Revised Statement of Non-Violence
Feb 20th, 2009 by Take Back NYU!
We originally issued a Statement of Non-Violence and Abstention from Property Destruction, but in the interest of tactical flexibility, we have chosen to revoke the property destruction clause of this statement. This continues to be a non-violent action; damaging property need not be equated with damage against living human beings, which we still vehemently denounce. Though we realize that this choice to revise our original policy may undermine ideological consistency of this action, we feel that reacting to the changing situation of the occupation is more important than adhering to any dogma, even our own.
Revised Statement of Non-Violence
We the occupying students of New York University do not support or condone violence against people over the course of this occupation. Such acts undermine our goals of the reclamation of student space, and therefore all participants in the occupation are expected to retain respect for all persons throughout the course of the action. We do not intend any harm or damage to any living beings, and strongly criticize any will to do so. Any individual who wills such violence will be asked to leave the premises, and will not represent the interests of this occupation. Our action condemns oppression in any form, and thus we do not espouse the subjugation of others using violence. We will not tolerate any discrimination based on race, color, sex, gender, religion, age, sexuality, or nationality. We take very seriously the safety and wellbeing of all those involved in and affected by this occupation, and hold them as our highest priorities. In our quest to construct an ideal university, we seek a university founded upon mutual respect, democracy and accountability, and we espouse methods consistent with that quest.
I fully, whole-heartedly embrace your objectives and admire – and stand with you – in your genuine and sincere attempts to have them met. I do not, however, understand why this statement needs to be revised so as to allow for the destruction of property, particularly as, as you state, it undermines the consistency – not quite ideological, as you state; more ethical and in keeping with the non-violent protestational methods you espouse – of your mission. What, precisely, have been the changes in the situation that demand this revision? I agree that you must, naturally, adapt to changing circumstances, but this one seems as though it may encourage behavior – particularly of the misguided and ill-informed violent “revolutionary” sort – that will only hurt our objectives. Could you explain this in further depth?
[...] and remember the non-violence/no property destruction statement? Revised. Only non-violence applies. Property destruction is now OK. Oh, hey, they broke onto the balcony. [...]
Please tell me this was just for the balconies.
So, what you’re saying is that you reserve the right to change your positions on anything at any time, depending on who is jonesing for a cigarette?
Second largest reason for there being little in the way of alumni donations to the school (after an overall lack of school spirit being #1) - Who can be proud enough to donate to their alma mater when you people are giving us such a good name?
Trust fund hippies.
The issue of not being able to get out on the balcony is what prompted this, yes. That doesn’t necessarily mean we are only talking about the balcony. Don’t worry though, we’re not just senselessly breaking things - the property damage will only occur if we judge it to be a tactical/logistical necessity.
[...] mundane. The “protest” has since degenerated into a frat party, complete with needless, TBNYU-authorized property destruction and nudity (NSFW). Call me a jaded, privileged sell-out, but speaking as an [...]
Holy fucking shit you people are hypocrites. Making life better by fucking the student body at large and destroying the property that, SURPRISE, your fucking tuition dollars paid for. I hope you all get expelled.
I appreciate and applaud your serious thinking around the issues raised in your initial statement. This is not a matter of ‘ideological consistency’ or even the need for it, but about openness and constantly asking and re-asking questions of ourselves and our actions as we move forward… adelante and saludos solidarios!
Yeah, democracy means breaking shit! Fuck that system! Rage against the Kimmel Machine, you fucking unwashed animals.
Ben, mangrilla, and Pat McGroin…
There is an important, indeed crucial, distinction to be made between “ideological consistency” and “ideological ‘purity’”
TBNYU’s revising of their statement does not undermine anything (even, if they for a second questioned whether it does) nor does this signal they are hypocrites or trust fund hippies. Instead, they recognized that what they were espousing in the first statement was positing some form of claim to “ideological purity”, which they realized was problematic. Now, they have pulled back on the ‘purity’ claim, and i would say in a totally ethically consistent manner…. They opened up an opportunity to be second guessed, with their open and public questioning of themselves, and that is a good thing–transparency for the sake of open debate–but their consistency remains and should be supported and acknowledged, as they are on to something good… Let’s see how they develop this, rather than undermining them by forcing them into a fundamentalist position of ideological or ethical “purity” that you seem to yearn for. (see comment #5 on the original statement in older posts)
I for one support many of the things that this group is doing or has done during this occupation. I do not believe that a revision of their statements in any way discredits them.
