At my university (Goldsmiths) we have an active student's union which supports minority rights, including LGBTQ, Women’s and Disabled rights. Recently it has been campaigning on the rights of the young, a group that is being discriminated against in the worst way; their future is being attacked on many fronts. It is not just the youth; even worse, it is the youth of the lower classes. In a society where elitism still exists, the new coalition government is attacking those without the real power to fight back.
When we look at the cuts that are being made by the ConDems, we can only truly see a really catastrophic attack on the education of the people (the people being anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the state). When 20,000, 30,000 or 60,000 people are on the streets protesting, breaking the law, making a point in our capital, how can any government ignore this direct action and still vote on a motion that may cripple the education system in this country for years to come?
Back to my particular university. Recently there was an occupation of the library; one that was morally correct in its demands:
Dear friends, We are students from Goldsmiths College who have occupied our library in opposition to the wave of cuts currently threatening our education system, and our local community, being imposed upon us by the current government. We have released a list of demands to the senior management team of our university. However we also think it’s vital that our actions don’t take place in a bubble, separated from the local community. The events of the last few weeks have proven that South East London is a hub of radical political action against this social vandalism. With this in mind, we want to open up our occupation to all local residents- both as a library, and as a resource and organising base for community groups and actions that share our goals of fighting against welfare and education cuts and government attacks on the vulnerable. As such, we would like to open a channel of communication with your group in order to help us work together. We are hosting a community wide meeting of local groups tomorrow (Wednesday 8th December) at 7:30pm in the main foyer of the Library in order to discuss our shared goals and practical ways we can work together. We realise that is short notice but we only occupied our library yesterday night, and we want to start using the space as soon as possible! Please let us know if you’re able to attend- or please circulate this e-mail around your e-mail lists as you see fit. Hope to see you on Wednesday- although the community is welcome to come and talk to us, and use our facilities, at any time- we’re now open 24 hours through student power. Yours in solidarity, the Goldsmiths Occupation Goldsmiths, University of London , Lewisham Way, New Cross , London SE14 6NW
Most students accepted these demands; but the actual occupation of the library was seen as an attack on the education of current students of Goldsmiths. Most Goldsmiths students are actively campaigning at national demos, yet felt alienated by this action.
My question is, at what point is direct action in the form of occupation OK? I saw when the senior management of an organization is affected - hopefully in an adverse way - but when it becomes an attack on the education of students themselves, we may as well forget the fight against the government cuts, as that will be the start of a civil war within the student body.
The NUS is not radical enough for me, but at least they are a unifying body for all student unions. Once we dispose of the careerist Aaron Porter maybe the NUS may once again become a hub for real student activism, within which students can fight together for education.
Jack Perry
This article is a bit short don't you think? There is no contextualising the occupation. It reads like a small vanguard of students just decided one day that they were going to occupying the library (this is indeed the partial truth). The reason why the Students Union weren't involved in the occupation (although I believe they largely supported it personally) was because SMT had black mailed them out of any future occupation action (the supposed 15 grand of legal fees which were to be taken out of the union budget, affecting ALL students).
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that the occupation was seen as an attack on students, but you haven't mentioned why students felt attacked. Obviously they felt attacked because the library services were down and people couldn't do their work. Lets give the occupiers some credit, after nine hours of no library staff, they soon changed their minds and there was an overwhelming majority of occupiers who supported library workers coming in the next day.
Of course this motion bought the inevitable debate as to whether what was happening would now better be called a 'sit-in' rather than an occupation. Some of us were happy to sacrifice this terminological distinction if it meant we could turn the library into a hub of student and community action, and there was some of this. Lewisham Anti-Cuts Alliance came, as did some fresh young 6th form activists.
This article also has no mention of the subsequent occupation (one that I wasn't up for at all). On first glance the second occupation after the national march seemed suicidal right? The occupation seemed to have failed and now SMT were going to further divide and rule by closing the library to EVERYONE over the weekend, citing non-descript 'safety issues'. On sunday however, after much discussion with SMT, the occupiers managed to get the library open, and the safety issues seemed to prove fallacious.
I interpret the occupation as an experiment, that went a little wrong, but isn't the end of the world. The way forward to me doesn't seem to wait for Aaron Porter to magically disappear and some Bob Crow-esque union leader take up his bright torch. No. What there needs to be is your right, hubs of real student activism, with or without the unions backing. How is this to be done? I'm still working on it.... One thing that did come out of the occupation is that discussion is a good thing. Its time consuming but it will need to be done a lot more if we are to get broader support. In order to do this it is going to have to spread out further than certain sections of the post-grad. community and 'arts against the cuts'.
'Lets give the occupiers some credit, after nine hours of no library staff, they soon changed their minds and there was an overwhelming majority of occupiers who supported library workers coming in the next day.'
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of 'How many (insert stereotype here) does it take to change a light bulb'
Except this is 'How many hours does it take for students to realise a stupid idea REALLY IS a stupid idea.'
Answer: nine hours.