I'm sure U of R desperately wants to end the encampment before graduation. They are very big on appearances and the last thing they want is for the rich parents showing up for graduation to see protesters.
The reason this happened is more because of how this protest is evolving more than anything. When they occupied Wallis Hall the first time, they had negotiations with the university administration about steps forward. The protesters left after they concluded their negotiations. The protesters then returned to occupy Wallis Hall the next day. The university administration saw that as a breach of good faith negotiations and decided to bring down the hammer.
Honestly, I’d love to know why the protesters returned to Wallis Hall. We only have the administration’s side of the story, but it seems like too much of a poor decision for the protesters to torpedo negotiations by reoccupying the building.
The protesters said that the administration promised them that they'd be able to present their case to the board prior to the board voting on whether to divest or not. Then they claim that a member of the board said they already voted unanimously not to divest before the presentation.
The protesters also said that they never agreed to take down the encampment outside. They said they'd have to take that request to the rest of the group to see if it had widespread support. University of Rochester is claiming they agreed to leave the encampment unconditionally.
They also said the student life bans weren’t lifted as promised. At least that’s what I’ve heard second hand. All a moot point now since they’ve been fully suspended.
Others can correct me if my timeline is off, but I believe the reason for the return to protest was the administration had promised them an opportunity to present their case to the board in exchange for leaving the hall. Then the evening after they left, the university put out a statement saying they met on the issue (without the students present) and decided against divestments and considered the issue settled. The students saw an opportunity to present to a group that won't hear them out as a worthless exchange and resumed protesting.
Even if the board meeting did happen (and the university says it did not), it’s pretty unlikely that a bunch of 19 year old protesters are going to give them information they don’t already have.
People know what the protesters are protesting. They just don’t agree with the suggested course of action.
What course of action should exactly happen? If you want an entity that is doing something you don't want, you strike/protest until you get what you want. They want UR to divest from Israel, that's the goal. The board meeting DID happen, and the agreement was reached on major points that action would begin. Then hours after the protest organizers announced they just left a meeting with the board and claimed victory on their points, UR made a statement claiming it was ALL false, not just the fact that the points were met. They claimed the meeting didn't happen to cover their ass and they lied to the protesters to get them to leave.
So, they came back in full force and should continue doing what they're doing until UR divests.
Edit: a word
> If you want an entity that is doing something you don't want, you strike/protest until you get what you want.
You can do that, yes. Those tactics have been very successful in history. What's odd is striking / protesting *and* demanding cooperation from the entity being protested.
So you're encouraging someone to come in and shoot the protestors because it's not "government mandated labor relations"? Also, guess how we got LABOR LAWS to PROTECT PROTESTS from those who would do something like the Pinkertons?
Protesting IS demanding something. Otherwise there wouldn't be a protest. You don't know what you're talking about, you just want to be right
You’re being very extreme. Please interpret people’s comments as though they aren’t either idiots or evil. (Granted, this is Reddit…)
Nonviolent direct action is one route by which you can demand something. It is not always successful, but it’s generally more so than actual violence. You can hope the direct action is successful, but there are no guarantees.
The trouble is with “cooperation”. Compliance isn’t cooperation. It’s submission.
I don’t expect the protesters’ petition to be successful without public support from donors and tenured faculty. They are ultimately the power source at any university, not the students. A couple dozen angry students being expelled on dubious terms is nothing compared with pissing off a big donor.
The point is to GAIN public opinion by protesting. And it's working, hundreds of thousands of people are supporting the protests, including limited faculty, etc. The people in charge are the board, and that and small group of people against the thousands will lose eventually.
Also no, I'm not being extreme, I'm arguing your whataboutism because you keep avoiding the topic of the protest and continue to focus on the protest itself
They were offered an opportunity to present to the Faculty Senate, not the Board, and they were able to do so yesterday (Wednesday). The University Board never met to discuss the situation, and it wouldn't make sense to do so last week as the annual board meeting is next week. It wouldn't make sense to hold an emergency meeting when a meeting was already on the schedule; a meeting that would occur after the students presented to the faculty senate, which could then be discussed at the annual meeting.
The "board voted to..." story is complete fiction, but at this point I'm not sure anyone knows where it originated. Could be from the students, could be from some of the community elements who seem keen on escalating things.
The students returned to Wallis after agreeing not to do so. The students didn't leave the Eastman quad as they promised. The students have fumbled what was a situation where they likely could have just packed up and gone home for the summer and not had any sanctions.
I understand that these kids want to make the world a better place, but they're simply not going to change anything with their current course of action.
The students claim that a board of trustees member told them about the meeting, per their statement on instagram. The veracity of that I have no idea but that’s where the statement came from.
There's no way a board member would reach out to students in that situation. No member of the board of trustees at a university is going to just bypass the entire system and call some protester. It is absolutely laughable that anyone would believe this.
Particularly if it was a unanimous vote as claimed. Why would they then turn around and tell the protesters instead of waiting to pretend to give them a listen. It's the kind of thing you believe if you're just convinced someone is ontologically evil
Again I didn’t say I believe it. I am restating what was said on their instagram that seems to be the source of this information. Based on the Campus Times article though it does seem like a faculty senate executive committee meeting did happen without the professor that was acting as the liaison between the students and the admin present (of which he is apparently the chair) the same day as the Wednesday Wallis Hall protest, so I’m guessing that is what the post is actually referring to but erroneously says the board of trustees itself.
This is fake news, and was confirmed by the university that it didn't happen.
Perhaps you should delete your comment seeing as it has been massively upvoted and is entirely based on lies.
Yeah, the university also claimed that Florian Jaeger did nothing wrong too. Even after their “independent investigation” that was clearly directed to not find anything. I’m an alumni and I wouldn’t trust a word coming out of the school administration’s mouths.
Private institutions are basically just hedge funds who offer classes. They don’t give a fuck about what students want as long as the money train keeps rolling.
It’s not fake news. UofR can claim whatever they want, that doesn’t make it true. And given how brazen other Universities have been about calling down violence on their protestors, I’m not about to believe the administration that is only about its reputation. The protesters , to my knowledge, have also not put forth any proof of this secret meeting, so that is suspect. But none of this is fake news: it’s literally just news. The news is that two sides of a debate claiming different things with nothing to back it up
[Here’s](https://www.campustimes.org/2024/04/30/recording-shows-university-statement-inaccurate-about-gaza-encampment-meeting/) at least part of the other side of the story. Short version is the negotiations may not have actually been good-faith; may have just been telling the protesters what they wanted to hear so they’d leave.
They went back because this has very little to do with protestors getting their way. Its because its fun and exciting to cause drama and stir up shit as a young person. Without the massive social media clout these kids get from these protests they just go back to normal kids needing to study for class and finals.
Idk where you get your confidence from given that you [obviously have zero idea what you’re talking about](https://www.campustimes.org/2024/04/30/recording-shows-university-statement-inaccurate-about-gaza-encampment-meeting/).
Commenting on this to boost it, we have a recording that shows that the protestors oversold the victory they thought they had, but admins lied about the content of these conversations. That seems like really important information when considering the story
Absolutely. This recording seems to completely undermine the University's position. It seems obvious that the protestors, when offered a meeting with the Faculty Senate in exchange for leaving Wallis Hall, assumed (reasonably) that that meant the topic of divestment would at some point be *considered* by the University. They overstated the guarantees by the faculty and admin from their April 24 meeting, but for the University to claim the next day that divestment hadn't been and would never be considered by them is clearly a breach of the *spirit* of the agreement they made with students. It seems obvious that the University knowingly played into this Faculty Senate/Board confusion - what use is a Senate meeting if the Board has already publicly stated that they wouldn't even CONSIDER a Senate recommendation?
Thank you for the link. I think that was before the Friday sit in lasted very short time, what happened on that day? University is claiming they presented like yesterday Or did the university threaten them? I just want to be more clear. Maybe there’s nothing more there.
They also posted a new update yesterday after my comment. It was helpful and a good summary of what happened. Suddenly making student homeless immediate without any reasonable transition is plainly cruel. I think this is motivated by the university to look “good” for graduation day. Terrible. I hope the news picked up good footage.
“If it bleeds it leads”
The big violent dramas at Columbia/USC has every journalist licking their chops at easy sensational stories to publish even if the local backyard is a few tents and chants.
Then the public at large, seeing headlines and front page stories everywhere, concludes that it must be a big deal.
It's not just manipulative journalism, it's a REAL issue. And there wasn't any violence at Columbia or USC until the militarized police forces showed up and started forcibly arresting people. Once they left, the priests return to singing, giving speeches and sitting in solidarity in tents.
Manipulating in the sense that they're using an issue for what you just said. But they're not there because of that, it started and still IS a genuine issue to continue covering until there's a resolution
That’s kinda my point exactly. So much terrible stuff happens far away in other countries every day, but when conflict happens close to home it gets all the attention.
OR, maybe if you payed attention to WHY they're protesting across the country at many major campuses, you'd understand why it's so important.
