lkk@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Larry Kolodney) (03/16/86)
Eight MIT Students Arrested
The MIT Campus Police, assisted by the Cambridge police, arrested
eight members of the MIT Coalition Against Apartheid early Friday
morning as the students resisted the destruction of a shantytown that
had been constructed on the Kresge Oval 12 days earlier.
About 20 MIT physical plant workers arrived at approximately 7AM, and
awoke the 4 people who were sleeping inside of the shanties. They
were ordered to leave. A few minutes later, other Coalition members
arrived and, along with those who had been sleeping, climbed atop
one of the shanties and refused to move, chanting "MIT out of
Alexandra" [Alexandra was the name of the shantytown, after a real
one in South Africa].
William Dickson, senior vice president of MIT, arrived and read a
prepared statement, informing the students that they had 5 minutes to
leave or be arrested. Approximately five minutes later, with no final
warning, the police rushed the shanties and arrested 8 students,
including two who were on the ground, one of whom (me) was
photographing the event.
---------------
The MIT Coalition Against Apartheid is a group of students, faculty
and staff at MIT who are working in support of the liberation struggle
of the Black majority in South Africa. We come from a wide variety of
political persuasions, from Republican to Marxist. For the past nine
months, MIT CAA has been waging a campaign for MIT to divest from its
holdings of stocks doing business in South Africa, which culminated in the
building of "Alexandra Township." This shantytown protest came after
months of entreaties through official channels to the MIT Corporation
were ignored.
The MIT Coalition Against Apartheid feels that the destruction of the
shanties and arrest of non-violent protesting students by MIT is an
afront to academic freedom and tolerance. MIT launched this attack
without prior warning and with little concern for the safety of the
students involved. No specific reason for the removal was given.
MIT seems to have little use for dissent on its campus. (A similar
shantytown at Dartmouth was allowed to stay up for 2 months).
Although the divestment issue is one of great concern to many members
of students, faculty and staff, the MIT corporation has refused to meet with
reprentatives of students or the MIT community at large to discuss
the issue. With this action it has destroyed the first effective
rallying point for political protest that MIT has had in years.
If any individual students or student groups would like to send
letters (or telegrams) of support for the "Alexandra Eight," please
address them to:
MIT Coalition Against Apartheid
c/o Alex Rosen
4 Ames St.
Cambridge, MA 02139
if you wish to indicate an opinion to the MIT administration, please
send communication to
President Paul E. Gray
or
Executive Vice President Constantine Simonides
or
Senior Vice President William Dickson
at the following address:
MIT
77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mctodd@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Hisashi Todd Fujinaka) (03/16/86)
lkk@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Larry Kolodney) writes: > > Eight MIT Students Arrested > > The MIT Campus Police, assisted by the Cambridge police, arrested > eight members of the MIT Coalition Against Apartheid ... [on 14/Mar] > > William Dickson, senior vice president of MIT ... informing the > students that they had 5 minutes to leave or be arrested. ... with > no final warning, the police rushed the shanties and arrested 8 > students ... One fact that wasn't mentioned was that the shanties were supposed to be down on Thursday, the day before they were torn down. The Coalition stated that they were relieved when MIT didn't take any action (but little did they know). On the other side, Dean S. Immerman was quoted in _The Tech_ of March 14 (student newspaper) that the administration had not decided whether to take down the shanties. At the time _The Tech_ asked I don't think Dean Immerman KNEW what was about to happen. MIT is another campus where apathy is running rampant. There is a small group of "radicals" who get arrested and raise hell. Todd Fujinaka
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (03/18/86)
I was wondering when MIT was going to tear down the shanties.
Divestment of South African holdings is by no means a clear cut issue in
my mind no matter how much you oppose the apartheid system. This is
despite the fact that many people with supreme confidence in their own
virtue have decided that divestment is good.
All rights are limited if you believe in rights for more than one person
and/or more than one right as the rights of different people and
organizations frequently conflict as do various different rights.
Whether you consider the shanties "symbolic speech" or whatever I don't
see any overwhelming right for them to stay there forever. There were
there for quite a few days. I saw them as did plenty of other people.
Any point that was supposed to have been made by physical shanties has
been made.
