The Occupy Harvard Crimson

occupy!

Editing, Layout and Publishing by the Occupy Harvard Crimson Editorial Collective. Thanks to everyone who contributed

Over 100 Harvard Faculty Voice Support For Occupy Harvard; Yard Lockdown Widely Condemned
Cambridge, MA When Occupy Harvard set up camp on 9 November in Harvard Yard, University officials responded by placing the campus on indefinite lockdown, allowing entrance only to those with Harvard IDs. Students, faculty, and staff have joined together in condemning the lockdown, some voicing their opposition through open letters to University President Drew Faust. Additionally, more than 100 faculty have signed an online petition in support of Occupy Harvard. As a member of the Harvard community, who knows much of what is happening, the security seems unduly strict, disproportionate, unnecessary, wrote Francis Clooney, Parkman Professor of Divinity and Director of the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School. Clooney, who called Occupy Harvard a vigil of concern for justice, also stated in his letter to Faust, Those keeping Vigil are dear and welcome members of the community, some of our best, and not a security challenge. Harvard Law School Professor Duncan Kennedy also expressed his dismay at the lockdown in a letter to President Faust now widely distributed. We are, of course, honored to have the broad support of many outstanding faculty here at our school, said Fenna Krienen, a fifth-year doctoral candidate in Psychology. From the very beginning this has been a movement involving the entire Harvard community. We would like it to involve the broader community, but it appears that the university would rather extend its highly selective admittance policy to simply being on campus as well. Private security guards and Harvard University police officers even refused admittance to a Nobel Peace Prize-nominated political activist on Friday evening, 12 November. Egyptian revolutionary Ahmed Maher addressed Occupy Harvard through the locked gates of Harvard Yard. Additionally, on the morning of 18 November, Richard Wolff, Professor of Economics now teaching at UMass-Amherst, was scheduled to deliver a talk at the encampment but was denied entry into the Yard. Professor Wolff is an alum of Harvard College 63 and leads a distinguished teaching career. However, those credentials did not appear to be enough to admit him onto the campus. I knew it was hard to get into Harvard, concluded Krienen, but I never knew they would make it so hard to get in to Harvard Yard. A petition in support of Occupy Harvard has circulated through campus networks, amassing over 650 signatures, including 110 faculty signatures as of this writing. Faculty signers include Peter Ellison, Professor of Anthropology and former Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences (2000-2005); Mary Steedly, Professor of Anthropology and Director of Undergraduate Studies; Archon Fung, Ford Foundation Professor of Democracy and Citizenship at the Kennedy School of Government; Alice Jardine, Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures and of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality; and Stephen Marglin, Walter S. Barker Chair in Economics.

Music professor Richard Thomas wrote, I applaud the seriousness and commitment of the students. I hope this will lead to broader discussion of economic injustice, the greed of Wall Street, and Harvards relationship with such. As a former economics department faculty member, wrote Juliet Schor, I lived through both the Ec 10 controversies and the Living Wage fight. Occupy Harvard is something I strongly support because without movements like this, justice is never achieved. Harvard University needs to become a democratic, transparent, fair, morally accountable institution. Occupy Harvard can help achieve some of those goals. Psychology professor Ken Nakayama added, I strongly support the worldwide Occupy movement for social and economic justice and applaud Occupy Harvards participation in this.