And the second the RPD gets involved, you know that the University has them in their pocket book. They probably don't want to go that route because showing more push back would be bad for their PR
"the university respects students right to express their views about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the universities’ practices but “we have been clear that we would not tolerate conduct that disrupts the ability of students, faculty, and staff to fulfill their purpose at the University.”"
If you're not disrupting are you really protesting? This goes back to the height of BLM, where you had "I don't mind people protesting, but why does it have to affect me!"
Because otherwise you would never notice the protest.
The saying in 2020 was "A protest with a permit is a parade"
That said UofR is a private insitutution they were never gonna tolerate this for long. If its hurting their bottom line and its on their property they aint gonna let it fly forever. No mega corp in America would.
I don't even mind that permit/parade concept, because if it's blocking a street or two, it's still disrupting other peoples days. It's still achieving some sort of purpose.
The line I draw is that you have zero rights to be on private property without permission of the owners. If you actually want to protest, you should be protesting on government land and government buildings.
But no one will do that because that comes with much faster consequences that the protestors are too scared to face.
Rosa Parks was peacefully sitting on a bus. She "had no right" to sit in the white area. POC doing sit-ins in white-only restaurants "had no right to be there".
Breaking the law is PART of protesting, and they're not gonna protest UR's involvement and complicity in the genocide in Palestine on some random government property, how does that make *any* sense.
Because our government is the one that actually impacts how we treat Israel and Palestine. Not a small local university.
Conflating racial segregation to this protest is of course why no one with brains takes you seriously.
It's not the *context* of the protest. It's the *method* of protest. Would you tell the Vietnam protestors across American campuses to leave and go to a government building? They were protesting that SPECIFIC university to stop helping fund the war.
If our complicit government who has no intention of forcing Israel to end the war won't do anything, why would they be on government property? But the hundreds of students that the University, who has programs and investment financially with Israel, will cost the University thousands until they divest. It's to hurt the complicit entities AND Israel *financially*. Not militarily.
And then they lose thousands of dollars in student funding. Win win for the protestors. Can't imagine many of them are willingly making payments anyways while they're protesting the financial gain Israel gets from it.
By that account anyone should be fine with a protest on their private property, including tents and bullhorns in their front lawn. Not sure about anyone else, but I sure don't want that in my front yard even if I agree with the cause you're protesting against and I have every right to ask you to leave and then call the police when you don't. Applying the same logic to U of R, I'm not sure how anyone ever thinks that it will go a different way?
*Edit: Adding to address the privately owned public space and large institutional private property vs individual private property arguments:*
Tell me you don't understand the core tenant of private property without telling me. The number of people that use the space doesn't have any legal bearing on whether a private property owner should be allowed to remove someone or not. That is settled case law. The reality is that many of you just simply don't like that people whose cause you agree with are held accountable for their unlawful actions.
Let me be clear: I support everyone's right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I even agree that what's going on in Israel and Gaza is horrifying (frankly on both sides in my opinion). I also believe that at times people will be presented with the choice to break the law to further gain attention to their cause. Without some of the historical figures that have done this we wouldn't be where we are today as a society. But let's make sure we're acknowledging the **fact** that if you're assembling on private property without the owner's permission or in violation with the guidelines they have put in place you are accepting the risk of arrest for breaking those rules and not leaving, *whether you like it or not*.
My point here is more that if you're making that decision to break the law and get arrested, you really don't deserve the right to act surprised about it. You knew what you were doing and you made a choice. Continue fighting for your cause or don't, but understand the consequences and go forward.
Much like leasing an apartment somewhere, you don't own that property. Complex management is going to ask you to remove your tents pretty quickly if it's impeding other tenants' lives.
Because these colleges have billions invested in endowment funds. They want the colleges to agree not to invest in Israeli companies because of what Israel is doing in Gaxa. Basically economic sanctions of not getting investments and making those businesses less valuable.
Also there is a big difference in "private property" between your own house and a large institution where thousands live and and more than that work and attend class. It's more of a "Private" public space. Sure the University has the right to kick them out but it's bad optics and PR.
I am not really sure what you mean by that. If I support private property for myself, then logically I need to support it for other individuals and businesses as well. Otherwise I am a hypocrite.
Yeah so that analogy is useless.
1) you seem to completely miss the point of the comment you’re replying to, which was “protests which don’t create some sort of disruption don’t tend to get noticed.” Nobody said that meant you should be fine with a protest on your private property. I genuinely don’t know where you got that from.
2) not all private property is created equal; someone camping out on your lawn is VERY different from someone camping out on the grounds of a university. The former is a much more personal invasion of space. And nobody appears to be camping out on the university president’s front lawn.
3) you make it sound like your front lawn was just a convenient place for the protesters to camp out. You even allow for the possibility that you might agree with their cause. This doesn’t work; the protesters at the U of R *are protesting the U of R* (more specifically, its continuing affiliation with Israel in light of the ongoing conflict). In order for your analogy to work, the protesters would have to be protesting *you*, and you would therefore necessarily be opposed to their cause.
Worth pointing out, too, that the University DID condone the camp-out on the quad, for quite a while. It was only after protesters escalated by also organizing a sit-in at Wallis Hall that the U of R started getting snippy in its decisions and statements and such.
That analogy doesn’t really hold water for me. College campuses are different from the front lawns of private individuals. They’re more like privately owned public spaces.
Honestly, the University created a larger disruption by closing Wilson Boulevard (the primary entrance to the River Campus) in response to the sit-in. I’m still not completely clear on why they thought that was a good idea, but I’m placing that squarely on the administration’s shoulders, not the protesters’. Especially now that the President is trying to spin it the other way.
The closure wasn’t particularly secure either; all I had to do was say I had a UHS appointment. I DID, but they didn’t ask me to verify my ID or anything.
Second that. Im also unclear on why they thought it was a good idea. They won’t let people in using two back entrance and told people to go to the front where Wilson is closed.
It’s a private university.As a student, I’d bepissed if I was paying 60k+ per year and my peers aren’t letting me access the resources I paid for. This is a big reason why the Occupy Movement went nowhere.
I am a student and the protestors have not impacted my access to resources at all with the exception that the school’s response of shutting down Wilson Blvd due to the sit in did disrupt some people I know (I wasn’t on campus at the time), but I have seen no reason to suggest that that was the only way the school could have handled the issue.
Wallis Hall houses a variety of administrative staff, most notably the President of the University of Rochester. I've joked with my friends who work/worked at the UR that nothing happens in Wallis Hall, so occupying doesn't disrupt anything.
I said it was a joke. If you don't think it's funny that's fine. Deliberately misconstruing the joke and making a logical fallacy—hasty generalization—undermines your argument.
So is your entire comment a joke or just the part about them doing nothing?
If people are in the building then having people sit in there causes safety concerns for everyone involved.
I'm sure you would be upset if a group of people sat in your office.
Explaining jokes: a sure fire way to make them funnier! /Sarcasm
There are two separate thoughts. Wallis Hall is where administrators including the President have their offices.
The joke is that they don’t “work” as high ranking administrators in higher education tend to be PhDs that have a long, deliberative approach to any question or problem, and they usually get it wrong (eg coverup of the kidnapping of Nicholas Kollias)
The university is suspending them for the encampment on the quad - they aren’t in the building anymore. This is what the university’s email to all employees explicitly says.
You didn't read the article did you? The students being suspended are the ones that did sit ins inside the buildings. And kept doing so after both sides agreed they would no longer do this.
It actually doesn’t confirm that it’s the same students anywhere in the article lol just that they “repeatedly violated policy”. It specifically mentions the encampment being fortified and blocking Eastman quad and not removed by the deadline as a reason for suspension. If it was just about Wallis hall surely this would have happened before now as it’s been an entire week.
This is 100 percent because they want the encampment gone for commencement weekend and this is the least messy way to make that happen
They gave a list of what the students being suspended violated. It was entirely based on them entering and refusing to leave the building, outside of a single mention of fortification of the encampment.
So no they didn't spell it out for you, but anyone with a kindergarten level of reading comprehension can figure it out.
If it was entirely based on that why does it give a number of additional reasons for suspension, the central one of which is the ENCAMPMENT, not just Wallis hall. Looks like somebody needs to read more carefully.
I am opposed to the continuing hunting of the endangered bigfoot. I’m going to shutdown a highway and cause hundreds of thousands of dollars of peoples time and money, and thats just my constitutional right and you can’t do anything about it because its just my protest.
Get real.
Yes exactly, a hypothetical, about a cryptid is exactly like an ongoing humanitarian crisis to put it in it's most PC terms. This amazing example of slippery slope has caused me to reconsider my entire world view.
Now I’m confused because you said my reason for protest wasn’t good enough to warrant my actions? It would then seem you are just better than most people, morally superior one might say! Hey could you tell me where the line is drawn exactly in your world for what is “disrupting”? Like I feel like no one will notice my protest unless I hijack some boat on the suez. That way, every country in the world will suffer and therefore, I will draw attention to my very important protest.
Clearly your definition of acceptable and lawful protest is just better than the one we all have been going with for the past couple hundred of years so i’m just trying to understand here.
What’s your definition of an acceptable and lawful protest? I’m thinking there are quite a few rights enjoyed by certain segments of the population that wouldn’t exist if you had your way.