I also know that some of those students pay their own tuition and expenses and are thus not even close to trust fund babies. Loans and financial aid are a must-have for many people at this school. I do not believe that TBNYU pretends to speak for everyone. It is, however, important that the University Administration understand that it needs to start listening to the voices of their students. The administration did not even consider or listen to their demands when peacefully given thus some more radical action was needed. Even if you do not believe that what they are doing now constitutes the right course of action, I think that transparency within the administration/corporation that is NYU and a place for students’ voices to be heard in more meaningful ways is needed (and JSex’s town hall meetings certainly do not accomplish that).
Critique me all you like. I stand by what they are doing and greatly appreciate the fact that they are standing up for what they believe in. They are trying to make something happen at this school. They do not sit idly by or behind their computer screens while they feel something should be done or changed.
I don’t want to start a brouhaha here, but comment 10 seems to suggest that I, along with two other people whose comments I do not agree with, want some kind of ideological or ethical “purity.” If you did in fact read my comment you may see that I said nothing of the sort; rather, I find it absolutely necessary to change tactics as the situation changes: this is what makes action based on belief specifically not ideological, and I believe that no actions based on belief should be inexorably ideological. My comment says this very explicitly. But what I wonder is why is there the sudden change in this plan? It seems that the property damage clause should stand, so as to set a boundary, but that, as comment 5 states, certain tactical and logistical necessities may demand leeway. Where and how to judge this leeway is another problem, and perhaps they should announce how this would be agreed upon. This is exciting: the protesters seem to be listening to worries that others have and generally responding in a mature way. Good luck to everyone maturely and sincerely involved.
Furthermore, I did not say that the change did inherently undermine their cause. I just said that in allowing property damage they opened a dangerous passage to the potential for actions that would undermine their cause. I do not know if any such actions have in fact occurred. Generally speaking, damage of any unnecessary sort is a blight upon an otherwise well-intentioned protest. I have seen too many good protests spoiled by bad behavior, and I do not want this one, as no other responsible people, particularly those truly dedicated to these demands, to follow these bad examples.
Adhering to the capiitalist & bourgeois idea that property is sacred will only leave/lead you to the death trap that is bourgeois capitalism.
Destroying property that is oppresive and repressive to democratiic liberatiion seems like a rational and logical course of action to be acceptable to all seeking a democratic and liberated existence.
If an action occurs with not a single part of living tissue results in, or is intended to be, harmed how is such an action violent?
Violence is what non-democratic institutions like NYU, CUNY, the New School, NYPD, US DOD, Israeli IDF and their supporters perpetuate on a daily basis. Violence is fundamental to their dominance and their existence. Abolish them as need be!
Hope to assist as capable and needed.
Peace, Love, Solidarity & Democracy for all who want it and need it
Ben, your follow-up comments above are well taken. I did read your original comment carefully, and my post (#10) was meant as a reply to the three of you, not to equate you to each other, but to be concise. I also want to make a broader intervention to the arguments throughout many posts on this blog that have been circulating so as to preempt further like comments (on the nonviolence purity note). Nonetheless, I disagree with the idea that a position that decides it is “necessary to change tactics as the situation changes: … is what makes action based on belief specifically not ideological”. the issue here is with what constitutes ideology, but let’s agree to leave that for another time as it is a broader discussion that I unfortunately do not have time for right now, nor is it immediately pertinent to the unfolding events at NYU which we both support. On the matter of opening up “a dangerous passage to the potential for actions that would undermine their cause,” this is still relevant and on this I also disagree. Comment 14 is very instructive on this point, so for now I will just add a recent example you may be familiar with. In Oakland, a young Black man, Oscar Grant, was killed by a BART transit pig on New Year’s, a killing caught on various cell phone cameras… No action on the part of BART, Oakland PD or Mayor, DA, or nat’l media for a week. DA flat out refused to meet with Black ‘leaders’ mostly mid-class, elected officials and clergy early Jan. 7. Black and Brown youth, knowing they could easily suffer the same fate, “riot” that night, over 100 eventually arrested, yet those actions got BART, Oakland PD, the Mayor, DA, and nat’l media moving, leading to the actual arrest of the now ex-officer. It did not undermine or discredit the more moderate push for justice, it complemented it (though with a long important internal battle over the “riot”/rebellion that was internally resolved: see indybay.org for this extended discussion that I won’t repeat here). A poster now circulating in Oakland shows an image of the officer behind bars with two simple words: Riots Work. The point is diversity of tactics complement each other, though obviously always with the need to be in a thoughtful and organized way…
BASTARDS. YOU DELETED ALL MY POSTS.
FUCK YOU.
TRANSFER OUT OF NYU AND NEVER COME BACK.
[...] for Take Back NYU as none of their demands were met, negotiations broke down, and they slowly began revising and updating their guiding [...]
[...] they broke out, they dropped the abstention from property damage language from their non-violence statement with this [...]