Tent City: Bulldozing the Opposition
By now, those of you who have been paying attention to the Tent City Protest (and with even more national and international Tent Cities popping up, it's my belief that this name is very appropriate, rather than "Unity for Gallaudet" or "Gallaudet United Now," or any of these other monikers with "unity" in them-- I'm sorry, but it's still my opinion that this whole affair isn't unifying; it's tragic, on many different levels), know about the events of yesterday, Wednesday, October 25.
Others have done a better job of recounting the drama that unfolded at campus yesterday-- the most immediate account that summarizes the confrontation best is the account from Dr. Kathy Wood, a long-time faculty member.
What bothered me a lot about her account was that DPS didn't help direct the ambulances; no one she encountered took any responsibility or tried to be even remotely helpful; and that aggressive acts were perpetrated against the students, regardless of whether their presence there was warranted or not.
This bit especially bothered me:
Yet again, communication is a big issue (when it shouldn't be!). As Wood states,
In her closing comments, Wood asks, "Did IKJ order this sort of roughing up or, worse, did he not order it and these are rogue officers and staff working on their own?"
Jordan, Fernandes, et al, have made the point often in the last few weeks that the students will have to expect to be held responsible for their actions. I agree-- they will have to figure out how to make up any coursework they missed, they need to be responsible to clean up after themselves and to prevent (or at best, minimize) any damage or vandalization to Gallaudet property. Those who were arrested will have to face any consequences of that action.
But by the same token, the admininistration needs to demonstrate some accountability on their part. The arrests, as I've said earlier, were a CHOICE on the part of Jordan and whoever else was making that decision. Choices have consequences, whether good, bad, or mixed. The decision to employ a bulldozer and security and maintenance personnel to secure a gate also has its consequences. When you're a university administrator, and your charges are students in their teens or barely out of them, you're functioning to a degree under the shield of in loco parentis. While most universities and colleges no longer assume this function, some of the duties still remain: protecting and preserving the safety of the students (and like any employer, also protecting faculty, staff, and other employees). This means ensuring that regardless what happens and what the issue is, that people do not undergo harm, that their safety is not jeopardized.
Aside from the appalling manner in which the impasse at the gate was resolved, it's incredibly bad public relations for the university. You'd think in the aftermath of Black Friday, the powers-that-be would have rethought some of their strategies for handling this crisis. Guess not.
The students/protesters do need to realize that civil disobedience always carries with it the threat of injury, violence, and yes, even death. Very few protests in history have been completely peaceful or devoid of verbal conflict and potential physical confrontation; DPN, as much as some would like to emulate it, was a remarkable deviation from the norm (with the exception of John Maucere's injury, I suppose). How that historical civil rights event unfolded was contrary to a long history of dissent worldwide. While I'm sympathetic to Brian Morrison's injury, when you say that you are "standing there peacefully holding the gate with my arms," it doesn't matter how tranquil you're being; you hold a gate, or help to form a human barricade and there's a bulldozer or opposing group against you, you assume the risk of injury. It doesn't excuse the actions taken by the administration, but the protesters do need to understand that the act of protesting itself carries with it some risks, and those risks include bodily harm and perhaps even worse.
However, I find the official university line for why the actions of yesterday morning were warranted to be flimsy and disingenuous. In the Washington Post article on the use of the bulldozer, Mercy Coogan said "the front-end loader was used because it would have taken hours for employees to remove the student camp by hand."
Why do the employees need to do it? When it's time, the students will do it themselves. If it was truly necessary to have the gate free of protesters and debris, then the administration can certainly reach out for a separate negotiation regarding the gates (although I gather this has already happened-- as for the logic of why an agreement might not have been reached, see below).
There's a separate, yet inter-related issue at play here. Although the immediate crisis/confrontation yesterday morning was between those operating the bulldozers/removing the tents and the protesters, the real behind-the-scenes issue was a power play on both parts. The university wanted free access to all gates. Ultimately, this needs to and will happen. Gates that aren't open are barriers to the flow of traffic on a campus. The underlying goal, of course, is to quell the protests.
In contrast, the students want to maintain control of the gates in order to continue their protest. They also want to maintain maximum visibility.
What I don't understand is, why this even needed to happen at all. From a strategic point of view, the administration "won" on October 13; even if the 6th Street gate is the only one that's totally "free" of cars, students, and other barriers, it's still a gate that allows anyone to enter or exit campus. On the other side of the coin, if the 6th Street gate is truly open and is not being directly barred, then the protesters don't really have control of the entire campus. Since the Brentwood/MSSD and Kendall/West Virginia Avenue gates lead to a high school and an elementary school, respectively, and are of no real value unless the entire campus is secured, it seems counterproductive to waste time and energy maintaining vigils at these gates.