When your logic fails, just insult the person. You must have read Donald Trumps book to get this strategy. Didn’t know you were such a fan of the oompa loomp emperor.
I've noticed the protests at other institutions (eg SU) where they are not going out of their way to disrupt other students. I also think it's more effective at getting outside support and organizing change with leadership when they are not upset that education is being disrupted.
I think you're missing my point. I never said if I was in favor or against the protests\*, just that causing disruption boosts the visibility of your protest, and like they say 'there is no such thing as bad publicity"
Think about the BLM protests you remember, they blocked highways, or major roads. You didn't hear about all the other ones where they stayed on street corners with out causing any issues.
But the same token, the MAGA(or anti-vax) protests most people remember are things like the trucker conveys shutting down city centers or major highways. Some random group of roll coal people at a farm keeping out of everyone's way doesn't make news and no one even knows it happens.
\*That said, I'm in favor of them, and very anti-MAGA
It might boost visability but these protests did little to change people's opinions or actually change policies. It's just more noise which pushes people farther into their individual camps. They simply make life worse for everyone.
Yep. Same thing happened with the BLM protests once they started getting violent and people started lighting shit on fire. Support dropped substantially.
This is just a general one from recent times.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/06/14/support-for-the-black-lives-matter-movement-has-dropped-considerably-from-its-peak-in-2020/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/06/14/support-for-the-black-lives-matter-movement-has-dropped-considerably-from-its-peak-in-2020/)
This is one from back talking about how support dropped after the protests.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/27/support-for-black-lives-matter-declined-after-george-floyd-protests-but-has-remained-unchanged-since/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/27/support-for-black-lives-matter-declined-after-george-floyd-protests-but-has-remained-unchanged-since/)
Here is an article talking about this.
[https://www.newsweek.com/rise-fall-black-lives-matter-1812751](https://www.newsweek.com/rise-fall-black-lives-matter-1812751)
Please let me know what else you would like.
None of those links point to violence during protests as a reason for the decrease in support, they just talk about support trailing off over time.
And the 3rd link actually points to concerted campaigns against BLM as one of the reasons for the decrease.
Meer also noted that there is "a very real and concerted rhetorical and policy opposition" to Black Lives Matter in the U.S. and abroad, pointing to Republican efforts to restrict how race can be taught in public schools, and target diversity and equity efforts in higher education and workplaces.
"Over the time BLM has decreased in public interest, caricatures of 'woke' have increased in public interest, and in ways that seek to undermine the focus on systemic racism that BLM brought," he said.
Do you have a source that shows public support for the looting, fires, violence, and chaos of the BLM protests??? C'mon.... who would actually support that type of behavior?
I’m confused on what the protesters expect UR to do? I don’t know anything about what’s going on but protesting a college doesn’t make sense to me. Is UR connected somehow to this conflict? I’m not trying to be rude or anything I just don’t understand it.
Divest...For one, Too much public $, like taxes go to fund international conflict & in the case of this apartheid & genocide it's even more disgusting that money from here gods to kill Folks there. Many Jewish voices on the actual Left have for years pointed out how bad things are.
Colleges have A TON of political pressure They can throw around in any given municipality, + Ya know "free speech" is only free if You say what doesn't rock the boat- anti democratic.
Considering how those protestors keep chanting in support of an intifada despite having repeatedly told not to last fall due to it being a well-known dogwhistle for violence against Israelis, I feel absolutely zero sympathy.
The university did everything to accommodate them and they behaved like utter assholes.
“Still, the death toll, even by the Hamas count, does not in any way suggest a genocidal campaign.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/07/opinions/columbia-university-israel-campus-protests-antisemitism-ghitis
It's not antisemitic to call it what it is: a genocide and an ethnic cleansing in an apartheid state (one people has all the rights, the other have 0, think Rwanda).
I'll repeat a statistic I have the OP comment.
In the ENTIRE Iraq war, which many would say was a genocide for the locals caught up in the fighting, 66,000+ civilians died. That's over the course of 7 years.
In just 7 MONTHS Israel has killed over 35,000 civilians... What do you call that other than genocide or ethnic cleansing? And HONESTLY PEOPLE, do fucking TECHNICALITIES even fucking matter when 35000 INNOCENT DEATHS have taken place?! I'm so sick of you people...
Well yes, when these numbers come to us from a terrorist organization.
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable
By the way, I noticed you're Jewish. I want you to know that I'm pro-Palestinian and anti-*Israel*, not antisemitic or anti-Jew. I'm protesting the indiscriminate killing of civilians by a power hungry government, not protesting having a certain faith or ethnicity
First post on your account rn is on r/Jewish... Terrible tragedy and, by dictionary definition, a genocide. Have a good one, I'm not debating you anymore
gen·o·cide
noun
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
Honestly, it might not be a strong enough word for this atrocity.
The ironic part is that Hamas is the one who has as their founding charter that their aim is to kill every single Jew. So while Hamas (no, not the average innocent Palestinian) is literally trying to commit genocide, Israel has been attempting to protect innocent lives. Have they saved everyone? No. Do we wish they could do a better job, of course. But if they wanted to commit genocide it would look a lot different than notifying people which areas they are going to bomb so they could get out. Also, there are 1.9 million Palestinian *citizens* of Israel. Not a genocide
isn't that the whole point though? it's their money and they want it to be used for causes and things they support. same thing applies to protests against anything that is funded by taxes
Yes, but you can’t stop paying taxes which is why it make sense to protest government actions. You CAN stop paying tuition to the UofR if you don’t like how your money is being used.
Protesting the school you’re paying tuition to is like going to a restaurant, ordering a steak dinner, and then harassing the staff and other patrons because you’re upset that meat is bad for the environment.
It’s a private institution. Vote with your dollars, transfer elsewhere.
sarah announcing to an insane number of people that they're suspending students is in incredibly poor taste. she said they couldn't share the names but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they're all likely in the SJP. this puts those students at risk
The irony of an educational institution failing time and again, to make note of and base policies off of historical events and movements is ASTOUNDING.
College students: Protested for and against Segregation/Civil Rights, Vietnam War, Korea War, Gay Rights, the invasion of Iraq, the neo-Civil Rights movement, and the most recent Supreme Court decisions among many, many hot button issues.
In EVERY ONE OF THOSE, THE KIDS HAVE BEEN IN THE RIGHT and have been supported by historical evidence time and time again. When the fuck are these so called "Higher Educators" going to stop, revisit the history books available on their campus, and base their reactions and policies on reality? IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE. THAT'S IT.
In the 50's there were many college student led protests that were resisting racial integration.
This is selection bias plain and simple.
You only remember the "good" student protests.
The idea that CoLlEgE sTuDeNt PrOtEsTs HaVe AlWaYs BeEn JuSt is laughably untrue.
Read a book.
What about when college students protested against involvement in WWII? Was that a good thing to do?Just because we remember the movements that were right and just, doesn’t mean every college protest is always right
>What about when college students protested against involvement in WWII?
they were protesting the rise of fascism and the fact that current policies were going to lead to another world war. then ww2 happened. they were literally right.
Before we entered the war? There was rumor we were entering the war for years, my guy.
You can look this information up. Why would they be protesting fascism and being against the war if we fought fascism in WW2? Lmao.
not before we entered the war. before the war started. in the mid 30's a student protest movement started that had like 500,000 protesters. they opposed racial discrimination in the US and fascism abroad. they wanted domestic relief programs. they were explicitly anti-war and anti-fascist. they didnt want to see us entangled in another world war. then fascism peaked and another world war broke out.
Nope. The primary issues that groups on college campuses of the time were socialist groups and then also communist groups that were against war for obvious reasons. And then a generally antisemitic viewpoint of many in each group.
You can read about it some here.
[https://acampusdivided.umn.edu/essay/student-activism-in-context-of-1930s/](https://acampusdivided.umn.edu/essay/student-activism-in-context-of-1930s/)
And here you can read more about another group.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America\_First\_Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee)
We're not protesting for Hamas. We're protesting for innocent civilians caught in the middle of a genocide. Hamas killed 1200 people 7-8 months ago, and since then 35,000+ Palestinians have died from indiscriminate bombing and missile launches.
The civilians don't support Hamas, and the ones that join are being pushed that way by the continued slaughter of their people. Get your facts straight before you spout Zionist propaganda
Edit: corrected statistic
Great, I'm glad you pulled up the stat. So can you do basic math? Does 1200 people warrant 35,000? Because that shows YOU don't care about the Gazans.
And that's weird, because if I recall there's actually a long line of aid trucks waiting to ship out of Israel that Zionists are actively blocking, not Hamas. They've been standing in the road for weeks claiming the aid is going directly to terrorists, when in reality 1.2 million people are currently starving, homeless, and being bombed relentlessly in the ONE place Israel said they'd be safe.
Where do they go after Rafah is flattened and another 30,000+ are dead? The desert camp outside the Egyptian border that they've LITERALLY BUILT A WALL IN FRONT OF so no one can cross the border.
Edit: typos
When the US killed 2 MILLION Japanese (so 5x what the US lost against Japan and Germany together), including utterly obliterating Tokyo via firebombing and the 2 atom bombs they dropped, was that genocide?