Academic freedom and tolerance have to do with diversity of *ideas*.
For example, allowing people to speak in favor of aparteid, slavery,
anarchy, unilateral disarmament, legalizing all drugs (including
chemical warfare?), etc., etc., despite the fact that you may (as I do)
disagree with these ideas. The gross intolerance of Dartmouth towards
its conservative students is pretty disgracful in my mind.
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deecampbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (03/18/86)
> MIT is another campus where apathy is running rampant. There is a > small group of "radicals" who get arrested and raise hell. > > Todd Fujinaka As Abby Hoffman noted recently, "Campuses today are hotbeds of rest." -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street UUCP: {harvard,cbosgd}!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (03/19/86)
Keywords: In article <1292@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP writes: >[...] >awoke the 4 people who were sleeping inside of the shanties. They >were ordered to leave. A few minutes later, other Coalition members >arrived and, along with those who had been sleeping, climbed atop >one of the shanties and refused to move, [...] > >William Dickson, senior vice president of MIT, arrived and read a >prepared statement, informing the students that they had 5 minutes to >leave or be arrested. Approximately five minutes later, with no final >warning, the police rushed the shanties and arrested 8 students, >including two who were on the ground, one of whom (me) was >photographing the event. > >[...] MIT launched this attack without prior warning and with little >concern for the safety of the students involved. [...] Without prior warning? How did the "other Coalition members" know to show up to resist? And why were you there to photograph the event if there was "no prior warning"? Could it be that this event was staged? Do you not consider 5 minutes warning sufficient? By your own testimony it was "approximately five minutes later" that they arrested the students. Is your complaint that they issued "no final warning" before beginning their arrests? Or is it that they arrested people on the ground as well as those on the roofs, even though your statement implies that all the students were asked to leave?
lkk@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Larry Kolodney) (03/25/86)
In article <6728@cca.UUCP> dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) writes: > >I was wondering when MIT was going to tear down the shanties. > >They were >there for quite a few days. > +1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III They were up for 10 days. At Princeton and Dartmouth, they were up for months. The point is, the shanties consisted of a non-violent non-obstructive protest that was being run in a responsible manner, and in such a way as to provide educational benefit to the community. Similar shantytowns at Darmouth and Princeton stayed up for months before being removed. Certainly MIT had a legal right to do what it did. But Universities are bound by a higher standard of behavior. They are supposed to be places where new ideas ferment and can be expressed freely, where students are exposed to the fullest possible range of information and experience, and where dissent is not only tolerated butt encouraged. The question to be asked is: Is MIT a University, or a Factory? If MIT is a factory, whose primary purpose is the efficient production of amoral technocrats, then it certainly would be expected to have little tolerance for protests such as a shantytown. If, however, MIT thinks it is a University, it damn well better start acting like one. -- larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk ARPA: lkk@mit-mc
lkk@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Larry Kolodney) (03/25/86)
In article <662@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: > [lkk@mit-eddie writes] >>[...] MIT launched this attack without prior warning and with little >>concern for the safety of the students involved. [...] > >Without prior warning? How did the "other Coalition members" know to >show up to resist? And why were you there to photograph the event if >there was "no prior warning"? Could it be that this event was staged? > >Do you not consider 5 minutes warning sufficient? By your own testimony >it was "approximately five minutes later" that they arrested the students. >Is your complaint that they issued "no final warning" before beginning >their arrests? Or is it that they arrested people on the ground as well >as those on the roofs, even though your statement implies that all the >students were asked to leave? By "no prior warning" I mean that no attempt was made by the administration to contact the coalition to discuss the future of the shanties before the decision was made to destroy them. I was there to take pictures because I was sleeping in one of shanties when the police arrived (at 6:30 am), and was awoken by the commotion. Other coalition members were sleeping there as well, and others arrived from nearby dorms after some quick phone calls. We are not claiming that those who were arrested (myself excluded) were suprised by the arrests after the warning. We are claiming that arriving by suprise at 6:30 am to destroy something which had significant support in the community, which caused no immediate threat, and which served an important political and educational purpose, was an uncalled for action by the MIT administration. -- larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk ARPA: lkk@mit-mc