Random
occupation of New School flagship building continues!
This isn’t strictly literary, but I thought people would be interested to hear that the New School occupation is now into its 20-somethingth hour and as near as I can tell, going strong. After reading some snarks about the protesters on Gawker this afternoon, I decided to stop what I was doing, head into Manhattan and check things out for myself. I did my MFA at New School (see? not totally irrelevant to literature!) and so was able to get into the building. They have a list of demands, which you can read on their frequently-updated website, but the top item on the list is the removal of president Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic governor of and senator from Nebraska.
Everyone at New School–teachers and students alike–has basically known Bob Kerrey is a joke, at least as far back as my starting the MFA program (Fall 2005). After he brought both John McCain and Newt Gingrich to speak at the school, it became clear what his real agenda was: collect a big fat fucking paycheck while using the school to set the stage for his next political campaign. Thanks but no thanks you center-right impostor. Good riddance to neo-liberal rubbish. The sooner the better.
I sat and listened to the direct democracy at work for about an hour and snapped some pictures from the center of the occupation, which you’ll find after the jump.
(If you’re wondering- I identified myself to the guys at the press table and they said it was OK if I posted what I had shot, without asking to see it first. There were about a dozen people shooting video and taking photos–including several of me–and nobody was masked up, so I don’t think the protesters are trying to stay anonymous, but I didn’t ask for any of the names of people in the pics.)
This is the first thing you see when you enter the building at 65 5th Avenue. "No confidence" refers to a senior faculty vote of--wait for it--NO CONFIDENCE in Kerrey on December 10th of this year. His failure to resign in the wake of said vote seems to be a large part of what set this protest off.
Motions on the floor! Direct democracy is as important as it is tedious, though to the credit of the kid standing on a chair on the left side of the frame, he was a pleasure to listen to. The guy in the blue tee shirt and what might or might not have been a keffiyah was the facilitator. He was good too. Everyone was good, really. Go team!
I told them they'd have an easier time getting taken seriously if they took the anarchist flag down. Personally, I love The Red and Black rather dearly, I just seldom think it's worth the public relations trouble. There are lots of things I love that I wouldn't put up on a wall. But hey, these guys were written up in the New York Times today and I wasn't, so what the fuck do I know?
Tags: bob kerrey, new school in exile
wow. i had no idea this was going on. newt gingrich? How much butthash are you huffing to bring him in?
i am confused? was this guy elected as the president of the school? or was he hired?
if it is the latter, some new idiot will replace the old. the guy was hired for a reason.
good investigative journalism justin. taking action and shit.
i am confused? was this guy elected as the president of the school? or was he hired?
if it is the latter, some new idiot will replace the old. the guy was hired for a reason.
good investigative journalism justin. taking action and shit.
I didn’t know about this. Thanks, Justin.
I didn’t know about this. Thanks, Justin.
mmmmmmmmmmm butt hash
mmmmmmmmmmm butt hash
Butt hash is my favorite thing in my mind that is “knowledge”. If human beings- wait- children- will actually ferment their own shit with piss to get high as a kite- does that not say everything we need to know about being human? I think it does. Butt hash is my philosophy.
BARRYYYY!!!!- I am getting on a plane tomorrow, but not til later in the day. But while I am gone, I am hoping to do a very pretentious “letter from austria” –like, you know, a public space?? and the hudson review??–except it might not be pretentious. Who fucking knows.
prbg
pr:
have a good flight. last time i was on a pane i thought i was gonna die. i started sweating and blacking out, like you feel like when you try to sell your plasma on an empty stomach.
have a good time.
bgpr
pr:
have a good flight. last time i was on a pane i thought i was gonna die. i started sweating and blacking out, like you feel like when you try to sell your plasma on an empty stomach.
have a good time.
bgpr
i’m not getting on a panel- i’m visiting my mother who has dementia (multiple strokes) and my father who is bipolar. i just shared too much. but- i understand the sweats and shit when you have to stand up in front of other people and say ” here’s some shit i an going to say.” i used to carry a paper bag. now i -drink? or really, i am rarely in that position. what panel did you do? you! YOU! Barry. tell me.
