 minutes.
This statement was written with the intention of communicating more directly our thoughts and expectations for this demonstration. That being said, it is by nature a protest. The four of us are united in the belief that some of Rice’s actions in the Bush Administration qualify as crimes against humanity and democracy. Despite our differing opinions, we have done our best to make this demonstration inclusive and respectful of varying viewpoints, by inviting everyone to lead and participate in the teach-ins. Additionally, after the teach-ins there will be an open mic where everyone’s voices can be heard. We would like to emphasize that we are aiming to make the demonstration as peaceful as possible.
We realize that some members of the Colleges and community that will be attending may have a different vision for the demonstration. We ultimately have no control over their actions and personal choices, but we hope that all those attending remain peaceful and law abiding. We aspire to create a space for peaceful, constructive discussion and believe that unfettered dialogue is the beginning to real learning.
Confirmed teach-in topics include:
1.) The Origins of the Second Iraq War – Pitzer Professor, Dan Segal
2.) From Kissinger to Condi: The Rise of the Celebrity War Criminal – Pomona Professor, Heather Williams
3.) US Foreign Policy and Preventative War – Pitzer Professor, Dana Ward
4.) Condi, Coercive Diplomacy and the Congressional Advisory Board – Pitzer Senior, Michael Landsman
If you are interested in leading a teach-in please contact: vgiannot@pitzer.edu
Much Love,
Aleksandra Bril PZ ‘13
Emma French PZ ‘13
Vincent Giannotti PZ ‘12
Liz Scherffius PZ ‘13
The Claremont Port Side always welcomes letters to the editor, but the opinions expressed in them are those of the author alone, not necessarily of the Port Side.
Editor’s note: For more coverage of Rice’s visit to Claremont, see our investigation into 5C pepper spray policy, background on the planned protest, a defense of the demonstration, its change of venue, a reflection on the benefits of peaceful demonstration, and a Letter to the Editor from the Ath Fellows. Check back later today for updates on the Ducey talk and teach-ins.
Regardless of your intentions, I think it is difficult not to draw a connection between the teach-ins and the change in venue, which has diminished the capacity of CMC students to interact with their guest at this event. Since you have partial responsibility, I think many CMC students would appreciate an apology, not for your viewpoints or even your desire to demonstrate, but simply for the way that events have unfolded.
Furthermore, some food for thought. Condoleezza Rice will now be paid the same amount for less time spent with students. Students who will now be sitting in a drafty gym rather than the athenaeum, and who have been stripped of an opportunity to ask more pointed questions of their guest. Who are you really hurting? Her, or us?
Amen, Adam.
“The change of venue and shortened speaking time was not our goal. We were never trying to obstruct Rice’s right to freedom of speech, nor the rights of those attending the talk to listen. Our true objective is to provide a supplementary educational experience through structured dialogues regarding Rice’s controversial role in policy-making throughout the Bush Administration.”
It doesn’t matter that the venue change/shortened speaking time was not your goal. The change occurred because your publicized protest concerned the CMC Administration enough that they felt the need (however wrong the decision was) to take these extra measures to ensure Dr. Rice’s safety/security.
Nice job perpetuating the negative stereotypes everyone has about Pitzer. I have good friends at your school and I constantly defend the value of the institution whenever people trash it, but no more. You’ve validated everything that everyone dislikes about your school.
I am a Pitzer student, and I do not support this protest, nor do many other Pitzer students I know. I hope that students from other campuses are able to keep in mind that the Pitzer students who are protesting tonight constitute a small percentage of the 900+ students at Pitzer. Although I am unable to attend the talk by Dr. Rice, I’m upset that the security concerns caused by the protest has changed the event from a personal dialogue for CMC students to an impersonal encounter.
Even if you do not actively defend Pitzer, I urge everyone to keep in mind that this protest is not necessarily representative of Pitzer’s student body (who often seems to “protest for protest’s sake.”) I also hope that my fellow Pitzer students can keep this teach-in peaceful and non-disruptive so that the negative stereotypes don’t get any worse than they already are. I can’t speak for others, but I am tired of being associated with a small group of individuals who do not represent my views simply because I attend the same college.