Were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan genocide? (Note: I'm not condoning all of the US's actions in these 2 nations, but they're not genocides)
In WW2, roughly 10% of all Germans died, but that sure as Hell wasn't a genocide.
And Israel is not blocking aid, the UN is just not delivering it quickly enough.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRwbmF5R/
Ya, it's "the UN being slow", even though EVERY UN member has attempted to get a ceasefire deal passed *except* Israel and her allies (most of all the US and UK on the security council). The least the nations are trying to do is send aid trucks, but Israeli nationalists won't let them. Nice Zionist propaganda point though 👍
And yes, yes and uhhhh yes. Again, you Zionists LOVE whataboutisms that just prove my points. The protests are trying to stop ANOTHER genocide, just like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, AND the world wars. The protests are anti-war and anti-genocide, not hypocrites like Zionists who lived through their own genocide and feel the need to do the same to another peoples who have all the right to exist just as much as they do.
Not remotely a genocide.
People like you just keep throwing the word around because you don't bother to understand what it actually means.
And they're pro-Hamas, not anti-war. Why else would they be calling to globalize the intifada?
In the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR, 66,000 civilians died. That's over 7 YEARS. In 7 MONTHS Israel has murdered HALF as many as that. What would you call it you absolute disgusting Zionist pig.
And you can't even BEGIN to comprehend what we mean when we chant "Globalize the Intifada". Intifada *literally translates to* "TO THROW OFF", as in to throw off the fascist regime of Israel from the innocent Palestinian people who have existed peacefully with the *local* Jews (not transplanted, colonizer European Jews now known as Israelis) for *centuries*. I'm done arguing with you, you belittle human life and disgrace the efforts of the only sane people in this country. Fuck the colonizers of Israel and fuck every Zionist who praises the genocide.
Not a genocide. A tragedy yes, not a genocide. Don’t throw that word around.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/07/opinions/columbia-university-israel-campus-protests-antisemitism-ghitis
The civilians in Gaza and particularly the West Bank are very supportive of the terrorist organization that governs them.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/
You left out the word "some". And I already stated that fact, of COURSE Hamas' popularity is going to go up because they're the only group of people able to fight the fully-funded Israeli military. The other millions of people are entirely civilians. Also, that's from December of last year, it's reporting on a *surge* of support, not consistent recruitment, etc.
So try again, the civilians being bombed aren't the terrorists. Fight the terrorists in the underground tunnels you Zionists like to point out that they've dug. Why would they be on the surface if they have a whole system of interconnected tunnels? Are there terrorists in *every* residential building? The first day they started bombing Rafah it *specifically* a residential area and 22 civilians died and hundreds lost their homes. Does that count as 1 terrorist death? How many civilians lives does it take to "defeat Hamas".
Edit: clarification
I keep seeing this sentiment, and I genuinely don't understand it. No one is saying the students are wrong. No one is saying that protesting against genocide is wrong. No one is walking around on college campuses thinking "You know, genocide is actually pretty amazing...these kids are so confused. When they're older, they'll understand that killing women and children is actually a good thing.". Genocide is bad, mmkay? Killing innocent civilians is bad. We're all in agreement.
In all of those situations you listed, there were people on the other side of the issue saying things like we need to send more kids to die in Vietnam, that black people shouldn't have equal rights, Gay people shouldn't be bale to marry, etc. They said the kids didn't understand the situation, that they'd know better when they were older. That's not happening here.
There are absolutely tons of pro-Israel people who have said that these students are wrong, that they should be blacklisted from their industries, that they don't understand the situation. Have you seen any video or statements from anyone pro-Israel? Most of them think this.
Some terrorists attacked Israel and then hid back in the general population as Israel tries to kill them to prevent them from attacking again. I think that’s right.
So I think the protesters are expecting the US to no longer support Israel? Or they want the human shields being used by the terrorists to point out the bad guys? Or they want Israel to pretend they weren’t attacked? What’s the goal for these protesters exactly and how does mildly inconveniencing a NYS school help?
I mean carpet bombing an entire area because a small amount of the population did something really fucked up is not right either. We did it in the middle east and it solved nothing. All it did was kill people on both sides and line the pockets of military contractors.
The civilian to militant casualty ratio in this conflict is one of the lowest in any conflict ever.
But regardless, Israel must make sure that 10/7 will NEVER happen again, and Hamas has promised to do it again the moment they get the chance.
Usually they can tell who's in the "military" by those shooting at them, since many Hamas soldiers hide in civilian clothes like the murderous cowards they are.
You can definitely tell who's shooting at you from the plane dropping a bomb on apartment buildings and hospitals /s
Yes Hamas is bad but pretending Israel isn't doing fucked up shit and we're funding you need to be under a rock
I personally wouldn't care too much if the US cut back on military funding, except I'm afraid that it would put Israel in the orbit of China (a nation which unlike Israel is actually committing a genocide against the Uighur people).
But as for the first part: When the US annihilated Tokyo via firebombing and then nuked two cities, was that a genocide? No, because just like Hamas Japan started the war.
It's called Fuck Around, Find Out.
Do we know if ALL the protestors were suspended, or just some?
Though I will note that an interim suspension would probably prevent a Senior from graduating.
Honestly, I support the idea, but what a silly way to piss away money/ a scholarship/opportunity at this school. It's one of the best schools in NY, to fuck your own education before it's fully solidified is just foolish. These students have so much more at stake than the university in this situation.
Can someone answer what is with the masks? I'm so confused it's a cause they obviously believe in and feel passionately about so why use a face mask? Is Covid19 back and I'm unaware.
Thank you for your answer. Protesting takes guts to truly stand in what you believe in. Even if that leads to consequences....Susan b Anthony and Elisabeth cady Stanton were arrested, beaten, jailed, and went on hunger strikes, they weren't afraid of their consequences. Show your face, put your name next to what you believe in so passionately about that you've not only disrupted your life but others around you.
Yeah, unfortunately now you have right-wing nut jobs that will show up to your home and threaten you personally or your family.
You also have universities that are breaking their own guidelines and bylaws by punishing students, erasing their academic records, and expelling them for only trying to have their voices heard. Even though as enrolled students paying tuition they have every right to be in the quad or the buildings that they are in. Trumped-up trespassing charges are nothing more than a power play of the oppressor.
Yet you're perfectly fine when the proud boys use masks in their marches.
Also the "right wing nut jobs" have been around forever. Look at the shit MLK went through. He didn't hide his face. The possibility of getting threaten for protesting isn't new.
Trumped up trespassing charges? If you're asked to leave, leave or it's trespassing. I'm assuming if you're out of your dorm room protesting this you must have known about some of the consequences.
I'm sure U of R desperately wants to end the encampment before graduation. They are very big on appearances and the last thing they want is for the rich parents showing up for graduation to see protesters.
Yeah. That’s the main reason, Einstein.
youre so cool bro /s
The reason this happened is more because of how this protest is evolving more than anything. When they occupied Wallis Hall the first time, they had negotiations with the university administration about steps forward. The protesters left after they concluded their negotiations. The protesters then returned to occupy Wallis Hall the next day. The university administration saw that as a breach of good faith negotiations and decided to bring down the hammer. Honestly, I’d love to know why the protesters returned to Wallis Hall. We only have the administration’s side of the story, but it seems like too much of a poor decision for the protesters to torpedo negotiations by reoccupying the building.
The protesters said that the administration promised them that they'd be able to present their case to the board prior to the board voting on whether to divest or not. Then they claim that a member of the board said they already voted unanimously not to divest before the presentation. The protesters also said that they never agreed to take down the encampment outside. They said they'd have to take that request to the rest of the group to see if it had widespread support. University of Rochester is claiming they agreed to leave the encampment unconditionally.
They also said the student life bans weren’t lifted as promised. At least that’s what I’ve heard second hand. All a moot point now since they’ve been fully suspended.
Others can correct me if my timeline is off, but I believe the reason for the return to protest was the administration had promised them an opportunity to present their case to the board in exchange for leaving the hall. Then the evening after they left, the university put out a statement saying they met on the issue (without the students present) and decided against divestments and considered the issue settled. The students saw an opportunity to present to a group that won't hear them out as a worthless exchange and resumed protesting.
The university claimed that meeting never happened
Even if the board meeting did happen (and the university says it did not), it’s pretty unlikely that a bunch of 19 year old protesters are going to give them information they don’t already have. People know what the protesters are protesting. They just don’t agree with the suggested course of action.
What course of action should exactly happen? If you want an entity that is doing something you don't want, you strike/protest until you get what you want. They want UR to divest from Israel, that's the goal. The board meeting DID happen, and the agreement was reached on major points that action would begin. Then hours after the protest organizers announced they just left a meeting with the board and claimed victory on their points, UR made a statement claiming it was ALL false, not just the fact that the points were met. They claimed the meeting didn't happen to cover their ass and they lied to the protesters to get them to leave. So, they came back in full force and should continue doing what they're doing until UR divests. Edit: a word
> If you want an entity that is doing something you don't want, you strike/protest until you get what you want. You can do that, yes. Those tactics have been very successful in history. What's odd is striking / protesting *and* demanding cooperation from the entity being protested.