but i am avoiding packing. don’t leave me yet, bg.
prbg
oh shit. you said, getting on a plane! I’m high. Yes, I am getting on a plane. I do it a lot. i hate it, but I do it so much it doesn’t bother me so much. Wanna hear something wierd? I only get anxiety attacks on planes when I fly w/o my kids. WHY? Oh, we all die together, that is better? No sense. But to hold their hands- I don’t freak out as much. They are my comfort, they are my everything.
pr:
yeah meant plane, not panel, sorry i left out the L.
hey if you havent left yet, email me, i have to ask you something.
pr:
yeah meant plane, not panel, sorry i left out the L.
hey if you havent left yet, email me, i have to ask you something.
jereme’s a bad ass.
jereme’s a bad ass.
“academic freedom and scholarship free of oppressive political regimes” from the NS protest website.
. . . so inviting prominent, powerful politicians who represent conservative views to speak goes against academic freedom and scholarship free of political regimes?
isn’t that the definition of academic freedom? granting space to dissenting voices?
“academic freedom and scholarship free of oppressive political regimes” from the NS protest website.
. . . so inviting prominent, powerful politicians who represent conservative views to speak goes against academic freedom and scholarship free of political regimes?
isn’t that the definition of academic freedom? granting space to dissenting voices?
gazpromdate- No, that’s not the definition, and your premise is disingenuous.
It’s one thing to be a dissenting voice. It’s another thing to be either McCain or Gingrich.
(1) a presidential candidate using a graduation speech as a platform for your campaigning, as McCain did when he gave the **same** exact speech at Bob Jones U and then at New School, then he spent the next month telling the press how he was a “straight-talker” because of that. And he gave that speech at New School’s commencement no less. it was incredibly offensive. it was met with metered protests at the time, and those people were called names from the podium. they’re lucky those kids didn’t tear down the fucking stage and trample Old Fork-Tongue.
And (2) Gingrich, a man who should never be paid for anything ever. Or listened to at all. It’s not about his position, it’s about the fact that he’s a hateful scumdick who resigned from Congress in disgrace. He’s not a credible voice in any meaningful sense of that word. In a country where honor meant anything, he’d have killed himself a decade ago.
gazpromdate- No, that’s not the definition, and your premise is disingenuous.
It’s one thing to be a dissenting voice. It’s another thing to be either McCain or Gingrich.
(1) a presidential candidate using a graduation speech as a platform for your campaigning, as McCain did when he gave the **same** exact speech at Bob Jones U and then at New School, then he spent the next month telling the press how he was a “straight-talker” because of that. And he gave that speech at New School’s commencement no less. it was incredibly offensive. it was met with metered protests at the time, and those people were called names from the podium. they’re lucky those kids didn’t tear down the fucking stage and trample Old Fork-Tongue.
And (2) Gingrich, a man who should never be paid for anything ever. Or listened to at all. It’s not about his position, it’s about the fact that he’s a hateful scumdick who resigned from Congress in disgrace. He’s not a credible voice in any meaningful sense of that word. In a country where honor meant anything, he’d have killed himself a decade ago.
barry,
i’m the meanest goliath you’ve met thus far
i am such an internet tough guy
watch out
barry,
i’m the meanest goliath you’ve met thus far
i am such an internet tough guy
watch out
JUSTIN:
justin, my man. with all due respect, i think you have newt pegged all wrong. in the mid 90’s gingrich was a force. his views may have been conservative, but maybe if more of the legislation had went his way we wouldnt be up shit creek now, fiscally, due to the blatant irresponsibility and recklessness of the clinton administration’s economic policies.
he had the power and the persone to help the republicans win a house majority and maintain it through the presidency of a very popular democrat. i think you are confusing your own political views with newt’s effectiveness, his force as a legislator.
and as far as him leaving disgracefully. be 97 his power as speaker was becoming unbearable to the president. so the democrats went on an expedition, led by house minroty leader bob michel. ethics violations?? pfff. those accusations coming from 90’s democrats… really? there isnt a politician then or now who would pass an in depth ethics investigation.
next to bill clinton, newt was the most dominant politic figure of the last decade.