Working for the State Department can certainly have that tranquilizing effect on a person. I have family high up in that organization, and the actions US imperialist agencies are more destructive than any terrorist group.
The security concerns were illegitimate. The CMC Dean cited the “blogosphere” being overrun with militants ready to descend upon Claremont. They cited “other people” coming from the community. Dear God, no! This protest was avowedly peaceful. Who showed up from the community? The elderly. Can dentures be considered weapons?
This is the same fear-mongering that got us into these wars in the first place. Blame CMC for overreacting, not the protesters that are taking their time to stand up for THE FUNDAMENTAL TENETS OF A FREE AND OPEN SOCIETY, AS OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Don’t hate on Cody for working with the State Department. What she did there was very productive and allows her the opportunity and experience to make real change in the future. This is far superior to sitting in the middle of CMC chanting stuff. The civil rights era was marked with protest, but it wasn’t people chanting that made change, it was people in the senate, congress, others working for the state that made that positive change possible. Go out and vote, write to your member of congress. Don’t demand the ability to infringe on others people’s right to attend an event. That doesn’t make change, that just reduces the number of people who might otherwise support you.
Also, I am very very tired of reading comments concerning the actions of the United States. Yes, we have done so horrible things in our imperfect attempts to fix what wrongs we see. Yes most of what we do is motivated by our own self interest, but that doesn’t make it bad.
We went into Iraq on faulty information, and yes there were lots of lives lost. But now the people in Iraq have a real opportunity to govern themselves and not have a true legitimate fear of their state (unlike the imaginary fear of the “fascist” state many hear in the U.S. have). Now they can vote out their leaders, they don’t have to run them out with guns. Is the U.S. benefiting from this, hell yeah we are, but that shouldn’t take away from the positive gains. If anything it should add to the previously mentioned gains.
Lets say I lived in a very crappy house that was falling apart, living with a drunk father who beat me on a semi-regular basis (when he wasn’t too drunk). Then lets say one night a group of thugs (call them imperialist) break into my house, punch me in the face and steal my TV (call that natural resources of my house). Then once I recover from the punch, I walk down stairs and notice no more holes in the roof, new carpet/tile, all the lights working, hell my water is running again! Afterwards, my dad walks down, I begin to be filled with fear, but then I realize he is a changed person, instead of beating me he greets me and seeks to help me (The regime change). The initial cost (punch to the face and stolen TV) are more than overcompensated for by the gains. Was it wrong for random imperialist to come into my house, beat me up and steal my TV, maybe. But in the benefits far outweigh the cost, especially over the long run.
An overly simplified story to illustrate my point. Believe I know its simple and somewhat crude, but I think it gets the point across. Also, to be clear I do not equate the unfortunate loss of life to a stolen TV and punch in the face.
Thanks Cody for reminding people that not everyone at Pitzer agrees with all the nonsensical protest that occurred at CMC. It sad and frustrating when others assume that because I go to Pitzer that I too must be radical anarchist hippie who cries because the “fascist” state is infringing on my rights. I, and most Pitzer students, are pretty moderate. Yes I disagree with the past administration, and no, I am not Dr. Rice’s biggest fan. But because I disagree with some elements of the State, doesn’t mean I think we live in a facist state.
I don’t think we live in a police state that is constantly beating me down. In a true police state, the teach-in/protest would not be confined to a predetermined area, instead the police would raid the home’s of all those involved the night before and then there would be no protest the next day. In a true police state people don’t get spayed with pepper spray in the face or shot at with tear gas canisters. Instead they face a volley of heated lead racing towards them, the police is not out in riot gear to protect themselves, they are out with offensive weapons meant to kill, not hurt. In a true police state when they arrest you, they don’t leave you on an uncomfortable bus for 7 hours, and than take a long time to book and processes you, they just throw you in a cell, shortly after beating you for a few hours, then you are never heard from again. That my dear friends is a true police state, what we have is a soft nanny state where people have become overly sensitive and believe forced displacement is police brutality and evidence of a police state. So when people shout “this is what a police state looks like” and I am able to view such things freely on a live web feed, then by default they are wrong and this is not truly a police state. The fact that I am writing this without fear of having the “state” drag me out of bed at night, shows that “this is NOT what a police state looks like”.