Occupy Harvard Calls for Harvard to Halt Reinvestment in HEI Hotels and Resorts
Cambridge, MA At their General Assembly this week, Occupy Harvard made it clear that they continue to stand for real change at the university by calling for a halt tofuture investments in HEI Hotels and Resorts, a hotel management company with a history of unethical labor practices. Students at Harvard have been pressing the university to halt investment in HEI Hotels and Resorts for more than three years, said William Whitham, a sophomore at Harvard College and participant in Occupy Harvard, as well as the Student Labor Action Movement. Harvard is a major investor in HEI, and these workers lives cant wait. As difficult as it may be for Harvard to follow the lead of another Ivy, we need to look to Brown University as a model and stop investing in HEI. Last I checked, their endowment was still just fine even without adding more HEI to their portfolio. (Brown University declared last February that it would halt future investments in HEI due to ethical questions about labor practices.) Mildred Velasquez, a housekeeper at the W Hollywood, declared that working here is no better than working at a sweatshop. These universities give HEI millions of dollars. They are the real owners of this hotel. They are responsible for our working conditions. On October 28, 2011, workers at the HEI-owned W Hollywood walked off the job to protest not being able to take breaks. Although California state law allows workers two 10-minute paid rest breaks and one 30-minute paid rest break in an eight-hour shift, workers say that increased workloads, short-staffing and insufficient time prevent them from taking breaks. On October 2, the California State Labor Commission found the Embassy Suites in Irvine guilty of denying rest breaks to hotel workers and has ordered the hotel pay $36,000 to workers. The Embassy Suites is managed by an HEI subsidiary. Harvard College senior Karen Narefsky says, I am occupying Harvard because I want Harvard to be a university that works towards the interests of the 99%. Halting investments in HEI is the next step to Harvard acting in an ethical and socially responsible way.
a journal by Occupy Harvard / occupy.harvard@gmail.com / @occupy_harvard / occupyharvard.net 2

Occupy Production
by Richard Wolff, Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School.

As the Occupy movement keeps developing, it seeks solutions for the economic and political dysfunctions it exposes and opposes. For many, the capitalist economic system itself is the basic problem. They want change to another system, but not to the traditional socialist alternative (eg., USSR or China). That system too seems to require basic change. The common solution these activists propose is to change both systems production arrangements from the ground up. Every enterprise should be democratized. Workers should occupy their enterprise by collectively functioning as its board of directors. That would abolish the capitalist exploitative system (employer versus employee) much as our historical predecessors abolished the parallel exploitative systems of slavery (master versus slave) and feudalism (lord versus serf). In workers self-directed enterprises, those who do the work also design and direct it and dispose of its profits: no exploitation of workers by others. Workers participate equally in making all enterprise decisions. The old capitalist elite the major corporate shareholders and the boards of directors they choose would no longer decide what, how and where to produce and how to use enterprise profits. Instead, workers in partnership with residential communities interdependent with their enterprises would make all those decisions democratically. Only then could we avoid repeating yet again the capitalist cycle: (1) economic boom bursting into crisis, followed by (2) mass movements for social welfare reforms and economic regulations, followed by (3) capitalists using their profits to undo achieved reforms and regulations, followed by (1) again, the next capitalist boom, bust and crisis. US capitalism since the crash of 1929 displays this 3-step cycle. In democratized enterprises, the workers who most need and benefit from reforms would dispose of the profits of enterprise. No separate class of employers would exist and use enterprise profits to undo the reforms and regulations workers achieved. Quite the contrary, self-directing workers would pay taxes only if the state secures those reforms and regulations. Democratized enterprises would not permit the inequalities of income and wealth (and therefore of power and cultural access) now typical across the capitalist world Actually existing socialist systems, past and present, also need enterprise democratization. Those systems socialization of productive property plus central planning (versus capitalisms private property and markets) left far too much unbalanced power centralized in the state. In addition, reforms (guaranteed employment and basic welfare, far less inequality of income and wealth, etc.) won by socialist revolutions proved insecure. Private enterprises and markets eventually returned and erased many of those reforms. Traditional socialisms problems flow also from its undemocratic organization of production. Workers in socialized state enterprises were not self-directed; they did not collectively decide what, how and where to produce nor what to do with the profits. Instead, state officials decided what, how, and where to produce and how to dispose of profits. If socialist enterprises were democratized, the state would then depend for its revenue on collectively self-directed workers. That would institutionalize real, concrete democratic

control from below to balance state power from above. Workers self-directed enterprises are a solution grounded in the histories of both capitalism and socialism. Establishing workers self-directed enterprises completes what past democratic revolutions began in moving societies beyond monarchies and autocracies. Democratizing production can finally take democracy beyond being merely an electoral ritual that facilitates rule by the 1% over the 99%.

Why Occupy Harvard?

by Sage Radachowsky, research technician in the department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, and a carpenter.