JUSTIN:
justin, my man. with all due respect, i think you have newt pegged all wrong. in the mid 90’s gingrich was a force. his views may have been conservative, but maybe if more of the legislation had went his way we wouldnt be up shit creek now, fiscally, due to the blatant irresponsibility and recklessness of the clinton administration’s economic policies.
he had the power and the persone to help the republicans win a house majority and maintain it through the presidency of a very popular democrat. i think you are confusing your own political views with newt’s effectiveness, his force as a legislator.
and as far as him leaving disgracefully. be 97 his power as speaker was becoming unbearable to the president. so the democrats went on an expedition, led by house minroty leader bob michel. ethics violations?? pfff. those accusations coming from 90’s democrats… really? there isnt a politician then or now who would pass an in depth ethics investigation.
next to bill clinton, newt was the most dominant politic figure of the last decade.
Well, I disagree with basically everything you said, except for the part about Clinton. Kerrey is cut from that same neo-liberal jib. No surprise that Kerrey supported Clinton’s run for Pres, no doubt hoping to get cabinet-posted back into public life or some such. You can keep the Clintons, far as I’m concerned, and the rest of the Democratic party too. We’ll see what happens starting in a few weeks, but the Dems’ role in all recent politics has been to play Washington Generals to the Republicans’ Harlem Globe Trotters.
This country’s problem is that it has no left wing. You get moderate Republicans at best, and fire-and-brimstone the rest of the time.
Anyway, choice of guest speakers is NOT what the New School protests were about. That was just my bitchy two cents.
But since we’re on the subject: Washington Post, 1/22/97 >>Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.<<
And the vote was 395 to 28. Not exactly a partisan witch hunt.
Like I said: scumdick. You can add to that: LIAR.
Well, I disagree with basically everything you said, except for the part about Clinton. Kerrey is cut from that same neo-liberal jib. No surprise that Kerrey supported Clinton’s run for Pres, no doubt hoping to get cabinet-posted back into public life or some such. You can keep the Clintons, far as I’m concerned, and the rest of the Democratic party too. We’ll see what happens starting in a few weeks, but the Dems’ role in all recent politics has been to play Washington Generals to the Republicans’ Harlem Globe Trotters.
This country’s problem is that it has no left wing. You get moderate Republicans at best, and fire-and-brimstone the rest of the time.
Anyway, choice of guest speakers is NOT what the New School protests were about. That was just my bitchy two cents.
But since we’re on the subject: Washington Post, 1/22/97 >>Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.<<
And the vote was 395 to 28. Not exactly a partisan witch hunt.
Like I said: scumdick. You can add to that: LIAR.
justin is funny.
i guess there are politicians who aren’t scumdick liars doing everything they can to stay in political power?
there are no altruistic goals.
justin is funny.
i guess there are politicians who aren’t scumdick liars doing everything they can to stay in political power?
there are no altruistic goals.
disingenuous? you don’t even know me.
disingenuous? you don’t even know me.
clearly, gaz- that was the impression you made on him from your post. he could be wrong!
i’m wrong often.
also, i think jimmy carter had and has a heart of gold.
. . . and you never answered my question about academic freedom . . .
I actually don’t want an answer to this, seeing what I got before, but i’d think that in the context of the new school (left-leaning institution) that a conservative voice would fall within the definition of a dissenting voice.
here’s “dissent” as a verb, if you like: hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed.
i think you helped illustrate my point rather well in your first response to my post, too. instead of giving me a reasoned response you first said i was being disingenuous (that’s impossible for you to know, and condescending for you to imply) then wrote two paragraphs that were similarly dismissive and emotional (i.e.). i was just looking for a discussion. maybe you need to relax a bit.
. . . and you never answered my question about academic freedom . . .