Yes, standing up for the oppressed and slaughter is a horrendous quality, indeed. How dare they!
Has the CMC student body ever organized a protest? Just curious.
“You’ve validated everything that everyone dislikes about your school.”
These reasons you and “everyone” dislikes about Pitzer (and Pomona, and Scripps, and Harvey Mudd, all of which were represented at the protest, mind you) are the SAME reasons why REAL leaders apply there.
It’s easy to slither up the State/Corporate ladder and suckle at the teat of centuries old malfeasance and hegemony. The challenge is risking your life and liberty by defending that of others.
Wow Adam, this is so blatantly wrong. First, a Dean at CMC today told us that “nothing we planned” [the student group] caused the change of venue (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/18848014) 8:17-10:00. In fact, they seemed more concerned about groups outside of campus coming in and doing something violent or stupid and not us, though they presented no evidence of this claim. If they were just changing the venue because of the student protest, then they lied to us and we are still not at fault. All we did was exercise our legal right to protest in a non-violent manner. I can personally say that as I listened to a professor lecture about the differences between pre-emptive war and preventive war and ate cookies, I did nothing that was endangering or could possibly justify CMC’s change of venue. I nor anyone who protested can be responsible for the school’s irrational decision. In short blame CMC, not us.
It was the outside attention that your little protest attracted that forced the changed venue. While you were not 100% the cause of the change, you instigated it.
You should be thankful that CMC gave you a little play pen in which to exercise your freedom of speech. I was hoping they’d kick all of you (minus the one CMC student)… off campus.
Your protest came very close to ruining a night that could have been one of the best intellectual nights on CMC’s campus all semester. Thanks. You all could have learned something from Dr. Rice’s talk, which was a) not an attempt to sell her book and b) both honest and inspiring. Call her a war criminal all you want (and I agree with your feelings about some of the actions taken by the Bush Administration) but grow up and realize that you can learn from her.
We can “learn” from the Dianetics, the basis of Scientology, too.
That is not a testament to its veracity.
Why do despise the first amendment like this?
We need not be thankful for the “play pen” at all, for FREE SPEECH is not and will never be confined to such a restricted space.
Wasn’t the change of venue largely due to size constraints of the Ath? From what I understand, about 200 more people were able to attend the talk because it was held in Ducey. Why is this being blamed on the protestors?
I appreciate your peaceful goals and respect your speaking rights, and I’m far more upset with CMC’s DOS for making the decision than with your group (or the nebulous outsiders whose number and intentions we can’t possibly guess, but should for some reason fear). But you have to acknowledge that the reason our DOS is paranoid about the protests is the irresponsibility of a few protestors when Karl Rove visited in 2008. We hold these events to have a civilized discourse, both in the intimate setting of the Ath and throughout the campus as a whole, and I’m glad that you want to contribute to it. But please take whatever steps you can to ensure that the event you’re organizing doesn’t cross the boundary of civility. I don’t think anyone wants more bomb threats or vandalism, and hopefully, if this goes as you plan, we won’t have to receive our next big-name speaker on a basketball court.
Apologies if I sound a touch strident in this response, and if I sound like I’m angry, it’s because I am. Your actions are hurting one of the best institutions in all of higher education, one that I was able to utilize my four years at CMC, and one that helped me grow intellectually and professionally.
Your protest is a joke. It’s a joke because you fall into one of two categories. Either, you don’t actually believe your rhetoric and are being a nuisance because you think that that’s “cool”, or you do believe your rhetoric, and you’re all cowards.
The first possibility, that you’re out to cause a nuisance because you can, is easy to address: if you don’t actually believe or care about watt you’re saying, go home. Go away. We don’t want you here. Do you have the right to go out and be a pain in the ass? Absolutely. But just because you fill your explanations with flowery rhetoric, doesn’t make you any less of a dick.
The second option, that you do believe your rhetoric but are too cowardly to act on your convictions, I’ll address now. You state: “The four of us are united in the belief that some of Rice’s actions in the Bush Administration qualify as crimes against humanity and democracy”. If that is truly the case, don’t you have a moral (and perhaps legal) obligation to not only say mean things about her, but to do something about. If she is a war criminal, guilty of “crimes against humanity”, why not arrest her? By letting her roam free, aren’t you a part of the problem and thus complicit in her crimes?
