Peaceful is good. But it doesn't mean that police have no grounds to interfere. FIRE - the premiere national defender of free speech - reminds us that "engaging in civil disobedience may result in punishment, including arrest. Civil disobedience derives its expressive power from the willingness of participants to accept the consequences of breaking the rules. That willingness illustrates their intensity of feeling. Students occupying campus spaces in violation of reasonable, content-neutral rules risk punishment. When that punishment is viewpoint-neutral, proportional, and in keeping with past practice, it does not violate expressive rights." https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-campus-violence-and-arrests
I am a donor to FIRE so you got me here. Also I recognize this whole thing is being done on private property, so NU is well within their rights to just boot everyone off the Meadow. But at the same time, they've spent the last 10-15 years preaching to students about the importance of activism over the truth. Consider what one faculty member said at the protest this morning (which I disagree with deeply)
“To the Medill students and journalists within earshot, I say to you: Our work is not about objectivity,” he said. “Our work is about you putting your brilliant minds to work and opening your compassionate hearts.”
From a sheer moral standpoint, I don't know how the university can advocate views like that *for decades* and at the same time boot the kids off the field and impose harsh penalties, even if they have the right to do so. They're doing exactly what the University taught them to do!
I'm paywalled from that story so I can't read it but I will say this: I think a big shift happened in the last 10 years. It was accelerated due to Trump/COVID. It's the growth of admins that exist to do nothing but service the university as a source of political power. Think about how quickly Northwestern steamrolled Evanston on the new stadium or the fact that 2/7 D65 board members are NU admins.
Like right now, there's probably a whole team of NU employees who are absolutely shitting bricks over the grass dying in Deering Meadow because it will ruin graduation photos in a month, which they fear will reduce parent and alumni donations. Or during COVID, the University refused to dip into the endowment to help students, which was (in theory) the whole reason the endowment was there!
There's just a whole class of employees now that didn't exist 20 years ago who do nothing but cater to the political whims of the students, activists, and parents, so that they don't jeopardize the donations to endowment machine.
Meanwhile the NU Board has been fine with all of this until now, when they have to deal with actual consequences.
It’s hard to take the protesters seriously when they say the NU president is engaged in genocide and killing children (I saw this reported by the Daily Northwestern).
I have serious problems with the Netanyahu government. But when folks like the Equity Army target irrelevant entities like the Evanston City Council and our Jewish mayor, it makes me very skeptical of the actual motives of these protesters .
Update: I went again tonight to get more photos. It was very peaceful. I walked thru the crowd and everything. I am a pretty dispassionate observer, so I took photos and left.
Yeah I guess I should've clarified it was totally peaceful when I was there. Lots of protesters just eating lunch, talking to the press, etc. Same for others - there was a guy from the ADL doing interviews, a guy in a pro-Israel shirt running laps for Israel (?) around the protest.
There is video on Twitter (or X or whatever) of a protestor wearing a shirt with the photo of the spokesperson for the armed wing of Hamas and a video of a student reporter who was filming the encampment being physically assaulted so I wouldn’t say it’s all been peaceful. Also the spouse of a D65 administrator is involved in recruiting participants for this encampment.
I can only report on what I witnessed, which was a peaceful protest. Also, I think it’s unfair to pin someone for the political actions of their spouse. I certainly wouldn’t want my spouse associated with things I write here unless she chimed in and was like “Yeah, I agree”
I realize many people don’t like Karla Thomas and what she has to say but pinning it to her spouse seems cruel, especially coming from an anon account. What relief do you seek? D65 to fire Ms Beardslee because her spouse has political opinions people don’t like?
I believe that you did witness a peaceful protest at the time that you were there and I'm glad to hear that. I sincerely hope that the guy in the pro-Hamas shirt was asked to leave and there won't be any further pro Hamas rhetoric or clothing at this protest, as there have been at others around the country, especially Columbia. I do believe that when a person has a publicly funded, public facing job, the public actions of their spouse can reflect on them.
I don't know, man. I think that's a pretty tough position to defend. Why should an individual in any position be responsible for the political stances of their immediate family? As the person below me commented, you can be critical of her and her work all you want - but I think it's completely unfair to criticize someone based on their spouse's political actions. If your spouse went hardcore into Ms. Thomas' politics, you'd be like "I have nothing to do with that!" and I think you'd want people to respect that, no?