I actually don’t want an answer to this, seeing what I got before, but i’d think that in the context of the new school (left-leaning institution) that a conservative voice would fall within the definition of a dissenting voice.
here’s “dissent” as a verb, if you like: hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed.
i think you helped illustrate my point rather well in your first response to my post, too. instead of giving me a reasoned response you first said i was being disingenuous (that’s impossible for you to know, and condescending for you to imply) then wrote two paragraphs that were similarly dismissive and emotional (i.e.). i was just looking for a discussion. maybe you need to relax a bit.
pr,
wow, i think you picked the one politician you might actually get me to believe (a little) actually wanted to do good and not stay in power.
MAYBE THOUGH.
Ron Paul being a close second.
pr,
wow, i think you picked the one politician you might actually get me to believe (a little) actually wanted to do good and not stay in power.
MAYBE THOUGH.
Ron Paul being a close second.
also, i wanted to say that i’m happy that the students were successful. i tend to think abstractly and so just wanted to discuss academic freedom really, without insulting the students’ aims, which I think are interesting in a good way.
also, i wanted to say that i’m happy that the students were successful. i tend to think abstractly and so just wanted to discuss academic freedom really, without insulting the students’ aims, which I think are interesting in a good way.
“Well, I disagree with basically everything you said,”
you disagree with the fact that during the 90’s the repubican party held the house majority in spite of a popular dem as president?
you disagree with the fact that as speaker of the house and most recognizeable member of the republican party, newt was the party’s leader?
you disagree with clinton’s fiscal, ethical, and moral irresponsibility?
you disagree that no politician is exactly a champion of ethics?
“Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules”
to me admitting that you broke the rules is in itself semi-honorable. i cant count the number of douchebag politicians who, being put in that same situation, would not have admitted to any wrong doing.
im not saying i agree with his politics, or that i even like the guy, or any thing he stands for politically. all im saying is he was a strong political voice of the 90’s and whther people agree with his ideals or not, certainly bringing him in as a speaker is justifiable.
scumdick… yes
liar… yes
undeniable political force…. absolutely
“Well, I disagree with basically everything you said,”
you disagree with the fact that during the 90’s the repubican party held the house majority in spite of a popular dem as president?
you disagree with the fact that as speaker of the house and most recognizeable member of the republican party, newt was the party’s leader?
you disagree with clinton’s fiscal, ethical, and moral irresponsibility?
you disagree that no politician is exactly a champion of ethics?
“Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules”
to me admitting that you broke the rules is in itself semi-honorable. i cant count the number of douchebag politicians who, being put in that same situation, would not have admitted to any wrong doing.
im not saying i agree with his politics, or that i even like the guy, or any thing he stands for politically. all im saying is he was a strong political voice of the 90’s and whther people agree with his ideals or not, certainly bringing him in as a speaker is justifiable.
scumdick… yes
liar… yes
undeniable political force…. absolutely
gaz- I was feeling ornery last night, as well as drunk. i stand by everything i wrote, but no, i didn’t address your question about academic freedom.
The question is–who’s freedom? and the freedom to do what? I didn’t say you were disingenuous, but the premise of your question is–perhaps by design, perhaps not.
When a university takes student money and then uses that money to compensate somebody who comes to the school to give what basically amounts to a stump speech, and there is no dissenting voice heard, and no questions are taken, and no dissent is brooked, how is that freedom? It seems like freedom’s opposite to me. We’re not talking about “the marketplace of ideas” here, and when both of my examples (McCain, Gingrich) are people who have ready access to a national and global microphone, any notion of their viewpoint being “suppressed” or “censored” is ridiculous on its face.
The school itself, as I said before, is being used as a backdrop for a particular politician’s own set of goals, because another politician (the one running your school) either shares those goals or else feels like they have some sort of quid pro quo thing going. And the students are supposed to sit quietly and nod, and not hold up any signs that will ruin the photos.