I want to agree with you, as I too disapprove of her actions and think she made grave mistakes as NSA and Secretary of State. But the hypocrisy and hyperbolic rhetoric of you and your colleagues makes it impossible to do so. So please, go home, and ruin your own school’s reputation.
…. Actually, don’t come back & ruin our reputation at Pitzer either.
Also, there were a ton of typos and grammar errors on the table tents for this protest. Not helping your cause.
** obviously should have been “what” not “watt” in the third paragraph
Wait… you claim we’re only out to cause a nuisance and be “cool,” but in the same breath you’re calling the organizers cowards for not arresting Rice?
I’d love to arrest her. It was attempted with Karl Rove. But think about it: it is only the STATE that can arrest people. Condoleezza and Rove are largely immune to arrest, because they were/are components of the STATE. It’s a more subtle version of Berlusconi’s attempt at granting the PM full diplomatic and legal immunity.
I don’t protest to be cool. Does getting beaten, spending days out in the cold, attacked by those that get fat off the current system, and being subject to unlawful detainment sound COOL to you?
Our rhetoric is not hyperbolic. Please explain why you believe this. Lying about WMD’s to incite a pre-emptive war of aggression that resulted in the death of 100,000+ people would be classified as a “war crime,” and a “crime against humanity.” Our language is accurate.
Disparagement of protesters is antithetical to the foundation what this country claims to stand for.
I’ll respond line by line:
1) “Wait… you claim we’re only out to cause a nuisance and be “cool,” but in the same breath you’re calling the organizers cowards for not arresting Rice?”
I said those are the two possibilities. It’s an either-or situation. You are either protesting for protests sake OR you are a coward because you are not willing to act on your rhetoric. I’d love to know which is the case.
2) ” But think about it: it is only the STATE that can arrest people. Condoleezza and Rove are largely immune to arrest, because they were/are components of the STATE.”
California, like almost every state, has provisions for a citizens arrest in certain scenarios. One scenario is where a person has committed a felony,even when such an act is sight unseen to the person making the citizen’s arrest. It’s a risky choice, given that you can be subject to criminal and civil charges for false imprisonment, kidnapping, etc. But if you believe she has committed such acts, and believe that this can be proven in a court of law, both of which you have stated to be true, then I’ll say it again: you are a coward for not acting upon those beliefs.
3) “I don’t protest to be cool. Does getting beaten, spending days out in the cold, attacked by those that get fat off the current system, and being subject to unlawful detainment sound COOL to you?”
No, but that’s because I have a job, rent to pay, and don’t think that those tactics are effective given the current climate. I do think that it gives you a sense of purpose and a sense of self worth. I’m sure you think you’re doing something meaningful, so I do think you feel good about it. Hell, I KNOW you feel good about it. Whether I think your actions are “cool” is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that I think that YOU think it’s cool.
4) “Our rhetoric is not hyperbolic. Please explain why you believe this. Lying about WMD’s to incite a pre-emptive war of aggression that resulted in the death of 100,000+ people would be classified as a “war crime,” and a “crime against humanity.” Our language is accurate.”
I’ve read almost every comment on the multiple articles written about this protest, and I watched the majority live stream of the teach-ins yesterday. Rice was compared to Hitler, Pinoche, Goebbels, nazis generally, Stalin and I’m sure other things I missed. The CMC administration was accused of being equivalent to a police state. The non-Dana Ward professor implied that CMC had hired “large muscular men” to physically assault him. These are just a few examples of whatI view as hyperbolic. The moment you call someone Hitler, you have no credibility. None. Zilch. Zero. Do you know who compares to Hitler? Hitler. Stalin too. That’s it.
I also find your complaints about the 1st amendment hyperbolic. I get it, you want to do whatever you want wherever you want, I do to. What do you mean I cant play beer pong outside on a Wednesday? And I understand that these issues can get even more stressful when they relate to fundamental constitutional rights. My issue with your rhetoric on this is that you ignore the parts of 1st amendment rulings by the Supreme Court that state that reasonable restrictions can be placed on free speech if certain conditions that create a compelling interest are met. Security and safety is one of those. Free movement is another. Lastly, on a private college campus, the college has the right to limit who is allowed on their campus, and what actions are and are not permitted at a given time. Your rhetoric implies that everything must be done the way you want, or the person is actively destroying the American way of life. Which brings me to your last line…
5) “Disparagement of protesters is antithetical to the foundation what this country claims to stand for.”