In my mind, there are things that have occurred that do not fall under the category of "political actions." In my opinion, the public actions taken have been aimed at alienating community members from a specific religious and cultural group, including caustic comments directed at people from that religious group in local social media groups, as well as public comments comparing the terrorist group Hamas to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela and a public speech in a public place covered by local media in which this person included the phrase "from the river to the sea," which, as you mention above, is a controversial phrase, as some people view it as hate speech. I am not saying anything here that is not readily available to anyone with a social media account or the ability to read local media coverage. I wonder what the reaction would be from this community if this involved a different religious or cultural group or if the spouse in question publicly defended extreme right wing viewpoints instead of extreme left ones.
That's a valid thought experiment. So ... suppose a District cabinet member had a spouse that was arrested related to the events of January 6th. Would we demand that the person be fired or held accountable for the actions of their partner? I don't know the answer to that. I think it would be newsworthy, but I don't know if we'd hold them responsible. Thoughts?
Dr Beardsley has an obligation to show support and inclusion towards Jewish students which she is failing. Her inaction is a choice. Being tagged in a vacation with a free Palestine flag is also a choice. It’s hard to separate her from her spouse.
That's all I'm trying to say - I think it's completely fair to criticize someone for stuff they've done or said or even for any reason you want. But I think it's unfair to target someone because of their spouse, unless it's obvious the spouse is acting on their behalf (which is not the impression I get here)
Looks relatively peaceful based on your account. I tend to draw the line at banners and shouting about "from the river to the sea" and "globalize the intifada" as has happened on other campuses, creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and others even if there is not direct violence. I hope Deering Meadow doesn't get to that point.
I also wonder how many of these students have actually researched whether and how much NU invests in the Israeli government. I'd actually like to see that enumerated (OK, maybe not on a banner) and lifted up as part of these protests. Seems like it would be more granular and potentially useful in actually effecting change than a big campout.
I didn't see any banners like that and I literally walked right through the protest. I'm not a student nor Jewish, so I can't testify to their experience but I didn't see anything notable.
Peaceful is good. But it doesn't mean that police have no grounds to interfere. FIRE - the premiere national defender of free speech - reminds us that "engaging in civil disobedience may result in punishment, including arrest. Civil disobedience derives its expressive power from the willingness of participants to accept the consequences of breaking the rules. That willingness illustrates their intensity of feeling. Students occupying campus spaces in violation of reasonable, content-neutral rules risk punishment. When that punishment is viewpoint-neutral, proportional, and in keeping with past practice, it does not violate expressive rights." https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-campus-violence-and-arrests
I am a donor to FIRE so you got me here. Also I recognize this whole thing is being done on private property, so NU is well within their rights to just boot everyone off the Meadow. But at the same time, they've spent the last 10-15 years preaching to students about the importance of activism over the truth. Consider what one faculty member said at the protest this morning (which I disagree with deeply)
“To the Medill students and journalists within earshot, I say to you: Our work is not about objectivity,” he said. “Our work is about you putting your brilliant minds to work and opening your compassionate hearts.”
From a sheer moral standpoint, I don't know how the university can advocate views like that *for decades* and at the same time boot the kids off the field and impose harsh penalties, even if they have the right to do so. They're doing exactly what the University taught them to do!
Indeed! Great article by George Packer on this very point. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/campus-left-university-columbia-1968/678176/ If you don't have a subscription, I can share a pdf. Also, I look forward to the MAGA and pro-life encampments and the NU's hands off attitude ;-)
I'm paywalled from that story so I can't read it but I will say this: I think a big shift happened in the last 10 years. It was accelerated due to Trump/COVID. It's the growth of admins that exist to do nothing but service the university as a source of political power. Think about how quickly Northwestern steamrolled Evanston on the new stadium or the fact that 2/7 D65 board members are NU admins.
Like right now, there's probably a whole team of NU employees who are absolutely shitting bricks over the grass dying in Deering Meadow because it will ruin graduation photos in a month, which they fear will reduce parent and alumni donations. Or during COVID, the University refused to dip into the endowment to help students, which was (in theory) the whole reason the endowment was there!
There's just a whole class of employees now that didn't exist 20 years ago who do nothing but cater to the political whims of the students, activists, and parents, so that they don't jeopardize the donations to endowment machine.
Meanwhile the NU Board has been fine with all of this until now, when they have to deal with actual consequences.
It’s hard to take the protesters seriously when they say the NU president is engaged in genocide and killing children (I saw this reported by the Daily Northwestern).