My personal opinion is the students should relinquish control of these gates, and the administration should make more effective use of their so-called highly effective "Crisis Management Team" and plan a better way to ask students to be responsible, to move, or whatever is needed. Should there be a need to re-secure campus again, I'd use cars, people, and tents on the grassy area and right at the drive that leads behind the dorms (Dorm 5, Clerc, Benson), so that the gate for Kendall remains open, but the Gallaudet portion of campus is closed. People, cars, etc. at the entrance to the Parking Plaza (assuming it doesn't completely fall apart-- that's another issue that should be important to the administration/Board of Trustees than insisting that Fernandes remain!), and along the parking lot/knoll leading behind Cogswell (to me, it'll always be Cogswell-- this renaming the dorms "Ballard Complex" merely papers over the tragedy, and dishonors the history of the buildings) and up to the gates. Voilà! You've effectively blocked off access to the main campus, College Hall, etc., while allowing access to Kendall/MSSD.
Regardless, the bottom line here is that Jordan and Fernandes, and by extension, the university, failed in its mission when it chose to risk the safety and security of the students by using a bulldozer and allowing campus personnel to use metal pipes in clearing the gates. Despite the administration's rationale (and its duplicity and disingenuousness in claiming that the incident was "nothing" and that "no one was injured" or that it was minor-- a possible fractured knee is NOT minor, and having your toenail torn off isn't exactly a superficial cut requiring only a band-aid), the ends do not justify the means. The same is true for the protesters.
Others have done a better job of recounting the drama that unfolded at campus yesterday-- the most immediate account that summarizes the confrontation best is the account from Dr. Kathy Wood, a long-time faculty member.
What bothered me a lot about her account was that DPS didn't help direct the ambulances; no one she encountered took any responsibility or tried to be even remotely helpful; and that aggressive acts were perpetrated against the students, regardless of whether their presence there was warranted or not.
This bit especially bothered me:
one group of men railed passed a student (I interviewed this student) with a metal pipe, ramming him in the knee. This student was later seen at SHS and was told to find a ride to Suburban Hospital to get an X-Ray for a possible fracture.As Wood explained, these are 3"-5" diameter metal pipes-- whacking someone with one of these, whether in the knee or elsewhere, is assault, pure and simple. Dragging and pushing at a gate, resulting in injury to people, is also assault. The use of the bulldozer was out of proportion; as Joseph Rainmound put it, "You use a bulldozer on lumber, wood, inanimate objects. Things you do not respect or care about. We are lucky the damage was minimal."
Yet again, communication is a big issue (when it shouldn't be!). As Wood states,
When a concerned parent called the 877 number at the Provost’s office at 12:30 today and asked for an update on the emergency at the MSSD gate, the person answered that she didn’t know. That “something about the gate being blocked” was going on. When the parent said she needs details, the person told her to call DPS.That's totally inappropriate, and I agree with Wood-- why doesn't the Provost's office have all the information necessary? It's 12:30 p.m.-- the bulldozers, PPD and DPS personnel, etc., were at the Brentwood gate around 8 a.m. It's now 4 1/2 hours later, and the Provost's office has to refer it to DPS? Pretty shoddy information-gathering, IMHO. Additionally, it's been said that there weren't interpreters present yesterday morning-- also, as anyone who attended Gallaudet knows, DPS/DOSS has a poor history where comprehension and expertise in ASL is concerned. To the best of my memory, PPD wasn't much better, for the most part. It's not just ironic- it's sad. Why is a university whose raison d'etre is unfettered access to communication in an educational setting so utterly lacking in communication???
In her closing comments, Wood asks, "Did IKJ order this sort of roughing up or, worse, did he not order it and these are rogue officers and staff working on their own?"
Jordan, Fernandes, et al, have made the point often in the last few weeks that the students will have to expect to be held responsible for their actions. I agree-- they will have to figure out how to make up any coursework they missed, they need to be responsible to clean up after themselves and to prevent (or at best, minimize) any damage or vandalization to Gallaudet property. Those who were arrested will have to face any consequences of that action.