Two things: One, I’m not discussing protest in general, just this specific one. And two, disparagement is a form of free speech. It may not be one you particularly like, but it’s just as much a part of it as yours. Also, I bet I can find protesters you would disparage. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind.
In sum, I stand by what I wrote. Much, not all, but much of your rhetoric is hyperbolic. If you would tone it down, then we could have legitimate conversations about the pre-war intelligence, international law and the requirements of just war.
You have valid points of disagreement with Rice; I share many of them. They way you choose to express them is counter-productive and turns people who would otherwise be decent allies of yours, like me, away from you. Part of what drives me absolutely crazy about groups like yours is the amount of purity they require for acceptance. Agree with me that Rice was part of a terrible administration? Check. Agree that her actions led to an unnecessary war? Check. Agree that that war has been counter productive to US goals worldwide? Check. Agree that she is a war criminal equal to Hitler? Well, no. Sorry, not good enough.
This is probably already a TL;DR post, so I’ll end it there. Looking forward to your response.
There is no need for generalizing a public.
We are all human.
Let us take responsibility for our emotions, especially those that arise from disagreement.
Please come out today to participate in the teach-ins.
Stand up for whatever you believe.
Listen. Respect. Voice. Discuss.
See you there.
I think it’s funny that CMCers have their panties in a bunch regarding a Constitutional right(s) that members of the 5C community feel like expressing considering CMC is known as a school that prepares students for leadership roles/governmental positions. If anyone has a problem with people exerting their rights, I urge you to address your concerns to the protesters and stop whining about how the CMC administration decided to make changes without consulting the student body.
I vote that the administration kick the protesters off campus… can anyone say private property? Stage your little protest at Pitzer but get the fuck off our top-ten-liberal-arts-school campus.
No one is arguing that you don’t have the right to protest. We simply understand the true meaning of leadership – engaging in dialogue with those with whom you disagree, not just with people who share your beliefs.
Grow up, NSA!
I agree with what you have to say about “engaging in dialogue with those with whom you disagree, not just with people who share your beliefs”. I think it’s much harder to confront someone, especially a famous political figure. Not that I’m saying protesting is easy, but being around hundreds of people who believe the same thing that you do definitely provides some comfort.
I just don’t appreciate the “top-ten-liberal-arts-school” comment, as that makes you appear pretentious and thus contradicts your true meaning of leadership.
Are you actually a fascist?
Condoleezza was on your campus. This is not a military zone. Constitutionally, a private college cannot restrict the movement of any individual, especially if they are part of a Consortium. You could defend your property from damage or unlawful invasion but only if you are posed a threat.
There is no such thing as a “free speech zone,” or a “protest zone.” The Constitution supersedes the code of the colleges. You do not have the legal grounds to
DEMONSTRATION IS THE DIALOGUE WHEN THE OTHER PARTY REFUSES TO ENGAGE US. We have attempted to engage in a dialogue with Condoleezza, and we’ve seen the congressional hearings. The mainstream media never asks the real questions, because it’s consolidated in the same 6 conglomerates. Wake up, we live in a state of fascism: as Mussolini described, the “merger of state and corporate power.” An unfree press is a hallmark of fascism. As is disdain for dissent, which is what you are exhibiting now.
You know what, screw you Pomona-Pitzer, and GTFO off of our campus. Honestly, we let you protest, because of your protest, they moved the location of the event, and the last snarky comment of the leader is “Thank you police, for not using force and pepper-spraying us like they did at UCDavis and allowing you and your admins to keep their job?”
I would have tazed you for such a smart-ass remark.
I’m disappointed nobody volunteered to show them a real waterboarding.
Both of these reactions are insensitive to many people who have experienced police brutality, like the kids at UC Davis, and the hundreds of people who were subjected to a form of a torture by the United States. For the past two years I have gotten to work with many smart CMCers and I have a lot of respect for your school even though I go to Pitzer. Both of your comments are beneath the school.