Academic freedom would mean something more like the student body having an active role in the selection of speakers to be invited to the school–to their own commencement address, at the very least, if not to all events that the school hosts. It might also at the very bare minimum involve some sort of final approval and/or recall-referendum process, perhaps by democratic vote, on choices which turn out to be incendiary. I’m all for open dialogue, dissent, etc etc. This isn’t a large abstract argument, or it doesn’t have to be. All I said was this: both those men spoke at the school while I was a student there. I didn’t see either one speak, but I would have just as soon spit on either as listened to him. It disgusts me to think that even a dollar of my tuition is in either of their pockets (Gingrich, at the least; probably McCain was not paid to give the commencement address). And Bob Kerrey, being directly responsible for both of these particular invitations, lost whatever bit of my respect he ever had. The rest of it is just icing on the shit-cake.
gaz- I was feeling ornery last night, as well as drunk. i stand by everything i wrote, but no, i didn’t address your question about academic freedom.
The question is–who’s freedom? and the freedom to do what? I didn’t say you were disingenuous, but the premise of your question is–perhaps by design, perhaps not.
When a university takes student money and then uses that money to compensate somebody who comes to the school to give what basically amounts to a stump speech, and there is no dissenting voice heard, and no questions are taken, and no dissent is brooked, how is that freedom? It seems like freedom’s opposite to me. We’re not talking about “the marketplace of ideas” here, and when both of my examples (McCain, Gingrich) are people who have ready access to a national and global microphone, any notion of their viewpoint being “suppressed” or “censored” is ridiculous on its face.
The school itself, as I said before, is being used as a backdrop for a particular politician’s own set of goals, because another politician (the one running your school) either shares those goals or else feels like they have some sort of quid pro quo thing going. And the students are supposed to sit quietly and nod, and not hold up any signs that will ruin the photos.
Academic freedom would mean something more like the student body having an active role in the selection of speakers to be invited to the school–to their own commencement address, at the very least, if not to all events that the school hosts. It might also at the very bare minimum involve some sort of final approval and/or recall-referendum process, perhaps by democratic vote, on choices which turn out to be incendiary. I’m all for open dialogue, dissent, etc etc. This isn’t a large abstract argument, or it doesn’t have to be. All I said was this: both those men spoke at the school while I was a student there. I didn’t see either one speak, but I would have just as soon spit on either as listened to him. It disgusts me to think that even a dollar of my tuition is in either of their pockets (Gingrich, at the least; probably McCain was not paid to give the commencement address). And Bob Kerrey, being directly responsible for both of these particular invitations, lost whatever bit of my respect he ever had. The rest of it is just icing on the shit-cake.
Justin,
Thank you for addressing for my question. I understand your ire when talking about the administration using funds to seemingly promote or give voice to interests that seem divergent to the school’s own. I wonder where exactly the speaker’s fund comes from, whether it’s from tuition dollars or from a fund set aside using private donations, or a mix of both. It seems that where the money comes from exactly is crucial to your point, i.e. the students’ should have a voice in who gets chosen because their money is being used to pay for that service.
I think from your first post I got the impression that the students were pissed simply because McCain and Gingrich had been invited to speak. Your clarification helps: that they were invited using student funds, or without student approval in McCain’s case, and attended on conditions that disallowed or prohibited dialogue. I get that. That makes sense.
My point I think was oblique earlier, and what I was reacting to probably had little to do with the actual details of what was going on. I just think academies should work to ensure equal representation of divergent views, whether conservative or liberal (in the real sense, not the media-label, pseudo poly-sci equivalent). When I first read the manifesto, I just thought, well, it seems to me the left should work to listen to, protect, and understand the right, and vice versa, and it seemed that the opposite was happening in a place that, much more so than a number of institutions, was created, and has been maintained by, its inclusiveness. But of course the reality is more nuanced than that (especially if you begin to consider the opportunity cost of inviting one person over another and the aid an invitation might grant to a view and cause that stands opposite one’s own) . . .
Anyway, I’m writing too much, I think, about a minor point. I feel like the person in class who won’t shut up . . .
I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate.
On a different note: Are there any podcasts of the events ya’ll host. Like the Barthelme roundtables with Antrim and Gates that you did, etc.? I’d be really interested in hearing that or reading a transcript. One of my favorite pieces ever is the roundtable between Percy, Barthelme, Gass, and Paley in Not-Knowing.