If you see someone drowning, and there is a life preserver that you could throw them right at your feet, and you do nothing, that is depraved and negligent, and can be prosecuted as a crime. I feel strongly that Harvard has the ability and the duty to take on a social critique and consciousness to make this world a better place, and that not doing so is a disservice both to Harvard and to the world at large. I dont think that one needs to be actively causing harm to another person, in order to be doing something wrong. Sometimes not doing the right thing is akin to doing the wrong thing. Therefore, I think that Harvard could benefit by having a mature and enlightened dialogue with Occupy Harvard. Perhaps a new spirit of social consciousness can flower from this institution of higher learning, where everyone likes to feel smart. Perhaps some heart can be joined with the mind. I am not a Harvard student. I went to a state school. I work at Harvard as a research technician. I currently live at Occupy Boston, because I believe in the message and the form of this movement. Occupy Boston and Occupy Harvard could not be more different, but I very much applaud the people who established Occupy Harvard. The meaning of having this protest at Harvard is kaleidoscopic. I applaud those who have the privileged position of attending Harvard -- some on family money and some on financial aid, I am sure -- and yet can still see the inequality in the world. Those who attend Harvard and think everything is right with the world need to have their eyes opened. I am glad that a small contingent of students have the vision and the guts to attempt that mission. I heard about the 375th anniversary celebrations, which surely ruined a bit of Harvard Yards grass, and the 5,000-serving cake. There could be no more fitting image than this for the attitude of let them eat cake currently prevalent at Harvard. Living within a bubble of privilege causes a sort of class blindness. Of course, Harvard students and faculty are by and large a wonderful group of people, from many backgrounds, but we do live in a bubble. I come from a poor background: both of my parents were janitors and I struggled all my life to pay the bills, working as dishwasher, roofer, day laborer, until I made some progress in a career path. Im still not
a journal by Occupy Harvard / occupy.harvard@gmail.com / @occupy_harvard / occupyharvard.net 4

well off. From this perspective, I can see a class dynamic in the culture of Harvard. I can see a blithe blindness in what is not talked about, in a lack of real visceral drive to solve certain problems urgently, in a trust in knowledge and a etishization of smartness. The institution itself also serves multiple functions in this society. It is an elite knowledgemaking institution. I call it the great explainer -- it creates the stories that justify the status quo, while appearing to be critical most of the time. The criticality is usually limited to safe boundaries, so that it appears that there is dissent, but that dissent is bounded to easily-met or easily-explained borders. Enough to occupy the discourse, but not enough to change things fundamentally. This is the natural outcome of the rich and deep association of the dominant economic class building an institution over the course of centuries, one that embodies their culture, their vision, their interests, and their class consciousness. I applaud the students who occupy Harvard, and hope they remain strong and steadfast through the Winter, as Occupy Boston will do.

Consensus Looking Forward

by Philip Cartelli, graduate student in Social Anthropology, member of Occupy Harvard Facilitation Working Group

A couple of months ago, I showed up to the first planning General Assembly for Occupy Boston and was both surprised and gratified to see people voting by consensus. Consensus is a form of decision-making that has acquired the reputation for being less hierarchical, less oppressive and more conducive to unity and participation than other forms of voting. I remembered it well from prior experience, but was astounded to see consensus being adopted by so many people on such a large scale with relatively widespread enthusiasm for what can frequently be a lengthy process not easily embraced for use by large amorphous groups. However, as with all proposals that radically differ from our lived experience, consensus-based decision-making has not enjoyed universal support among participants at every Occupy: A friend told me of one evening at an Occupy Boston General Assembly when a group of participants decided to effectively block that evenings entire process because they felt marginalized by it. Such reactions are normal and should be addressed when they are manifested (in the case of Occupy Boston there was a breakout discussion which resolved most major issues), but those involved in Occupy need to be more engaged in general with describing the actual structure of consensus process, both its benefits and its pitfalls, especially if we are interested in building support and collaborations outside our own new communities. Consensus as an accepted process in US activist groups does not have a long history, which is one reason why many veterans of the civil rights, anti-war and student movements of the 1960s do not remember it as having a significant role during that moment. Following the perceived downturn of those movements, some involved essentially dropped out of mainstream society, creating their own local networks of participatory and communal living. Others attempted to combine this kind of prefigurative politics with activist engagement, notably in the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s. One such