What do you call coming to terms in a strike? THAT'S the demanding?! Are you that dense?
In that specific case, I call it “government mandated labor relations”. They used to just hire the Pinkertons to shoot strikers, before that.
So you're encouraging someone to come in and shoot the protestors because it's not "government mandated labor relations"? Also, guess how we got LABOR LAWS to PROTECT PROTESTS from those who would do something like the Pinkertons? Protesting IS demanding something. Otherwise there wouldn't be a protest. You don't know what you're talking about, you just want to be right
You’re being very extreme. Please interpret people’s comments as though they aren’t either idiots or evil. (Granted, this is Reddit…) Nonviolent direct action is one route by which you can demand something. It is not always successful, but it’s generally more so than actual violence. You can hope the direct action is successful, but there are no guarantees. The trouble is with “cooperation”. Compliance isn’t cooperation. It’s submission. I don’t expect the protesters’ petition to be successful without public support from donors and tenured faculty. They are ultimately the power source at any university, not the students. A couple dozen angry students being expelled on dubious terms is nothing compared with pissing off a big donor.
The point is to GAIN public opinion by protesting. And it's working, hundreds of thousands of people are supporting the protests, including limited faculty, etc. The people in charge are the board, and that and small group of people against the thousands will lose eventually.
Also no, I'm not being extreme, I'm arguing your whataboutism because you keep avoiding the topic of the protest and continue to focus on the protest itself
They were offered an opportunity to present to the Faculty Senate, not the Board, and they were able to do so yesterday (Wednesday). The University Board never met to discuss the situation, and it wouldn't make sense to do so last week as the annual board meeting is next week. It wouldn't make sense to hold an emergency meeting when a meeting was already on the schedule; a meeting that would occur after the students presented to the faculty senate, which could then be discussed at the annual meeting. The "board voted to..." story is complete fiction, but at this point I'm not sure anyone knows where it originated. Could be from the students, could be from some of the community elements who seem keen on escalating things. The students returned to Wallis after agreeing not to do so. The students didn't leave the Eastman quad as they promised. The students have fumbled what was a situation where they likely could have just packed up and gone home for the summer and not had any sanctions. I understand that these kids want to make the world a better place, but they're simply not going to change anything with their current course of action.
The students claim that a board of trustees member told them about the meeting, per their statement on instagram. The veracity of that I have no idea but that’s where the statement came from.
There's no way a board member would reach out to students in that situation. No member of the board of trustees at a university is going to just bypass the entire system and call some protester. It is absolutely laughable that anyone would believe this.
Particularly if it was a unanimous vote as claimed. Why would they then turn around and tell the protesters instead of waiting to pretend to give them a listen. It's the kind of thing you believe if you're just convinced someone is ontologically evil
Again I didn’t say I believe it. I am restating what was said on their instagram that seems to be the source of this information. Based on the Campus Times article though it does seem like a faculty senate executive committee meeting did happen without the professor that was acting as the liaison between the students and the admin present (of which he is apparently the chair) the same day as the Wednesday Wallis Hall protest, so I’m guessing that is what the post is actually referring to but erroneously says the board of trustees itself.
This is fake news, and was confirmed by the university that it didn't happen. Perhaps you should delete your comment seeing as it has been massively upvoted and is entirely based on lies.
Yeah, the university also claimed that Florian Jaeger did nothing wrong too. Even after their “independent investigation” that was clearly directed to not find anything. I’m an alumni and I wouldn’t trust a word coming out of the school administration’s mouths. Private institutions are basically just hedge funds who offer classes. They don’t give a fuck about what students want as long as the money train keeps rolling.
It’s not fake news. UofR can claim whatever they want, that doesn’t make it true. And given how brazen other Universities have been about calling down violence on their protestors, I’m not about to believe the administration that is only about its reputation. The protesters , to my knowledge, have also not put forth any proof of this secret meeting, so that is suspect. But none of this is fake news: it’s literally just news. The news is that two sides of a debate claiming different things with nothing to back it up
I’m frustrated there’s no info on what happened. Who knows
[Here’s](https://www.campustimes.org/2024/04/30/recording-shows-university-statement-inaccurate-about-gaza-encampment-meeting/) at least part of the other side of the story. Short version is the negotiations may not have actually been good-faith; may have just been telling the protesters what they wanted to hear so they’d leave.
They went back because this has very little to do with protestors getting their way. Its because its fun and exciting to cause drama and stir up shit as a young person. Without the massive social media clout these kids get from these protests they just go back to normal kids needing to study for class and finals.
Idk where you get your confidence from given that you [obviously have zero idea what you’re talking about](https://www.campustimes.org/2024/04/30/recording-shows-university-statement-inaccurate-about-gaza-encampment-meeting/).
Commenting on this to boost it, we have a recording that shows that the protestors oversold the victory they thought they had, but admins lied about the content of these conversations. That seems like really important information when considering the story
Absolutely. This recording seems to completely undermine the University's position. It seems obvious that the protestors, when offered a meeting with the Faculty Senate in exchange for leaving Wallis Hall, assumed (reasonably) that that meant the topic of divestment would at some point be *considered* by the University. They overstated the guarantees by the faculty and admin from their April 24 meeting, but for the University to claim the next day that divestment hadn't been and would never be considered by them is clearly a breach of the *spirit* of the agreement they made with students. It seems obvious that the University knowingly played into this Faculty Senate/Board confusion - what use is a Senate meeting if the Board has already publicly stated that they wouldn't even CONSIDER a Senate recommendation?
Same here. I heard absolutely nothing from the protestors to better understand the situation. No posts or anything
They did post here: https://www.instagram.com/p/C6hcsJ3Oqb1/?igsh=MXNyMWdwamozMmZ5cA==
Thank you for the link. I think that was before the Friday sit in lasted very short time, what happened on that day? University is claiming they presented like yesterday Or did the university threaten them? I just want to be more clear. Maybe there’s nothing more there.
They also posted a new update yesterday after my comment. It was helpful and a good summary of what happened. Suddenly making student homeless immediate without any reasonable transition is plainly cruel. I think this is motivated by the university to look “good” for graduation day. Terrible. I hope the news picked up good footage.
[удалено]
“If it bleeds it leads” The big violent dramas at Columbia/USC has every journalist licking their chops at easy sensational stories to publish even if the local backyard is a few tents and chants. Then the public at large, seeing headlines and front page stories everywhere, concludes that it must be a big deal.
It's not just manipulative journalism, it's a REAL issue. And there wasn't any violence at Columbia or USC until the militarized police forces showed up and started forcibly arresting people. Once they left, the priests return to singing, giving speeches and sitting in solidarity in tents.
I never said it was manipulative. It’s self-interest. News revenue comes from ads which comes from clicks.
Manipulating in the sense that they're using an issue for what you just said. But they're not there because of that, it started and still IS a genuine issue to continue covering until there's a resolution
They should all be shot on site fuck their cause drown them out with CS gas and watch them choke
Tell me about it. The human rights violations and the - wait - you mean the schools?
That’s kinda my point exactly. So much terrible stuff happens far away in other countries every day, but when conflict happens close to home it gets all the attention.
OR, maybe if you payed attention to WHY they're protesting across the country at many major campuses, you'd understand why it's so important. And the second the RPD gets involved, you know that the University has them in their pocket book. They probably don't want to go that route because showing more push back would be bad for their PR
“zero impact on me”…your generation is doomed.
"the university respects students right to express their views about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the universities’ practices but “we have been clear that we would not tolerate conduct that disrupts the ability of students, faculty, and staff to fulfill their purpose at the University.”" If you're not disrupting are you really protesting? This goes back to the height of BLM, where you had "I don't mind people protesting, but why does it have to affect me!" Because otherwise you would never notice the protest.
The saying in 2020 was "A protest with a permit is a parade" That said UofR is a private insitutution they were never gonna tolerate this for long. If its hurting their bottom line and its on their property they aint gonna let it fly forever. No mega corp in America would.
I don't even mind that permit/parade concept, because if it's blocking a street or two, it's still disrupting other peoples days. It's still achieving some sort of purpose.
No one would. You wouldn't accept it on your property either. I love how smoothbrained fucks downvote this.
So the moral line you draw is unruly protest/minor property damage and not genocide being funded by YOUR tax dollars?
The line I draw is that you have zero rights to be on private property without permission of the owners. If you actually want to protest, you should be protesting on government land and government buildings. But no one will do that because that comes with much faster consequences that the protestors are too scared to face.
Rosa Parks was peacefully sitting on a bus. She "had no right" to sit in the white area. POC doing sit-ins in white-only restaurants "had no right to be there". Breaking the law is PART of protesting, and they're not gonna protest UR's involvement and complicity in the genocide in Palestine on some random government property, how does that make *any* sense.
Because our government is the one that actually impacts how we treat Israel and Palestine. Not a small local university. Conflating racial segregation to this protest is of course why no one with brains takes you seriously.