Give me a break. It is a total fiction that those children experience police brutality. They were asked to leave, they were told that they would be pepper sprayed, they acknowledged that if they did not leave they would be pepper-sprayed, and then they were pepper-sprayed. How far we’ve slid when we think that’s police brutality. Some of us are old enough to remember the real thing. Rodney King would be disappointed.
Why did they need to leave?
Demonstration should be attributed the highest honor in the supposedly democratic society.
You’re really going to joke around with something like that? And really, people like you are what make people scoff when I bring up CMC for it’s complete lack of sensitivity.
Your smart-ass, excuse, beyond smart ass but actually quite cruel and hurtful comment really makes me want to taze you.
But wait, that’d be wrong, mean, and inappropriate and people like me, that are for protesting and teach ins and all seem to have a better mind than people like you.
Stop hating on organizing methods. If it weren’t for people that did that, we’d still have explicit segregation, non-white men wouldn’t be able to vote, and assholes like you would be rampant around the country instead of people actually trying to create a more just environment.
You did not LET us protest. You, as an individual, have no right to restrict anyone’s First Amendment right.
We protest where we want, when we want. If you oppose this, you oppose the basis of a free and open society. See: authoritarianism
I am the person that made that comment. I am not the “leader” of the event, I helped coordinate it. I represent my own views, and nobody else’s. I’m heart-warmed to hear that you care enough to taze me, bro. Really taking the higher road with that comment.
Do you deny that the threat of job loss incentivized administrators to reduce the likelihood of police brutality?
Why do you think your Dean of Students addressed the protest group prior to the event? Because she wanted us to be safe, she said. She was quite nervous (understandably). Not because she would fret for the welfare of pepper sprayed students, but because her job was on the line, just as the UC Davis Chancellor’s is today.
Do you not see the injustice perpetrated by the imperialist US state? Why do you have such a punitive perspective on the right to peaceful demonstration ?
SA, your posts are hilarious. Thank you for keeping me entertained for the last few days. I’ll be sad to see you leave the Portside comment feeds. Oh wait… no I won’t.
STAY AT PITZER.
Answer the questions you provoked, WOW.
Can you even muster a coherent response?
You may have erected walls of denial or ignorance, but such walls crumble when presented with unadulterated reality.
Okay you said: “They were asked to leave, they were told that they would be pepper sprayed, they acknowledged that if they did not leave they would be pepper-sprayed, and then they were pepper-sprayed.”
I’m so confident of my point I’m going to link the video you quoted “http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WO4406KJQMc.” Even if they were informed of what was going to occur, it still cannot be used as justification for the action taken by the police officers. The police officers have never said they were justified in using pepper spray because they told the students and they accepted. What the cops have said consistently is that they used pepper spray because they felt threatened by the protesters and could not leave. For example, in the NYT, “the officers felt threatened and encircled by the protesters (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/us/police-officers-involved-in-pepper-spraying-placed-on-leave.html).” Straight from the police chief’s (horses) mouth horses head (police chief of UC Davis) “”The students had encircled the officers,” she said Saturday. “They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out. (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-20/news/30423420_1_pepper-spray-protesters-police-officer).” The idea that they were under threat from non-violent protesters who were sitting down locking arms is almost laughable. As the NYT says “videos, however, show no evidence of threats from the protesters.” Also, the University has admitted that “Videos taken during Friday’s arrests showed that the two officers used pepper spray on peacefully seated students (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/21/local/la-me-uc-davis-pepper-spray-20111121).” Even more laughable is the idea that the cops couldn’t leave the scene by just jumping over the protesters or using significantly less force like grabbing the protesters and pushing them to the side. The need to clear a path and using a toxic chemical that blinded some of them for hours is just wrong. This is almost a non-issue since every major player in this admitting the cops were at fault. This is almost non-issue considering the police officers who pepper sprayed the students have been placed on leave, the Chancellor of UC Davis has apologized for the incident and the head of the UC system has said “said he was “appalled” by the incident. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/21/local/la-me-uc-davis-pepper-spray-20111121) Second, I don’t understand how their so called “consent” was probably just an acknowledgment by the protesters, who were extremely brave, that they refused to stand down to the cops even if they did use unjustified practices.