network was Movement for a New Society (MNS), created in 1971 out of pre-existing non-violent organization A Quaker Action Group (AQAG). AQAG proposed a secularized version of the consensus form used in meetings of the Society of Friends, designed to promote unity and mutual respect. In their conscious identification with feminism and anti-oppression in general, MNS members seemed an ideal group to adopt such a process for interpersonal engagement, discussion and decision-making. However, as some MNS members have noted since and as some participants in Occupy are currently observing, consensus process is occasionally regarded with a kind of dogmatic fervor by its most ardent supporters, a side effect of its use that emphasizes process to the possible exclusion of action-oriented progress. It needs to be stressed that Occupy is new; the most recent Occupation may be no more than a few days old when this appears in print. One of consensus most valuable contributions to this movement has been its emphasis on welcoming a diversity of opinions and origins. But there may be a moment when it would be constructive for groups to consider moving beyond a rigorous form of consensus to one that is more conducive to the active movement-building that is desired by many involved in Occupy and some observers/supporters who have yet to participate. This is not a suggestion that we advocate the alienation and ineffectual representation of contemporary US politics, but that we seriously consider the role of some degree of empowerment associated with a necessary accountability (something along the lines of the spokes council now making some decisions on behalf of the Occupy Wall Street General Assembly, a model which has been used in similar networks), while not neglecting what has made consensus process integral thus far, namely its emphases on trust, participation and respect.

Occupying Together at Harvard

by Umang Kumar, Masters student at the Divinity School.

Just when the death knell of the student movement had been sounded once again in this country -what with the Obama-election euphoria seeming to have petered out- and the faith in peoples action ebbing (Where is the rage?, one would hear), the Occupy movement spread like wildfire across the country. And once again the student imagination seems to have been reignited. It is in this context that Occupy Harvard can be viewed, as a nascent cross-campus movement spearheaded by students that is engaging with the pressing issues of the day. Before the Occupies happened, student activism at Harvard was defined by specific issues and generally limited to certain groups which vigorously campaigned on behalf of them. Significant among those was the Student Labor Action Movement, which fought for the rights of people like the dining and custodial staff on campus. However, any larger, pan-Harvard student activism was mostly absent and all the various units of Harvard remained their own islands. One could almost despair of finding broad and action-based engagements with critical issues like economic inequality here on campus. Often one had to venture outside the confines of the campus to explore the many struggles for justice being carried on in the Boston area. It was in those disparate and
a journal by Occupy Harvard / occupy.harvard@gmail.com / @occupy_harvard / occupyharvard.net 6

often far-flung spaces that one could come face-to-face with the various issues of social justice and human rights that were being taken on by different activist groups -- from immigration battles to concerns over new forms of socialism in Latin America to the battle to secure labor rights. With Occupy Harvard several of those concerns have come home to Harvard -- and the conversation that has flared up has spread over the entire campus. In one fell swoop people from all across Harvard have been drawn into the issues that Occupy Harvard is trying to put forward, either on its own or in solidarity with other Occupy movements across the country. There is space and occasion for a conversation that has rarely existed within classrooms and it is happening amongst the various members of the Harvard community. Occupy Harvard is the coming together of a variety of concerns, ideologies and convictions, all of which are centered around a shared feeling that something is awry with the economic and social landscape today and something needs to be done; that the current institutions and structures have proven incapable of resolving the issues that face us, whether they be of economic inequality or environmental degradation. There is a feeling that newer ways of thinking and organizing are needed. This is where Occupy Harvard comes in, to use the resources and skills of the Harvard community to give rise to a conversation, to think together and act together by occupying together.

On Smelly Hippies and Weird Chants

Sierra E. Fleenor, Master of Theological Studies Candidate at Harvard Divinity SchoolHarvard Divinity School, Master of Theological Studies Candidate

