Why LIVE crashed the Board of Trust meeting
Tim Bowles
Issue date: 12/8/06 Section: Opinion
But the decision to interrupt the board meeting was still difficult to make. Imagine the prospect of speaking in front of 50 rich and powerful men and women, the governing body of this university. And then imagine the prospect of interrupting that meeting, speaking unsolicited, engaging in a nonviolent but confrontational action, all the while unsure of the consequences of that action.
I was nervous as hell.
However, I did know the action was not arbitrary or disconnected from the overall goals of the campaign, as so much activism seems to be these days. Proper channels had been exhausted and it was time for a concrete step on the part of the administration.
We decided that a transparent cost analysis of the implementation of a living wage would be the most logical demand to make. How could there be substantive dialogue without numbers? It would require minimal time and no commitment to a living wage, but it would demonstrate that the administration was responding with more than hot air, and it would show that concerned students cannot be brushed aside with substanceless meetings, ad infinitum.
So, over the course of two weeks, we carefully scripted and practiced the walk-in and agreed to the six principles of nonviolence.
Then we walked in.
It was frightening but well-executed, and the atmosphere stayed mostly calm, with the exception of some fist-banging on the part of our usually unshakable chancellor. Our demands were refused, but we agreed to a private meeting the following day.
On Nov. 17 two other members of LIVE and I met with Chancellor Gee, Vice Chancellor David Williams and three members of the Board of Trust, including one Young Alumni Trustee. The university leaders were cordial but evasive; they refused to consider a cost analysis but made vague pledges of support for "fair" wages. Their grounds for refusal were shaky at best, saying a cost analysis would undermine the negotiations currently underway between the university and the union. I can at least give them credit for staying the course: their use of cordial dialogue that lacks any concrete steps was flawless.
I was nervous as hell.
However, I did know the action was not arbitrary or disconnected from the overall goals of the campaign, as so much activism seems to be these days. Proper channels had been exhausted and it was time for a concrete step on the part of the administration.
We decided that a transparent cost analysis of the implementation of a living wage would be the most logical demand to make. How could there be substantive dialogue without numbers? It would require minimal time and no commitment to a living wage, but it would demonstrate that the administration was responding with more than hot air, and it would show that concerned students cannot be brushed aside with substanceless meetings, ad infinitum.
So, over the course of two weeks, we carefully scripted and practiced the walk-in and agreed to the six principles of nonviolence.
Then we walked in.
It was frightening but well-executed, and the atmosphere stayed mostly calm, with the exception of some fist-banging on the part of our usually unshakable chancellor. Our demands were refused, but we agreed to a private meeting the following day.
On Nov. 17 two other members of LIVE and I met with Chancellor Gee, Vice Chancellor David Williams and three members of the Board of Trust, including one Young Alumni Trustee. The university leaders were cordial but evasive; they refused to consider a cost analysis but made vague pledges of support for "fair" wages. Their grounds for refusal were shaky at best, saying a cost analysis would undermine the negotiations currently underway between the university and the union. I can at least give them credit for staying the course: their use of cordial dialogue that lacks any concrete steps was flawless.
Be the first to comment on this story