But by the same token, the admininistration needs to demonstrate some accountability on their part. The arrests, as I've said earlier, were a CHOICE on the part of Jordan and whoever else was making that decision. Choices have consequences, whether good, bad, or mixed. The decision to employ a bulldozer and security and maintenance personnel to secure a gate also has its consequences. When you're a university administrator, and your charges are students in their teens or barely out of them, you're functioning to a degree under the shield of in loco parentis. While most universities and colleges no longer assume this function, some of the duties still remain: protecting and preserving the safety of the students (and like any employer, also protecting faculty, staff, and other employees). This means ensuring that regardless what happens and what the issue is, that people do not undergo harm, that their safety is not jeopardized.
Aside from the appalling manner in which the impasse at the gate was resolved, it's incredibly bad public relations for the university. You'd think in the aftermath of Black Friday, the powers-that-be would have rethought some of their strategies for handling this crisis. Guess not.
The students/protesters do need to realize that civil disobedience always carries with it the threat of injury, violence, and yes, even death. Very few protests in history have been completely peaceful or devoid of verbal conflict and potential physical confrontation; DPN, as much as some would like to emulate it, was a remarkable deviation from the norm (with the exception of John Maucere's injury, I suppose). How that historical civil rights event unfolded was contrary to a long history of dissent worldwide. While I'm sympathetic to Brian Morrison's injury, when you say that you are "standing there peacefully holding the gate with my arms," it doesn't matter how tranquil you're being; you hold a gate, or help to form a human barricade and there's a bulldozer or opposing group against you, you assume the risk of injury. It doesn't excuse the actions taken by the administration, but the protesters do need to understand that the act of protesting itself carries with it some risks, and those risks include bodily harm and perhaps even worse.
However, I find the official university line for why the actions of yesterday morning were warranted to be flimsy and disingenuous. In the Washington Post article on the use of the bulldozer, Mercy Coogan said "the front-end loader was used because it would have taken hours for employees to remove the student camp by hand."
Why do the employees need to do it? When it's time, the students will do it themselves. If it was truly necessary to have the gate free of protesters and debris, then the administration can certainly reach out for a separate negotiation regarding the gates (although I gather this has already happened-- as for the logic of why an agreement might not have been reached, see below).
There's a separate, yet inter-related issue at play here. Although the immediate crisis/confrontation yesterday morning was between those operating the bulldozers/removing the tents and the protesters, the real behind-the-scenes issue was a power play on both parts. The university wanted free access to all gates. Ultimately, this needs to and will happen. Gates that aren't open are barriers to the flow of traffic on a campus. The underlying goal, of course, is to quell the protests.
In contrast, the students want to maintain control of the gates in order to continue their protest. They also want to maintain maximum visibility.
What I don't understand is, why this even needed to happen at all. From a strategic point of view, the administration "won" on October 13; even if the 6th Street gate is the only one that's totally "free" of cars, students, and other barriers, it's still a gate that allows anyone to enter or exit campus. On the other side of the coin, if the 6th Street gate is truly open and is not being directly barred, then the protesters don't really have control of the entire campus. Since the Brentwood/MSSD and Kendall/West Virginia Avenue gates lead to a high school and an elementary school, respectively, and are of no real value unless the entire campus is secured, it seems counterproductive to waste time and energy maintaining vigils at these gates.
My personal opinion is the students should relinquish control of these gates, and the administration should make more effective use of their so-called highly effective "Crisis Management Team" and plan a better way to ask students to be responsible, to move, or whatever is needed. Should there be a need to re-secure campus again, I'd use cars, people, and tents on the grassy area and right at the drive that leads behind the dorms (Dorm 5, Clerc, Benson), so that the gate for Kendall remains open, but the Gallaudet portion of campus is closed. People, cars, etc. at the entrance to the Parking Plaza (assuming it doesn't completely fall apart-- that's another issue that should be important to the administration/Board of Trustees than insisting that Fernandes remain!), and along the parking lot/knoll leading behind Cogswell (to me, it'll always be Cogswell-- this renaming the dorms "Ballard Complex" merely papers over the tragedy, and dishonors the history of the buildings) and up to the gates. Voilà! You've effectively blocked off access to the main campus, College Hall, etc., while allowing access to Kendall/MSSD.
Regardless, the bottom line here is that Jordan and Fernandes, and by extension, the university, failed in its mission when it chose to risk the safety and security of the students by using a bulldozer and allowing campus personnel to use metal pipes in clearing the gates. Despite the administration's rationale (and its duplicity and disingenuousness in claiming that the incident was "nothing" and that "no one was injured" or that it was minor-- a possible fractured knee is NOT minor, and having your toenail torn off isn't exactly a superficial cut requiring only a band-aid), the ends do not justify the means. The same is true for the protesters.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 8:13 PM
<< Home