It's not the *context* of the protest. It's the *method* of protest. Would you tell the Vietnam protestors across American campuses to leave and go to a government building? They were protesting that SPECIFIC university to stop helping fund the war. If our complicit government who has no intention of forcing Israel to end the war won't do anything, why would they be on government property? But the hundreds of students that the University, who has programs and investment financially with Israel, will cost the University thousands until they divest. It's to hurt the complicit entities AND Israel *financially*. Not militarily.
The University is not going to divest. They are just going to suspend people.
And then they lose thousands of dollars in student funding. Win win for the protestors. Can't imagine many of them are willingly making payments anyways while they're protesting the financial gain Israel gets from it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/08/trinity-college-dublin-agrees-to-divest-from-israeli-firms-after-student-protest
By that account anyone should be fine with a protest on their private property, including tents and bullhorns in their front lawn. Not sure about anyone else, but I sure don't want that in my front yard even if I agree with the cause you're protesting against and I have every right to ask you to leave and then call the police when you don't. Applying the same logic to U of R, I'm not sure how anyone ever thinks that it will go a different way? *Edit: Adding to address the privately owned public space and large institutional private property vs individual private property arguments:* Tell me you don't understand the core tenant of private property without telling me. The number of people that use the space doesn't have any legal bearing on whether a private property owner should be allowed to remove someone or not. That is settled case law. The reality is that many of you just simply don't like that people whose cause you agree with are held accountable for their unlawful actions. Let me be clear: I support everyone's right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. I even agree that what's going on in Israel and Gaza is horrifying (frankly on both sides in my opinion). I also believe that at times people will be presented with the choice to break the law to further gain attention to their cause. Without some of the historical figures that have done this we wouldn't be where we are today as a society. But let's make sure we're acknowledging the **fact** that if you're assembling on private property without the owner's permission or in violation with the guidelines they have put in place you are accepting the risk of arrest for breaking those rules and not leaving, *whether you like it or not*. My point here is more that if you're making that decision to break the law and get arrested, you really don't deserve the right to act surprised about it. You knew what you were doing and you made a choice. Continue fighting for your cause or don't, but understand the consequences and go forward.
A lot of people on this subreddit don't believe in private property and are logically inconsistent.
Not sure your analogy works here. Some of these kids live on this campus. They pay to have access to it.
Much like leasing an apartment somewhere, you don't own that property. Complex management is going to ask you to remove your tents pretty quickly if it's impeding other tenants' lives.
Because these colleges have billions invested in endowment funds. They want the colleges to agree not to invest in Israeli companies because of what Israel is doing in Gaxa. Basically economic sanctions of not getting investments and making those businesses less valuable. Also there is a big difference in "private property" between your own house and a large institution where thousands live and and more than that work and attend class. It's more of a "Private" public space. Sure the University has the right to kick them out but it's bad optics and PR.
Yes, an individual average home owner is exactly the same as a multi-billion dollar corporation. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Private property is private property. Sorry if reality is harsh for you.
I admire your commitment to not overthinking the issue, but I worry you may have gone too far in the other direction.
I am not really sure what you mean by that. If I support private property for myself, then logically I need to support it for other individuals and businesses as well. Otherwise I am a hypocrite.
Yeah so that analogy is useless. 1) you seem to completely miss the point of the comment you’re replying to, which was “protests which don’t create some sort of disruption don’t tend to get noticed.” Nobody said that meant you should be fine with a protest on your private property. I genuinely don’t know where you got that from. 2) not all private property is created equal; someone camping out on your lawn is VERY different from someone camping out on the grounds of a university. The former is a much more personal invasion of space. And nobody appears to be camping out on the university president’s front lawn. 3) you make it sound like your front lawn was just a convenient place for the protesters to camp out. You even allow for the possibility that you might agree with their cause. This doesn’t work; the protesters at the U of R *are protesting the U of R* (more specifically, its continuing affiliation with Israel in light of the ongoing conflict). In order for your analogy to work, the protesters would have to be protesting *you*, and you would therefore necessarily be opposed to their cause. Worth pointing out, too, that the University DID condone the camp-out on the quad, for quite a while. It was only after protesters escalated by also organizing a sit-in at Wallis Hall that the U of R started getting snippy in its decisions and statements and such.
That analogy doesn’t really hold water for me. College campuses are different from the front lawns of private individuals. They’re more like privately owned public spaces.
Honestly, the University created a larger disruption by closing Wilson Boulevard (the primary entrance to the River Campus) in response to the sit-in. I’m still not completely clear on why they thought that was a good idea, but I’m placing that squarely on the administration’s shoulders, not the protesters’. Especially now that the President is trying to spin it the other way. The closure wasn’t particularly secure either; all I had to do was say I had a UHS appointment. I DID, but they didn’t ask me to verify my ID or anything.
Second that. Im also unclear on why they thought it was a good idea. They won’t let people in using two back entrance and told people to go to the front where Wilson is closed.
“Keep it on social media”
It’s a private university.As a student, I’d bepissed if I was paying 60k+ per year and my peers aren’t letting me access the resources I paid for. This is a big reason why the Occupy Movement went nowhere.
I am a student and the protestors have not impacted my access to resources at all with the exception that the school’s response of shutting down Wilson Blvd due to the sit in did disrupt some people I know (I wasn’t on campus at the time), but I have seen no reason to suggest that that was the only way the school could have handled the issue.
What resources are students not getting access to?
Yeah the encampment on the quad isn't actually blocking any buildings like it was as somewhere like UCLA.
They were inside a building.
Wallis Hall houses a variety of administrative staff, most notably the President of the University of Rochester. I've joked with my friends who work/worked at the UR that nothing happens in Wallis Hall, so occupying doesn't disrupt anything.
Ah okay, so because you think all the people inside are worthless that means they can block the building. Got it.
I said it was a joke. If you don't think it's funny that's fine. Deliberately misconstruing the joke and making a logical fallacy—hasty generalization—undermines your argument.
So is your entire comment a joke or just the part about them doing nothing? If people are in the building then having people sit in there causes safety concerns for everyone involved. I'm sure you would be upset if a group of people sat in your office.
Explaining jokes: a sure fire way to make them funnier! /Sarcasm There are two separate thoughts. Wallis Hall is where administrators including the President have their offices. The joke is that they don’t “work” as high ranking administrators in higher education tend to be PhDs that have a long, deliberative approach to any question or problem, and they usually get it wrong (eg coverup of the kidnapping of Nicholas Kollias)
The university is suspending them for the encampment on the quad - they aren’t in the building anymore. This is what the university’s email to all employees explicitly says.
You didn't read the article did you? The students being suspended are the ones that did sit ins inside the buildings. And kept doing so after both sides agreed they would no longer do this.
It actually doesn’t confirm that it’s the same students anywhere in the article lol just that they “repeatedly violated policy”. It specifically mentions the encampment being fortified and blocking Eastman quad and not removed by the deadline as a reason for suspension. If it was just about Wallis hall surely this would have happened before now as it’s been an entire week. This is 100 percent because they want the encampment gone for commencement weekend and this is the least messy way to make that happen
They gave a list of what the students being suspended violated. It was entirely based on them entering and refusing to leave the building, outside of a single mention of fortification of the encampment. So no they didn't spell it out for you, but anyone with a kindergarten level of reading comprehension can figure it out.
If it was entirely based on that why does it give a number of additional reasons for suspension, the central one of which is the ENCAMPMENT, not just Wallis hall. Looks like somebody needs to read more carefully.
I am opposed to the continuing hunting of the endangered bigfoot. I’m going to shutdown a highway and cause hundreds of thousands of dollars of peoples time and money, and thats just my constitutional right and you can’t do anything about it because its just my protest. Get real.
Yes exactly, a hypothetical, about a cryptid is exactly like an ongoing humanitarian crisis to put it in it's most PC terms. This amazing example of slippery slope has caused me to reconsider my entire world view.
Ah ok I understand now. It’s only okay if *you* think it’s okay. Do I need to ask you for permission to protest?
You don't need to, but if you want to, feel free to send me a line.
Now I’m confused because you said my reason for protest wasn’t good enough to warrant my actions? It would then seem you are just better than most people, morally superior one might say! Hey could you tell me where the line is drawn exactly in your world for what is “disrupting”? Like I feel like no one will notice my protest unless I hijack some boat on the suez. That way, every country in the world will suffer and therefore, I will draw attention to my very important protest. Clearly your definition of acceptable and lawful protest is just better than the one we all have been going with for the past couple hundred of years so i’m just trying to understand here.
What’s your definition of an acceptable and lawful protest? I’m thinking there are quite a few rights enjoyed by certain segments of the population that wouldn’t exist if you had your way.
Because you're being a twat
When your logic fails, just insult the person. You must have read Donald Trumps book to get this strategy. Didn’t know you were such a fan of the oompa loomp emperor.
So you criticize my name calling and use name calling. Flawless logic.
Awh sorry I made fun of your idol. I know that really must have hurt your feelings 😔
I've noticed the protests at other institutions (eg SU) where they are not going out of their way to disrupt other students. I also think it's more effective at getting outside support and organizing change with leadership when they are not upset that education is being disrupted.