I wasnt immediately drawn to Occupy Wall Street. Or Occupy Boston. Or Occupy Harvard. Or Occupy anywhere or anything. I didnt understand why people were occupying or how this movement might be different from any number of protests in which Id been involved. What could my place possibly be among these people who thought they knew how to fix the world? How could I add to this discourse of change of which I was so unsure? Who were these angry protesters with strange signs and weird chants? I didnt have answers. I wasnt even quite sure which questions to settle on. I mean, I study religion and film. If anything, Im an artist and a creative writer. What place do I have in this revolution if it were to become one? In the past few months, as new occupations have sprung up from coast to coast and as brutal force has been used to suppress this movement (or rather, these movements), I have come to see exactly where I belong. As Ive seen in marches or down at Dewey Square I belong somewhere between the homeless man who has no where else to sleep, the anarchist who wants to take down the fed, and the facilitation teams who keep emphasizing the use of the Peoples Mic. Being part of this movement means to some degree holding all the messages together and listening carefully to the concerns of each person. It does not mean taking wholesale or without careful thought the concerns of my comrades. While I take seriously

the call to action I hear from the Union workers, fellow students, the unemployed, the bankrupt, the police officers having their pensions cut, I do not attempt to make of these numerous complaints a single message, knowing that this may be the single largest and most on point critique of Occupy. Maybe you dont see yourself as part of this. Maybe you dont identify with the smelly hippies in the tents. Maybe it feels like a threat when you hear us chanting We are the 99% (but dont forget my favorite part of the chant, the sweet answer to that call: So are you!). Being the 99% is not simply about your economic standing, though that is an important part. It is about how you use that standing. We are all born with power and privilege and what defines us is how we live into that lineage. I, for one, plan on being a part of this movement for as long as the pulse of our generation demands it. I dont know how things will shake out in the long run. I dont know who will write the history of this moment, but I believe I will look back and be proud of my peers and myself for imagining another existence. In the end its those quirky chants that stay with me, repeating back to me the conviction that has guided me thus far: We are unstoppable. Another world is possible.

Toward a new social contract in higher education

by Wayne M. Langley, SEIU Local 615

The idea of young people going off to a college or university holds an iconic place in American popular and political culture. Universal public education has been, until recently, a cornerstone of our democratic philosophy. We believe that regardless of our origins we, as individuals, can secure a better life through education and also that we, as a nation, will secure a better civic society through universal education. It was not always so. Access to higher education was largely class-based until after WWII, when millions of demobilized soldiers went to college on the GI bill. Suddenly, going to college was expected, at least for the children of the emerging middle class. The public solidly supported using taxes, tax breaks, and subsidies to fund public and private colleges and universities because they were affordable and accessible. Times have changed. Broad access to higher education is withering as skyrocketing tuition once again makes higher education a class-based privilege. This trend breeds resentment in the general population whose tax dollars fund nonprofit institutions of higher education. Over the last thirty years, the old social contract that emphasized the public good has been replaced with a neo-liberal, market-oriented private-benefit model of higher learning. The private-benefit model stresses that the individual student, not society, primarily benefits from advanced education therefore the individual, not the public, should bear the lions share of the cost. This model redirects tax dollars from the public good to private gain, engendering the pursuit of ever-greater profits by charitable institutions, the privatization of knowledge, and a perfidious intertwining of corporations interests with those of the schools. It has

a journal by Occupy Harvard / occupy.harvard@gmail.com / @occupy_harvard / occupyharvard.net

led to runaway tuition and unsustainable student debt. It has led to a shift of resources from teaching and toward a construction arms race between institutions; increasingly excessive compensation for senior administrators while downsizing staff; conflicts of interest by boards and trustees; and a loss of power for faculty, students, and workers. Endowment-based schools have switched from moderate, long-view investments to speculative and destructive investments. Schools regularly invest in corporations that bust unions, destroy the environment, and exploit people around the globe. In 2008, these risky investments led to cutbacks, lay-offs, wage freezes, and speed-up among staff, with resultant harmful impacts on the schools host towns as well as on students education. All of this is bad for our country and bad for the survival of the institutions themselves. The nonprofit model depends on the good will of the public. Since high costs are increasingly shutting our children out of higher education, why should we continue to fund the tax breaks, direct earmarks, subsidies, student loans, research money, etc., that all higher education, public, private, and for-profit, relies on? The time has come to fight for a new social contract between Americans and their institutions of higher education. It is time to win back support for a publicly funded, accessible, and outstanding educational system. This new social contract would require at least four interrelated parts: Core principles: such as financial transparency, environmental sustainability, ethical investments, diversity, respect for labor, and academic freedom. Power sharing: a deliberative body of stakeholders including students, parents, alumni, faculty, staff, community, and even administrators who supervise the public investment made to these institutions. Monitoring mechanisms: to annually evaluate and grade institutions on adherence to the principles. Something like the US World and News scale, but more meaningful. Carrots and Sticks: a school run like a Fortune 500 company that acts as a R&D shop for corporations and uses students as customers and faculty and staff as temporary labor pools should not be funded by our taxes. If a school makes a best effort to adhere to its principles, it receives more public money. The blueprint of a social contract and each of the points above already exists but are disconnected from each other. All that is needed is for them to be complied and launched. We are only missing the leadership, the courage, and the political movement to act boldly and to rescue higher education as a foundation of the American dream.