Just so you know, inciting police does not equal passive resistance. Now, nowhere did I say I agree with what happened at UC Davis, and I don’t. Be that as it may, you probably think that protesters have the right to do whatever, and wherever they want. Every dumb ass will claim police brutality. Some say that the police should have used “limited force” to pull apart the protesters at UCD. So…if they are arms locked, in a circle, you’re not going to pull them apart. And if the police physically do it, and injure someone, ie. tear a shoulder, hurt someone, then they are getting sued for excessive force.
So if you make your bed, lie in it. Making snarky police comments and trying to incite police reactions just shows what spoiled Pomona-Pitzer students you really are.
A simple thank you, we appreciate your compliance with our protest wouldn’t suffice? Guess not.
Why should the protesters be pulled apart, at all?
It’s called stifling democracy.
We never incited police reactions. Full stop. We were very cordial indeed, as were they.
Protestors rarely pick fights with an armored, weaponize police force. Stop kidding yourself; you sound like an authoritarian apologist.
And you sound like a student at a $56,000/year private school preaching on a soap box. No one is claiming the protesters didn’t have a right to protest. Chillllllax.
The CMC administration attempted to limit our speech by confining us to a little preordained cagelet. This is a breach of the right to peaceably assemble. That constitutes censorship. What if the civil rights marches were restricted to a field in the middle of nowhere, instead of Washington D.C.? It’s about visibility.
Yes, the civil rights marches, in which individuals institutionally discriminated and treated at second class, is completely applicable to a group of students who attend an expensive, prestigious, and well-endowed private school.
I went to the lecture, I was impressed at the ability of the protestors to respect and educate. They were most definitely not confined to “a little preordained cagelet.” I also don’t feel that barring the protestors from entering Ducey gym in anyway infringed on their rights. We could hear them loud and clear, even if some of us did not agree with them.
Frankly, based on your rather inflammatory arguments I feel that you either did not attend the protest (or else you would not elevate it to something it’s not, nor would your say they were “censored” and in a “cagelet.” That, or you’re a troll.
Also, let’s not turn this into an argument between CMC and Pitzer, or any other college. Your protestors do not represent the views of your entire college, just as some of the (admittedly) hardheaded comments do not represent the views of ours.
Okay let me break this down:
“you probably think that protesters have the right to do whatever, and wherever they want. Every dumb ass will claim police brutality. Some say that the police should have used “limited force” to pull apart the protesters at UCD. So…if they are arms locked, in a circle, you’re not going to pull them apart. And if the police physically do it, and injure someone, ie. tear a shoulder, hurt someone, then they are getting sued for excessive force.”
I never said that and nor do I believe that so I refuse to debate you. What I believe is people regardless of ideology should have the right to express their constitutional right of speech and assembly, free of police brutality (excessive force) and without ridiculous impediments like a free speech zone. The only justifiable use of force in this scenario is that they feel threatened by the protesters. The police themselves have never justified the use of force because they were afraid of breaking arms of the protesters, only that they felt threatened.
But you do know what the justification is for the removal of the protesters, (and that they should be rightfully arrested for) is? That they are not allowed to camp overnight on school grounds. You should always have your right to a free speech zone, free speech, etc. But if you’re encroaching on some area that is protected under the law, the fact that you’re protesting still does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you’d like.
Well put, SA!
It’s kind of funny that WOW thinks that the protests and its unintended repercussions “validated what everyone hates about [Pitzer]” because for some of us (who are not Pitzer students, by the way), this is exactly what we LOVE about Pitzer. Sure, Pitzer students oftentimes respond passionately to a cause at a moment of need, but this is something that’s valuable and admirable. If everyone in the world who is concerned about something always sat down and read absolutely everything there is to know about something (which is impossible anyway) for a matter of days before jumping into any sort of action, then terrible things would occur and end before people even had a chance to rally against them. I appreciate that students at Pitzer, as well as at the other Claremont Colleges, are able to take action upon something that they’re concerned about, especially when their methods are peaceful and aim to educate.
Keep being the kind of Pitzer students that we love, and not like the kind who wish to be quickly disassociated with anything that might seem to tarnish their reputation or their rapport with CMC students.