Cheers,
B. R.
Justin,
Thank you for addressing for my question. I understand your ire when talking about the administration using funds to seemingly promote or give voice to interests that seem divergent to the school’s own. I wonder where exactly the speaker’s fund comes from, whether it’s from tuition dollars or from a fund set aside using private donations, or a mix of both. It seems that where the money comes from exactly is crucial to your point, i.e. the students’ should have a voice in who gets chosen because their money is being used to pay for that service.
I think from your first post I got the impression that the students were pissed simply because McCain and Gingrich had been invited to speak. Your clarification helps: that they were invited using student funds, or without student approval in McCain’s case, and attended on conditions that disallowed or prohibited dialogue. I get that. That makes sense.
My point I think was oblique earlier, and what I was reacting to probably had little to do with the actual details of what was going on. I just think academies should work to ensure equal representation of divergent views, whether conservative or liberal (in the real sense, not the media-label, pseudo poly-sci equivalent). When I first read the manifesto, I just thought, well, it seems to me the left should work to listen to, protect, and understand the right, and vice versa, and it seemed that the opposite was happening in a place that, much more so than a number of institutions, was created, and has been maintained by, its inclusiveness. But of course the reality is more nuanced than that (especially if you begin to consider the opportunity cost of inviting one person over another and the aid an invitation might grant to a view and cause that stands opposite one’s own) . . .
Anyway, I’m writing too much, I think, about a minor point. I feel like the person in class who won’t shut up . . .
I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate.
On a different note: Are there any podcasts of the events ya’ll host. Like the Barthelme roundtables with Antrim and Gates that you did, etc.? I’d be really interested in hearing that or reading a transcript. One of my favorite pieces ever is the roundtable between Percy, Barthelme, Gass, and Paley in Not-Knowing.
Cheers,
B. R.
Thanks for your words. I’m glad we talked this through.
re Barthelme- I don’t know that the Arts Club Barthelme event was recorded at all. The panel I hosted for Columbia was taped, and they said it would go up on their website, but I’ve never seen/heard it. We actually talked about Barthelme there too. He’s hard to get away from. In fact, I’m going to post about him in a minute. There is *another* Barthelme event coming in Spring, if you’re in New York City. I’m hosting his biographer, Tracy Daugherty, at The New School. It’ll be February 26th. Details forthcoming in Spring, but probably Gates will be onhand to read some of DB’s fiction to the crowd. He’s great.
I love that roundtable in Not-Knowing also. Where Gass says he doesn’t want a certain kind of reader, and Grace says- well it’s tough for you then. She was really just something else. Something else that’s awesome.
Thanks for your words. I’m glad we talked this through.
re Barthelme- I don’t know that the Arts Club Barthelme event was recorded at all. The panel I hosted for Columbia was taped, and they said it would go up on their website, but I’ve never seen/heard it. We actually talked about Barthelme there too. He’s hard to get away from. In fact, I’m going to post about him in a minute. There is *another* Barthelme event coming in Spring, if you’re in New York City. I’m hosting his biographer, Tracy Daugherty, at The New School. It’ll be February 26th. Details forthcoming in Spring, but probably Gates will be onhand to read some of DB’s fiction to the crowd. He’s great.
I love that roundtable in Not-Knowing also. Where Gass says he doesn’t want a certain kind of reader, and Grace says- well it’s tough for you then. She was really just something else. Something else that’s awesome.
justin:
i dig everything you’re saying but it still seems to me that you’re problem is with mccain and gingrich’s platforms.
reverse the situation. if the speakers brought in were lefty liberals and the conservative faction of the student body had a sit in, you probably would be telling them to quit whining and shut the fuck up, even though they are equally as sickened that their tax dollars are being used to promote the far left.
i meant tuition dollars, not tax dollars, obviously.
justin:
i dig everything you’re saying but it still seems to me that you’re problem is with mccain and gingrich’s platforms.
reverse the situation. if the speakers brought in were lefty liberals and the conservative faction of the student body had a sit in, you probably would be telling them to quit whining and shut the fuck up, even though they are equally as sickened that their tax dollars are being used to promote the far left.
i meant tuition dollars, not tax dollars, obviously.