The sit-in at the university came to an end with the following headline for the protest press release "ST ANDREWS STUDENTS DECLARE VICTORY ON SEVENTH DAY."
This is in stark contrast to these statements by the university:
"The University's position on these issues has been completely consistent throughout and we have not changed our position. We respect and defend the rights of individuals to make peaceful protest. Our neutrality however remains non-negotiable...will not support any political cause over another. We are pleased to report that the group occupying Lower College Hall has this afternoon agreed to abandon its sit-in.
"The University is grateful for offers of support from students in creating a specific endowed scholarship for any overseas student whose studies have been affected by war, unrest or natural disaster, regardless of nationality, and as long as they have the academic capacity required by the University of St Andrews...We will not however restrict the offer of such scholarships to one nationality it must be open to people of all nations."
"We believe that all the issues should have been raised, and could have been resolved, through the existing processes of dialogue between the Students Association and the University, which we continue to value as proper, democratic, fully representative of the student body, and accountable to it."
In case these comments are ambigious - the university also gave this quote to The Courier newspaper - “For the sake of clarity, the university did not concede to any of the occupiers’ ‘demands’. Our position was consistent throughout and did not change. The actions and reviews we have detailed were under way long before this incident began, reflect existing policy or are a result of ongoing democratic discussions with the students’ association.”
This is yet another example of the protest claiming some sort of victory when in fact they achieved nothing new and nothing that couldn't have already been achieved through dialogue. There are countless other examples of this from LSE at the start (where the university largely committed to continuing existing reviews) to Glasgow where the only real achievement has been the very welcome work towards humanitarian fundraising (including for an Israeli charity).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
F*** me! You mean the university's press release was different to that of the occupation? Well I'll be damned! Let's just see how the institution's words reflect reality:
ReplyDelete"For the sake of clarity, the university did not concede to any of the occupiers’ ‘demands’."
Okay. Let's look at them demands again:
1 - Issue a public statement condemning Israel's attack on Palestinian educational institutions, including the bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza, and encourage your colleagues in the Russell Group to issue a similar call
And it is reported that 'Following negotiations between the students and the university, LSE Director and former head of the UK Financial Services Authority Howard Davies will now make a public statement about Israeli bombing of academic institutions.'
2 - Establish an emergency fund for Palestinians students from Gaza and waive their tuition fees to support their efforts to acquire an education
3 - Waive all application fees from students coming from Palestine
'The LSE had already agreed to waiver application fees and provide scholarships for application fees for students affected by the Israeli Occupation and to facilitate a charity collection for Medical Aid for Palestine.'
4 - Support the efforts of LSE faculty to build links with Palestinian universities
That's for the faculty to comment on in the long run, really.
5- Divest LSE funds from all firms contributing to the Israeli war effort.
'The university did agree to seriously consider a paper presented by the Students' Union about a divestment-based ethical investment policy, something that *the administration previously said would not be part of a future policy*.'
Now I'm sure y'all are thinking 'but these are not precisely what the occupiers demanded', but one of the most basic principles of negotiation is to aim high and meet in the middle- and it is entirely legitimate to find victory in gaining ground.
I appreciate that most of those who read blogs like this and vigourously nod their heads are probably of the ilk who regard a cadre of activists with experience of direct action as a liability to a union rather than an asset, but still - y'all could try a little harder in your blatant efforts to besmirch the actions of anyone who rejects the failed strategy of trying to effect change by simply winning the argument by appealing to the intellectual honesty of decision makers.
The case study was St Andrews - why analyse LSE?
ReplyDelete