I have serious problems with the Netanyahu government. But when folks like the Equity Army target irrelevant entities like the Evanston City Council and our Jewish mayor, it makes me very skeptical of the actual motives of these protesters .
Update: I went again tonight to get more photos. It was very peaceful. I walked thru the crowd and everything. I am a pretty dispassionate observer, so I took photos and left.
I’m a professor at Northwestern. All the protesters have been exceedingly respectful and peaceful as far as I’ve seen.
Yeah I guess I should've clarified it was totally peaceful when I was there. Lots of protesters just eating lunch, talking to the press, etc. Same for others - there was a guy from the ADL doing interviews, a guy in a pro-Israel shirt running laps for Israel (?) around the protest.
There is video on Twitter (or X or whatever) of a protestor wearing a shirt with the photo of the spokesperson for the armed wing of Hamas and a video of a student reporter who was filming the encampment being physically assaulted so I wouldn’t say it’s all been peaceful. Also the spouse of a D65 administrator is involved in recruiting participants for this encampment.
I can only report on what I witnessed, which was a peaceful protest. Also, I think it’s unfair to pin someone for the political actions of their spouse. I certainly wouldn’t want my spouse associated with things I write here unless she chimed in and was like “Yeah, I agree”
I realize many people don’t like Karla Thomas and what she has to say but pinning it to her spouse seems cruel, especially coming from an anon account. What relief do you seek? D65 to fire Ms Beardslee because her spouse has political opinions people don’t like?
I believe that you did witness a peaceful protest at the time that you were there and I'm glad to hear that. I sincerely hope that the guy in the pro-Hamas shirt was asked to leave and there won't be any further pro Hamas rhetoric or clothing at this protest, as there have been at others around the country, especially Columbia. I do believe that when a person has a publicly funded, public facing job, the public actions of their spouse can reflect on them.
I don't know, man. I think that's a pretty tough position to defend. Why should an individual in any position be responsible for the political stances of their immediate family? As the person below me commented, you can be critical of her and her work all you want - but I think it's completely unfair to criticize someone based on their spouse's political actions. If your spouse went hardcore into Ms. Thomas' politics, you'd be like "I have nothing to do with that!" and I think you'd want people to respect that, no?
In my mind, there are things that have occurred that do not fall under the category of "political actions." In my opinion, the public actions taken have been aimed at alienating community members from a specific religious and cultural group, including caustic comments directed at people from that religious group in local social media groups, as well as public comments comparing the terrorist group Hamas to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela and a public speech in a public place covered by local media in which this person included the phrase "from the river to the sea," which, as you mention above, is a controversial phrase, as some people view it as hate speech. I am not saying anything here that is not readily available to anyone with a social media account or the ability to read local media coverage. I wonder what the reaction would be from this community if this involved a different religious or cultural group or if the spouse in question publicly defended extreme right wing viewpoints instead of extreme left ones.
That's a valid thought experiment. So ... suppose a District cabinet member had a spouse that was arrested related to the events of January 6th. Would we demand that the person be fired or held accountable for the actions of their partner? I don't know the answer to that. I think it would be newsworthy, but I don't know if we'd hold them responsible. Thoughts?
I'm glad we had this discussion. I'm going to meditate on this subject now. God help me.
Dr Beardsley has an obligation to show support and inclusion towards Jewish students which she is failing. Her inaction is a choice. Being tagged in a vacation with a free Palestine flag is also a choice. It’s hard to separate her from her spouse.
You just did separate her from her spouse, though!!
Ok so I’ve separated them - she can be fired based on those actions alone. As long as she’s removed from D65 I’ll be thrilled.
That's all I'm trying to say - I think it's completely fair to criticize someone for stuff they've done or said or even for any reason you want. But I think it's unfair to target someone because of their spouse, unless it's obvious the spouse is acting on their behalf (which is not the impression I get here)
Looks relatively peaceful based on your account. I tend to draw the line at banners and shouting about "from the river to the sea" and "globalize the intifada" as has happened on other campuses, creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and others even if there is not direct violence. I hope Deering Meadow doesn't get to that point.
I also wonder how many of these students have actually researched whether and how much NU invests in the Israeli government. I'd actually like to see that enumerated (OK, maybe not on a banner) and lifted up as part of these protests. Seems like it would be more granular and potentially useful in actually effecting change than a big campout.
I didn't see any banners like that and I literally walked right through the protest. I'm not a student nor Jewish, so I can't testify to their experience but I didn't see anything notable.