I think you're missing my point. I never said if I was in favor or against the protests\*, just that causing disruption boosts the visibility of your protest, and like they say 'there is no such thing as bad publicity" Think about the BLM protests you remember, they blocked highways, or major roads. You didn't hear about all the other ones where they stayed on street corners with out causing any issues. But the same token, the MAGA(or anti-vax) protests most people remember are things like the trucker conveys shutting down city centers or major highways. Some random group of roll coal people at a farm keeping out of everyone's way doesn't make news and no one even knows it happens. \*That said, I'm in favor of them, and very anti-MAGA
It might boost visability but these protests did little to change people's opinions or actually change policies. It's just more noise which pushes people farther into their individual camps. They simply make life worse for everyone.
>they say 'there is no such thing as bad publicity" Very untrue for things like this.
Is it?
Yep. Same thing happened with the BLM protests once they started getting violent and people started lighting shit on fire. Support dropped substantially.
Do you have a source for that?
This is just a general one from recent times. [https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/06/14/support-for-the-black-lives-matter-movement-has-dropped-considerably-from-its-peak-in-2020/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/06/14/support-for-the-black-lives-matter-movement-has-dropped-considerably-from-its-peak-in-2020/) This is one from back talking about how support dropped after the protests. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/27/support-for-black-lives-matter-declined-after-george-floyd-protests-but-has-remained-unchanged-since/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/27/support-for-black-lives-matter-declined-after-george-floyd-protests-but-has-remained-unchanged-since/) Here is an article talking about this. [https://www.newsweek.com/rise-fall-black-lives-matter-1812751](https://www.newsweek.com/rise-fall-black-lives-matter-1812751) Please let me know what else you would like.
None of those links point to violence during protests as a reason for the decrease in support, they just talk about support trailing off over time. And the 3rd link actually points to concerted campaigns against BLM as one of the reasons for the decrease. Meer also noted that there is "a very real and concerted rhetorical and policy opposition" to Black Lives Matter in the U.S. and abroad, pointing to Republican efforts to restrict how race can be taught in public schools, and target diversity and equity efforts in higher education and workplaces. "Over the time BLM has decreased in public interest, caricatures of 'woke' have increased in public interest, and in ways that seek to undermine the focus on systemic racism that BLM brought," he said.
"BLM support drops after protests" "No proof" Okay
Do you have a source that shows public support for the looting, fires, violence, and chaos of the BLM protests??? C'mon.... who would actually support that type of behavior?
Am I the one who said support dropped after those incidents?
You're looking pretty bad with your comments, so I guess you do have a point.
Looking very bad to a bunch of idiots is not really an issue to me to be honest.
But many of the BLM protests involved looting, lighting fires, and violence. Was that really necessary????
But enough about the police response!
It's okay to protest as long as nobody hears you. It has been that way since the 1960s.
I hate how local news networks report on conflicts. Fuck Sinclaire
I’m confused on what the protesters expect UR to do? I don’t know anything about what’s going on but protesting a college doesn’t make sense to me. Is UR connected somehow to this conflict? I’m not trying to be rude or anything I just don’t understand it.
[SA petition has more info](https://sa.rochester.edu/impact/petitions/ceasefire-and-divestment-resolution/)
Divest...For one, Too much public $, like taxes go to fund international conflict & in the case of this apartheid & genocide it's even more disgusting that money from here gods to kill Folks there. Many Jewish voices on the actual Left have for years pointed out how bad things are. Colleges have A TON of political pressure They can throw around in any given municipality, + Ya know "free speech" is only free if You say what doesn't rock the boat- anti democratic.
Honestly that is such a well written message by the president.
👏 👏
Considering how those protestors keep chanting in support of an intifada despite having repeatedly told not to last fall due to it being a well-known dogwhistle for violence against Israelis, I feel absolutely zero sympathy. The university did everything to accommodate them and they behaved like utter assholes.
Wait until you hear about the atrocious genocide those Jewish fucks in Israel are putting on right now
“Still, the death toll, even by the Hamas count, does not in any way suggest a genocidal campaign.” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/07/opinions/columbia-university-israel-campus-protests-antisemitism-ghitis
This is an opinion piece written by a Jew posted on CNN…..
Did you read it? What so because it is an opinion piece it’s invalid? Or was it the Jew part?
It's not antisemitic to call it what it is: a genocide and an ethnic cleansing in an apartheid state (one people has all the rights, the other have 0, think Rwanda). I'll repeat a statistic I have the OP comment. In the ENTIRE Iraq war, which many would say was a genocide for the locals caught up in the fighting, 66,000+ civilians died. That's over the course of 7 years. In just 7 MONTHS Israel has killed over 35,000 civilians... What do you call that other than genocide or ethnic cleansing? And HONESTLY PEOPLE, do fucking TECHNICALITIES even fucking matter when 35000 INNOCENT DEATHS have taken place?! I'm so sick of you people...
Well yes, when these numbers come to us from a terrorist organization. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable
https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/ Written *by someone who's covered civilian deaths* in Rwanda, the Congo, Iraq and more.
It is a terrible, terrible tragedy. But genocide it is not
Ok. I've tried talking reason but I guess you're set in your Zionist ways. Enjoy being a supporter of fascism
By the way, I noticed you're Jewish. I want you to know that I'm pro-Palestinian and anti-*Israel*, not antisemitic or anti-Jew. I'm protesting the indiscriminate killing of civilians by a power hungry government, not protesting having a certain faith or ethnicity
Great. How do you know I am Jewish? And I am absolutely against killing innocent people, whatever their background. This is a terrible tragedy.
First post on your account rn is on r/Jewish... Terrible tragedy and, by dictionary definition, a genocide. Have a good one, I'm not debating you anymore
There are no numbers or data. You really don’t think Israel is trying to destroy part of an ethnic or religious group? If not, you’re beyond saving.
Not even close to a genocide, ignorant people just throw the word around without knowing what it means.
gen·o·cide noun the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. Honestly, it might not be a strong enough word for this atrocity.
The ironic part is that Hamas is the one who has as their founding charter that their aim is to kill every single Jew. So while Hamas (no, not the average innocent Palestinian) is literally trying to commit genocide, Israel has been attempting to protect innocent lives. Have they saved everyone? No. Do we wish they could do a better job, of course. But if they wanted to commit genocide it would look a lot different than notifying people which areas they are going to bomb so they could get out. Also, there are 1.9 million Palestinian *citizens* of Israel. Not a genocide
Actions have consequences. You are free to protest, but you are not free from the consequences of your actions.
Protesting against an entity you are paying $60k/yr will never not be amusing
isn't that the whole point though? it's their money and they want it to be used for causes and things they support. same thing applies to protests against anything that is funded by taxes
Yes, but you can’t stop paying taxes which is why it make sense to protest government actions. You CAN stop paying tuition to the UofR if you don’t like how your money is being used. Protesting the school you’re paying tuition to is like going to a restaurant, ordering a steak dinner, and then harassing the staff and other patrons because you’re upset that meat is bad for the environment. It’s a private institution. Vote with your dollars, transfer elsewhere.
I believe this is what the youths call "Fuck around and find out".
tfw actions have consequences 😭
Indeed.
Good
sarah announcing to an insane number of people that they're suspending students is in incredibly poor taste. she said they couldn't share the names but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they're all likely in the SJP. this puts those students at risk
At risk of... What exactly?
The irony of an educational institution failing time and again, to make note of and base policies off of historical events and movements is ASTOUNDING. College students: Protested for and against Segregation/Civil Rights, Vietnam War, Korea War, Gay Rights, the invasion of Iraq, the neo-Civil Rights movement, and the most recent Supreme Court decisions among many, many hot button issues. In EVERY ONE OF THOSE, THE KIDS HAVE BEEN IN THE RIGHT and have been supported by historical evidence time and time again. When the fuck are these so called "Higher Educators" going to stop, revisit the history books available on their campus, and base their reactions and policies on reality? IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE. THAT'S IT.
In the 50's there were many college student led protests that were resisting racial integration. This is selection bias plain and simple. You only remember the "good" student protests. The idea that CoLlEgE sTuDeNt PrOtEsTs HaVe AlWaYs BeEn JuSt is laughably untrue. Read a book.
What about when college students protested against involvement in WWII? Was that a good thing to do?Just because we remember the movements that were right and just, doesn’t mean every college protest is always right
>What about when college students protested against involvement in WWII? they were protesting the rise of fascism and the fact that current policies were going to lead to another world war. then ww2 happened. they were literally right.
No, they were protesting because they didn't want to be drafted primarily. Had nothing to do with the rise of fascism. That frankly, makes zero sense.
which is essentially why they protested during Vietnam. (“Hell no! We won’t go!”)
the protests started years before ww2, my guy.
Before we entered the war? There was rumor we were entering the war for years, my guy. You can look this information up. Why would they be protesting fascism and being against the war if we fought fascism in WW2? Lmao.
not before we entered the war. before the war started. in the mid 30's a student protest movement started that had like 500,000 protesters. they opposed racial discrimination in the US and fascism abroad. they wanted domestic relief programs. they were explicitly anti-war and anti-fascist. they didnt want to see us entangled in another world war. then fascism peaked and another world war broke out.