A View from Zuccotti: The Personal is Political

by Rachel Sandalow-Ash, a freshman at Harvard College

Black Friday, 3:00 PM. Zucotti Park, dwarfed by the surrounding skyscrapers, is smaller than I expected. Police surround the park, now stripped of tents. Although it is a holiday, Zucotti teems with life. People hold vigils, sing and play the guitar, display signs, and sell buttons. Above all, they talk. There is a formal discussion, with real microphones, in the center of the park, as well as countless informal conversations. People of all ages and backgrounds strangers, really discuss their own personal stories and reasons for participating in the movement. They also discuss philosophical issues, policy suggestions, and the movements next steps. As they talk, they forge friendships and connections, and build solidarity. A march comes by. Several hundred occupiers fill the sidewalks, as part of Women Raise our Voices: Boycott Black Friday, March instead of Shop!!! The march connects physical and sexual violence against women to the structural violence against women furthered by powerful corporate interests. Such structural violence includes hiring and wage discrimination, degrading portrayals of women in the media, and disregard for the health of women and children around the world. There are many connections between the feminist movement and the Occupy movement. One connection that especially stands out is the emphasis on consciousnessraising. In the 1960s and 70s, consciousness-raising groups brought women together to discuss personal issues such as sex, family planning, marital relations and abuse, and the role of homemaker. Through these conversations, women realized that their personal problems were widespread as well as indicative of systemic, political problems. Deviation from or unhappiness with the culturally prescribed role of the ideal woman, was not a sign of individual failure; it was a sign of the failure of traditional gender roles. Through consciousness-raising, women became energized to fight for their political and economic rights and for a more just and egalitarian society. Occupy Wall Street and the Occupy movements everywhere are raising consciousness about class in much the same way that the feminist movement raised consciousness about gender and sex. American culture is heavily steeped in the myth of meritocracy. When people with financial difficulties believe that success is the direct result of hard work, they feel ashamed, for they assume that their troubles are due to laziness and personal failures. Ashamed people tend to hide their shame or else hope that one day they will be rich; they tend not to engage in political activism. In this context, Occupy brings people together to discuss common economic concerns. Through these discussions, people come to understand the structural and political roots of their personal hardships, and they commit themselves to advocacy and political action. There are many important policies that may emerge from Occupy: for instance, a green jobs program, limits on corporate money in elections, expanded public spending on education and social services, or higher taxes on the wealthiest individuals. The concrete results of the movement remain to be seen. But OWS and other Occupies have remained strong and inspiring despite police brutality and forced evictions. This shows that ideas cannot be destroyed, and that once peoples consciousness is raised, it is hard to sink back into complacency.

a journal by Occupy Harvard / occupy.harvard@gmail.com / @occupy_harvard / occupyharvard.net

10

 Universities no longer train students to think critically,

to examine and critique systems of power and cultural and political assumptions, to ask the broad questions of meaning and morality once sustained by the humanities. These institutions have transformed themselves into vocational schools. They have become breeding grounds for systems managers trained to serve the corporate state. In a Faustian bargain with corporate power, many of these universities have swelled their endowments and the budgets of many of their departments with billions in corporate and government dollars. College presidents, paid enormous salaries as if they were the heads of corporations, are judged almost solely on their ability to raise money. In return, these universities, like the media and religious institutions, not only remain silent about corporate power but also condemn as political all within their walls who question corporate malfeasance and the excesses of unfettered capitalism.

Chris Hedges

Occupy Harvard General Assemblies are held Mondays and Thursdays at 6pm between Johnston Gate and Harvard Yard