Occupy CSUN asked by administration to plan their leave

By Anthony Carpio and Hansook Oh
November 22nd, 2011
Section: News

The Occupy CSUN encampmant on the Oviatt Library lawn. The movement has until monday to figure out a way to contribute to the campus at night in order for William Watkins, vice president for student affairs, to let them stay. Photo Credit: Andres Aguila / Daily Sundial

Campus administration has asked Occupy CSUN campers to set a date for the emcampment to pack up and move from the lawn in front of the Oviatt Library.

“They obviously don’t want us to be here for a myriad of reasons, including safety,” said Ankur Patel, an interdisciplinary studies graduate student at CSUN. “I would like to underscore the opportunity that the administration is helping us along, not just allowing us to go willy nilly until we fizzle out, but to actually help develop a focus point and go after some specific points of action.”

Jason Ackerman, a student organizer for Occupy CSUN, and anthropology major, agreed with Patel and sees the difference between CSUN and other universities – namely UC Davis whose police have been under scrutiny for using pepperspray against seated student activists.

“The administration is being supportive and we are very appreciative of that and let’s not lose sight of that,” he said. “They don’t have to be this cool. This campus is kind of a light in a bunch of public universities that are exhibiting some rather dark behavior.”

Vice President of Student Affairs William Watkins said the lawn in front of the Oviatt is no place for students to be camping, and that the administration is concerned about their safety.

“We don’t want a poor relationship with our students,” he said.

Occupy CSUN has been steadily growing since it set up camp two weeks ago. What started as only a few tents in front of the Oviatt Library has evolved into 10 tents, but the occupants and administration question some of the movement’s effectiveness.

Occupy CSUN’s Facebook page has a good number of followers, but has yet to draw a majority of them to the lawn, Ackerman said.

“We have 255 people on our Facebook group. Of those, we’ve seen about 20 in person,” Ackerman said. “That’s like one percent, maybe a little less, which is not good. Enough sitting on the fences. We’re here, you should be here, too. Let’s swap some ideas. Let’s get things done.”

Occupiers have been able to stay overnight on campus for the past week, but administration told the group that if they are not being proactive during the night, they have to leave campus. The occupiers are trying to figure out a way to overcome this obstacle, like asking supportive clubs to sign a field request form.

“We’re not exactly doing this with permission. We have consent, but we don’t have paperwork,” Ackerman said. “Hopefully with some of the clubs that have expressed their solidarity with us, that they actually step up and help us fill out these forms and come camp with us.”

Ackerman said he wants to see more people join Occupy CSUN, and the group plans to meet at Watkins’ office Monday, Nov. 28.

“We need to have more people in tents by Monday, and we need to flood University Hall room 320 at 9 a.m. to show that there is this support for Occupy CSUN,” he said.

They voted during a general assembly meeting Tuesday to participate in a general strike on Nov. 28 to support their Occupy counterparts at UC Davis. This protest is occurring at different Cal States and begins at 12 p.m.

With Thanksgiving approaching, members of Occupy CSUN plan to stay put, living on campus and outside during the break.

“I can’t think of one person that doesn’t want to stay during Thanksgiving weekend,” said Andrew Laleian, CSUN biology major. “I don’t think anyone’s going to leave that early.”

top

Disclaimer: The Daily Sundial is not responsible for comments posted on dailysundial.com. In accordance with the Communications Decency Act of 1996 the Sundial is not liable for the content of comments. By commenting, all persons posting on dailysundial.com have agreed to our comment policy. If a comment does not abide by the comment policy the Sundial reserves the right to delete comments without warning. The Daily Sundial advises persons commenting not to abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid comments of hate speech or encouraging violence.

  • David the small-L libertarian

    C’mon CSUN administration, give ‘em a deadline and if the unhappy campers don’t leave then suspend them and arrest them for trespassing.  They’ve made their point (whatever it is); now make yours.

    “We need to have more people in tents by Monday, and we need to flood
    University Hall room 320 at 9 a.m. to show that there is this support
    for Occupy CSUN,” he said.

    A whopping ten tents that didn’t even merit mention in the Sundial until this article.  Just exactly how much support do you expect?

    • http://worldwithinsight.com/ Kyle Greggory

      You’re a dick. Has anybody ever told you that? I mean, I’m not out there protesting with them, but at least I can sympathize. You must be an idiot if you think that everything that’s going on is fine and dandy. Even csun has been getting pretty liberal about screwing us in the ass lately. At least these people are speaking up.

      • David the small-L libertarian

        Nice to meet you too, Kyle.  Thanks for the articulate and thoughtful response.

        CSUN shouldn’t be run by a handful of uninformed, ungrateful students.  If the administration wants them out tell them they’re no longer welcome and set a deadline.

        • http://worldwithinsight.com/ Kyle Greggory

          The pejorative to which David the small….. L…. libertarian is referring is Nixon minus the tricky. Lol.

          Here’s the original comment, edited, lol.

          You’re a [Nixon sans tricky]. Has anybody ever told you that? I mean, I’m not out there protesting with them, but at least I can sympathize. You must be [in a wonderful far away world] if you think that everything that’s going on is fine and dandy. Even csun has been getting pretty liberal about [loving] us in the [buttocks] lately. At least these people are speaking up.

          • David the small-L libertarian

            Okay, let’s continue…

            Yes, I’ve been subjected to ad hominem attacks on occasion.

            I think our current economic situation is anything but “fine and dandy” across the board.  I suspect that we disagree on whom to place the blame, however.  Both parties have run both the state and local government into the ground and created a huge entitlement mentality.  There are now more “takers” than the “givers” can keep up with and the Democrats’ answer is to take even more from the givers.  It ain’t gonna last, folks!