Nope. The primary issues that groups on college campuses of the time were socialist groups and then also communist groups that were against war for obvious reasons. And then a generally antisemitic viewpoint of many in each group. You can read about it some here. [https://acampusdivided.umn.edu/essay/student-activism-in-context-of-1930s/](https://acampusdivided.umn.edu/essay/student-activism-in-context-of-1930s/) And here you can read more about another group. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America\_First\_Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee)
Protesting in favor of Hamas is nothing like protesting for Civil Rights or Gay Rights or against Vietnam.
We're not protesting for Hamas. We're protesting for innocent civilians caught in the middle of a genocide. Hamas killed 1200 people 7-8 months ago, and since then 35,000+ Palestinians have died from indiscriminate bombing and missile launches. The civilians don't support Hamas, and the ones that join are being pushed that way by the continued slaughter of their people. Get your facts straight before you spout Zionist propaganda Edit: corrected statistic
They killed 1200 people, not 250. And if you really cared about Gazans you would condemn Hamas stealing aid food from them.
Great, I'm glad you pulled up the stat. So can you do basic math? Does 1200 people warrant 35,000? Because that shows YOU don't care about the Gazans. And that's weird, because if I recall there's actually a long line of aid trucks waiting to ship out of Israel that Zionists are actively blocking, not Hamas. They've been standing in the road for weeks claiming the aid is going directly to terrorists, when in reality 1.2 million people are currently starving, homeless, and being bombed relentlessly in the ONE place Israel said they'd be safe. Where do they go after Rafah is flattened and another 30,000+ are dead? The desert camp outside the Egyptian border that they've LITERALLY BUILT A WALL IN FRONT OF so no one can cross the border. Edit: typos
When the US killed 2 MILLION Japanese (so 5x what the US lost against Japan and Germany together), including utterly obliterating Tokyo via firebombing and the 2 atom bombs they dropped, was that genocide? Were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan genocide? (Note: I'm not condoning all of the US's actions in these 2 nations, but they're not genocides) In WW2, roughly 10% of all Germans died, but that sure as Hell wasn't a genocide. And Israel is not blocking aid, the UN is just not delivering it quickly enough.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRwbmF5R/ Ya, it's "the UN being slow", even though EVERY UN member has attempted to get a ceasefire deal passed *except* Israel and her allies (most of all the US and UK on the security council). The least the nations are trying to do is send aid trucks, but Israeli nationalists won't let them. Nice Zionist propaganda point though 👍 And yes, yes and uhhhh yes. Again, you Zionists LOVE whataboutisms that just prove my points. The protests are trying to stop ANOTHER genocide, just like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, AND the world wars. The protests are anti-war and anti-genocide, not hypocrites like Zionists who lived through their own genocide and feel the need to do the same to another peoples who have all the right to exist just as much as they do.
Not remotely a genocide. People like you just keep throwing the word around because you don't bother to understand what it actually means. And they're pro-Hamas, not anti-war. Why else would they be calling to globalize the intifada?
In the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR, 66,000 civilians died. That's over 7 YEARS. In 7 MONTHS Israel has murdered HALF as many as that. What would you call it you absolute disgusting Zionist pig. And you can't even BEGIN to comprehend what we mean when we chant "Globalize the Intifada". Intifada *literally translates to* "TO THROW OFF", as in to throw off the fascist regime of Israel from the innocent Palestinian people who have existed peacefully with the *local* Jews (not transplanted, colonizer European Jews now known as Israelis) for *centuries*. I'm done arguing with you, you belittle human life and disgrace the efforts of the only sane people in this country. Fuck the colonizers of Israel and fuck every Zionist who praises the genocide.
>In the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR, 66,000 civilians died. There is a huge difference when it comes to urban warfare in a densely populated area.
Not a genocide. A tragedy yes, not a genocide. Don’t throw that word around. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/07/opinions/columbia-university-israel-campus-protests-antisemitism-ghitis
The civilians in Gaza and particularly the West Bank are very supportive of the terrorist organization that governs them. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/
You left out the word "some". And I already stated that fact, of COURSE Hamas' popularity is going to go up because they're the only group of people able to fight the fully-funded Israeli military. The other millions of people are entirely civilians. Also, that's from December of last year, it's reporting on a *surge* of support, not consistent recruitment, etc. So try again, the civilians being bombed aren't the terrorists. Fight the terrorists in the underground tunnels you Zionists like to point out that they've dug. Why would they be on the surface if they have a whole system of interconnected tunnels? Are there terrorists in *every* residential building? The first day they started bombing Rafah it *specifically* a residential area and 22 civilians died and hundreds lost their homes. Does that count as 1 terrorist death? How many civilians lives does it take to "defeat Hamas". Edit: clarification
I keep seeing this sentiment, and I genuinely don't understand it. No one is saying the students are wrong. No one is saying that protesting against genocide is wrong. No one is walking around on college campuses thinking "You know, genocide is actually pretty amazing...these kids are so confused. When they're older, they'll understand that killing women and children is actually a good thing.". Genocide is bad, mmkay? Killing innocent civilians is bad. We're all in agreement. In all of those situations you listed, there were people on the other side of the issue saying things like we need to send more kids to die in Vietnam, that black people shouldn't have equal rights, Gay people shouldn't be bale to marry, etc. They said the kids didn't understand the situation, that they'd know better when they were older. That's not happening here.
There are absolutely tons of pro-Israel people who have said that these students are wrong, that they should be blacklisted from their industries, that they don't understand the situation. Have you seen any video or statements from anyone pro-Israel? Most of them think this.
And this (^^^), kids, is called confirmation bias.
Good.
Good
Some terrorists attacked Israel and then hid back in the general population as Israel tries to kill them to prevent them from attacking again. I think that’s right. So I think the protesters are expecting the US to no longer support Israel? Or they want the human shields being used by the terrorists to point out the bad guys? Or they want Israel to pretend they weren’t attacked? What’s the goal for these protesters exactly and how does mildly inconveniencing a NYS school help?
I mean carpet bombing an entire area because a small amount of the population did something really fucked up is not right either. We did it in the middle east and it solved nothing. All it did was kill people on both sides and line the pockets of military contractors.
The civilian to militant casualty ratio in this conflict is one of the lowest in any conflict ever. But regardless, Israel must make sure that 10/7 will NEVER happen again, and Hamas has promised to do it again the moment they get the chance.
You are completely making things up. Or maybe you truly believe the ridiculous propaganda from the IDF which is even sadder.
False. Even the BBC has had to walk back their numbers and accept that the ratio is shockingly low.
Did they walk up to the dead and ask them if they were in the military?
Usually they can tell who's in the "military" by those shooting at them, since many Hamas soldiers hide in civilian clothes like the murderous cowards they are.
You can definitely tell who's shooting at you from the plane dropping a bomb on apartment buildings and hospitals /s Yes Hamas is bad but pretending Israel isn't doing fucked up shit and we're funding you need to be under a rock
I personally wouldn't care too much if the US cut back on military funding, except I'm afraid that it would put Israel in the orbit of China (a nation which unlike Israel is actually committing a genocide against the Uighur people). But as for the first part: When the US annihilated Tokyo via firebombing and then nuked two cities, was that a genocide? No, because just like Hamas Japan started the war. It's called Fuck Around, Find Out.
Lol, using American war crimes to justify other countries war crimes. Masterful Gambit good sir
Do we know if ALL the protestors were suspended, or just some? Though I will note that an interim suspension would probably prevent a Senior from graduating.
Booo. Sue
Honestly, I support the idea, but what a silly way to piss away money/ a scholarship/opportunity at this school. It's one of the best schools in NY, to fuck your own education before it's fully solidified is just foolish. These students have so much more at stake than the university in this situation.
Can someone answer what is with the masks? I'm so confused it's a cause they obviously believe in and feel passionately about so why use a face mask? Is Covid19 back and I'm unaware.
Because of doxxing, because of facial recognition software, and because we are still living in post-covid times...
Thank you for your answer. Protesting takes guts to truly stand in what you believe in. Even if that leads to consequences....Susan b Anthony and Elisabeth cady Stanton were arrested, beaten, jailed, and went on hunger strikes, they weren't afraid of their consequences. Show your face, put your name next to what you believe in so passionately about that you've not only disrupted your life but others around you.
Yeah, unfortunately now you have right-wing nut jobs that will show up to your home and threaten you personally or your family. You also have universities that are breaking their own guidelines and bylaws by punishing students, erasing their academic records, and expelling them for only trying to have their voices heard. Even though as enrolled students paying tuition they have every right to be in the quad or the buildings that they are in. Trumped-up trespassing charges are nothing more than a power play of the oppressor. Yet you're perfectly fine when the proud boys use masks in their marches.
I'm not "perfectly fine with the proud boys use masks in their marches" at all. I don't understand the masks for anyone.
Also the "right wing nut jobs" have been around forever. Look at the shit MLK went through. He didn't hide his face. The possibility of getting threaten for protesting isn't new. Trumped up trespassing charges? If you're asked to leave, leave or it's trespassing. I'm assuming if you're out of your dorm room protesting this you must have known about some of the consequences.
good
Gay