Kasama

Shine-the-Path pointed out this letter — part of the debate within the radical student movement over the tactics and outcome of this month’s New School takeover. This essay originally appeared at the New School in Exile blog. Part of the controversy has been over the agreement to end the occupation without the resignation of Bob Kerrey — a war criminal of the vietnam war who has been president of the New School. Several other posts on this topic have appeared here on Kasama, including by Hegemonik and Tim Hearin. Kasama posts statements of substance and interest — and such posting does not indicate our support for the analysis of any individual piece.

* * * * * *

From an RSU member of The New School in Exile

I am writing this as a member of the New School Radical Student Union, a student organization whose goal “is to build a movement for social revolution. By social revolution, we mean a fundamental transformation in the defining values and institutions of the various spheres of social life (kinship, community, economy, polity, international relations).” However, in the article to which this response is directed (Rules of Thumb Learned by An Occupant of the New School i Exile), it seems that the only “revolutionaries” inside the New School In Exile’s occupation of the Graduate Faculty Building were a group of about 20 anarchists. As many RSU members observed during the occupation, there was a feeling that anytime we opened our mouths we were immediately marginalized and scorned, so maybe it was difficult to actually hear our beliefs in the midst of holding a successful occupation. The RSU’s constitution is explicitly anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, and acknowledges the need for revolutionary organization (you can read more at radicalstudentunion.blogspot.com/).

To write that many RSU members had a “pro-negotiation, ‘Just reason it out with the authorities’ attitude” is disappointing. Again, maybe it was loud, but we weren’t saying reason with the authorities, some were stressing the need to open a dialogue and articulate demands that would allow us to win so that we would have the feeling we had when we left last rather than leaving “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,” as Tom Hayden puts it. Additionally, the split between those committed to direct action as a way to achieve our goals and those that were looking to begin a dialogue with the university administration is merely a tactical difference. There were many perspectives on what would have been the best way for the occupants to be able to leave the occupation victorious, which was the attitude of many of the RSU members

The claim that many “prominent [RSU] members were against the occupation,” is highly inaccurate. In a meeting on Monday night, one RSU member proposed for the occupation to take place Thursday so that we could spend the next two days organizing the dorms and classroom buildings to spread the word about the occupation, articulate our demands, and get more people to join us either inside the occupation or outside in solidarity demonstrations. That proposal was voted down, but I fail to see where that equates to being against the occupation from the beginning (unfortunate perhaps as I’m sure many have read that a certain amount of New School students either did not know about the occupation or misunderstood its desired effect, something more prior organizing may have helped to limit). For a group with many, many members against the occupation from the beginning, the RSU sure did mobilize a large amount of people who were either participants in the occupation, or were helping to coordinate the demonstrations outside. This speaks to a certain amount of dedication in that some RSU members may have been divided in debate but were certainly united in action, something certainly lacking from some of the 20 revolutionary anarchists mentioned with the setting up of the “Autonomous Faction of Non-cooperation Against the Division of Labor.” In fact, many of the RSU members who were participants were indeed willing to go to jail if necessary, and helped formulate demands and do what we could to keep the momentum going. Characterizing RSU members as being against direct action while being largely in attendance of an event that by definition was direct action is problematic as well. There was a difference in strategies in large part, for sure. I myself felt as though the occupation was being driven itself as a strategy when in fact it was part of a much more long-term struggle in which it was merely a tactic – albeit a highly successful one.

The New School in Exile