            As for “speaking up,” I’m all for it; I revere the Constitution.  There is a big difference, however, between “speaking up” and “occupying” a campus or a city park.  It’s time to pack up the tents and go home.

          • http://worldwithinsight.com/ Kyle Greggory

            I agree that both parties have run the government into the ground, but I tend to side with OWS in placing the blame not just on the parties, but on the interests behind them. The people’s interests are not being represented by current policies, and both sides–”democrats” and “republicans”–are entirely inept when it comes to remedying the situation. Our society shouldn’t be a political or economic teeter-totter. It should be balanced.

            As for “givers” and “takers,” I think you need to reconsider who is whom. By “givers,” I’m guessing you mean the people with the wealth and the power. Maybe you forget, though, that they depend on your so-called “takers” for their wealth and power. They depend on the interests of the “takers” being suppressed; on minimizing their losses, maximizing their gains, and paying no heed to the effects on those around them. That is what the “takers” are threatening by protesting, and that is what your “givers” are so afraid of (I’m laughing every time I write that, by the way… all I’ve been given is more and more debt, a new low unit cap, and the greater likelihood of unemployment after my impending graduation). They ARE afraid, though, these “givers.” That is why cities are throwing money away on police (riot and otherwise) to try to crush the OWS movements (source: http://www.diatribemedia.com/2011/11/27/who-wasted-13m-on-occupy-protests/). That is why lobbying firms are drawing up $850,000 plans to undermine OWS and anybody in the political spectrum who offers them even a whisper of support (source: http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8884405-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street).

            Your “givers” are scared, and they have reason to be. The imbalance they rely on is not the reason they are afraid, though. They’re afraid because people realize our system is imbalanced, and they’re voicing that realization. They’re threatening the status quo.

            There is a problem, however. Where can they voice such views?
            Television? They can’t. Pubic access has been virtually destroyed by larger interests, and it has no audience anyway. Everything else is controlled by the (is it six?) major media companies.
            Government? We’ve already agreed that our two parties have both contributed to running us into the ground, and they’re little more than puppets of those who put them in power, anyway.. so that’s not an option.
            The internet? That’s where it’s been brewing for years, but now it has been taken into the public realm.

            You say you revere the Constitution. “There is a big difference,” you say, “between ‘speaking up’ and ‘occupying’ a campus or a city park.” There may be a difference, but they’re both a right. Both are public spaces, and so people ought to be allowed to peacefully assemble in those spaces. I’d go so far as to argue that the right to [peacefully] occupy a campus is even more obvious–we pay the campus directly to occupy this public space every day we come to class.

            It sounds like what you support is the First Amendment when it suits you. You clearly believe in the right to free speech… just not too loud, where others can hear it. Yes, free speech, as long as it is very controlled–maybe in the 5 second soundbite you’re granted on the evening news, or at a lecture with perhaps 30 informed students in attendance. Not in public spaces–I mean, that could start something… like, I dunno, a movement?

          • David the small-L libertarian

            So it’s been nearly two weeks since CSUN administration asked the Occupiers to “plan their leave.”  They’re still there.  I think my idea would have worked better.

            Anyway, I appreciate that you took the time to write such a lengthy and civil response.  I know that time is valuable.  Forgive me that I make this somewhat short.

            Most “givers” aren’t nearly as wealthy or as powerful as you’d like to believe.  Essentially half of US households are the “givers”; the other half are the “takers.”

            And yes, the “givers” are scared.  Those who think they’re entitled to what the other guy has are increasing in number and electing those into office who will ensure that we continue along this path.

            I see nothing wrong with the funding of an anti-OWS message by those who are being attacked by not only OWS but its sympathizers including President Obama himself.  To expect these individuals and firms to be vilified and not to fight back is unrealistic.

            Kyle, I really think that you need to read some of the writings on the subject by some highly respected conservatives.  The left doesn’t believe that there is such a thing—they’re all “evil,” “racist,” “stupid” or worse.

            May I suggest
            Thomas Sowell; Charles Krauthammer;
            the Cato Institute;
            the Reason Foundation; Wall Street Journal.

            In response to your accusation that I support the First Amendment “when it suits me,” I’ll post what I just wrote on the Comments section of this Sundial article in response to Sxlc2002:

            So if I’m not for allowing people to take over public property in whatever manner and for however long they want, I “don’t know what liberty means.”

            Wow, really?

            Does this extend to lying down in the middle of a public roadway, sidewalk, park or whatever, denying others the ability to use it?  Does it mean that hundreds of
            people can just take over a state capitol building like they did for days on end in Wisconsin and cause damage to the building?

            The Tea Party did none of these things and was quite effective in getting out its message.

            And why is it that you think that Republicans are the ones against
            liberty?  Democrats pass far more legislation that controls your life
            compared to Republicans.

            “Occupying” is not a right.

  • Jason Ackerman

      I had two different statistics running through my head and I missed a ’0′ for the one I used, my bad. The “one percent” I used was  indeed referring to ’255/35000′. The number I meant to use for turnout (20/255) was “ten percent” approximately (thus the “maybe less”). Civil liberties are like mental-math skills, you use them or you lose them.

  • CSUN Alum

    “We have 255 people on our Facebook group. Of those, we’ve seen about 20
    in person,” Ackerman said. “That’s like one percent, maybe a little
    less, which is not good. Enough sitting on the fences. We’re here, you
    should be here, too. Let’s swap some ideas. Let’s get things done.”

    20/255 = roughly 8 percent. Unless you were trying to say 255/35000, but I don’t see that suggested in this quote. If the prior, please leave the camp and return to Math 101, if the latter, please contact the Sundial and have them correct the story.