The New School In Exile

The New School In Exile: Letters and Statements

Student Protester's Opinion on Faculty Senate Statement
Posted by Fourierist on Friday, December 18, 2009 (19:28:43) (332 reads)

“The show is over. The curtain has fallen on trains filled with reservists, as they pull out amid the joyous cries of enthusiastic maidens. . . . Into the disillusioned atmosphere of pale daylight there rings a different chorus; the hoarse croaks of the hawks and hyenas of the battlefield. . . . profits are springing, like weeds, from the fields of the dead.” —Rosa

It’s gratifying that the Faculty Senate managed to call Kerrey’s police repression of the April occupation “misguided”—although “violent” and “despotic” would have been better terms. At least they implicitly rebutted the letter the Board attached to the so-called “April 10 Report,” where they called Kerrey’s paramilitary attack “responsible” and warned that any further civil disobedience would be met with the same level of ferocity.

The Faculty Senate has a mania, however, for issuing pronouncements that aren’t backed up by action. Kerrey openly violated the spirit of the “Minimum Requirements” agreement meant to limit his tyrannical power, and bypassed the Advisory Committee on Speech Activities and Expression that is supposed to be consulted in such situations. What are they going to do about it?

Continued in Read More...

Read More... (6.87 KB) | comments? |

| Score: 5

What We Want flyer
Posted by alvinjohnson on Wednesday, October 07, 2009 (00:09:32) (409 reads)

Check out the new missive What We Want here.

What We Want: A Proposed Beginning

Over and over—sometimes in accusatory tones—the radical movement at the New School has been asked to explain itself: why are we protesting? After eight years of soft fascism and bloody war, then an unprecedented economic disaster following on Wall Street shenanigans—all aided and abetted by the president of the New School—one has to wonder about the motivations of the questioners. Isn’t the more reasonable question why isn’t everyone protesting?

In addition, many of us have been wary of presenting any demands, as this concedes power to the enemy, providing him with an opportunity to recuperate and sterilize the movement, reducing it to meaningless negotiations over paltry reforms.

We’re willing to recognize that these questions can be posed in good faith, however, and that we do have a responsibility to account for our actions. It also seems that in present conditions the only way for the movement to go forward is to provide tangible points of struggle, and open up a wider discussion among students, faculty, and staff, about our problems and needs...

comments? |

| Score: 0

Political Dissent, Speech Acts and the New School Milieu
Posted by alvinjohnson on Monday, October 05, 2009 (01:53:19) (468 reads)

Political Dissent, Speech Acts and the New School Milieu:
An Open Letter to the New School

10.2.09

As many people at the New School are likely now aware, student protests at a Milano public forum on Homeland Security, where Tom Ridge was the featured guest, have sparked considerable controversy around issues of freedom of speech and political protest. This is a controversy deeply entwined with not only the history and legacy of the New School, but also with the current campus climate and administration of the school. Some of the questions that have emerged so far include:

~ Were students justified in protesting the appearance of Tom Ridge at the New School?
~ Were the specific tactics used to disrupt the Tom Ridge event appropriate?
~ What standards does the community use to judge what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" actions?
~ Are all forms of protest equally legitimate and protected?
~ What is the relationship between the protection of free speech on campus and the creation of a safe space for academic discussion and debate?
~ Should the university only invite individuals to speak whose values or politics we agree with?
~ What exactly are the core values and the mission of the New School today, and how do they relate to our historical legacy as an institution?
~ Does the university community have an affirmative obligation to condemn actions which pose a potential threat to free speech at the New School?
~ Can issues of political dissent be separated from the political critique being offered by those acts?

These are all very important questions which the university is now grappling with, but which I believe we as a community are not adequately discussing. With that being said, I believe the academic community at the New School has an obligation to engage with these issues in a constructive and timely manner—one which does justice to our political views and positions as individual members—as well as our philosophical obligation as the embodiment or living spirit that defines the New School. We must demonstrate the value of theory and practice in a unified manner in and out of the classroom.

In an attempt to do just that, I offer the following reflections to the New School community. First, by addressing the underlying political issues as I understand them and as I see them relating to the specific issue of Tom Ridge speaking at the New School. Second, by framing the issues of political dissent and free speech in both a very grounded New School context, as well as a larger philosophical context. And finally, by trying to suggest the interconnections between the first and seconds parts, and their immediate ramifications for our school.

Read More... (30.15 KB) | comments? |

| Score: 5

Rethinking Dissent: Learning From the Mistakes of the ‘60s
Posted by alvinjohnson on Thursday, October 01, 2009 (18:47:27) (492 reads)

by Neil Gordon
(originally published in the New School Free Press, April 27 2009. Reprinted here by permission of the author.)

The 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention was a seminal moment in the history of the American Left, but we tend to forget the actual party politics behind the protest. Eugene McCarthy had galvanized anti-War Americans against the Democratic establishment that had so committed us to Vietnam and represented, to many, real opportunity for change. But Humphrey won the nomination and Nixon the election. SDS would be destroyed the following year by the tiny radical minority of Weatherman, whose intransigent politics proceeded to turn, perhaps permanently, the ideals of the 60s counterculture into the stuff of which right wing parodies are made. The war in Vietnam continued for five more years. And the question of how we fight for political change remains unanswered to this day.

Lately it feels to me that we’re at the 1968 of New School history. The comparisons are fun to play with. Tim Marshall as Gene McCarthy? The deans would be the activists who had cut their hair and put on suits to get, as they said in the day, “Clean for Gene.” SDS? Faculty and Student Senate. And then there’s Weatherman.

Okay – let’s not go too far with that joke. My support for the right to dissent is radical and unconditional. But somehow, I no longer recognize ourselves in debate about the New School Crisis.

The problems we know and have been grappling with -- centralization of the university, corporatization of American education, lack of space – are real. But where in the manifestos and pamphlets is our Lang program for inmates at Arthur Kill Correctional Facility? Where is our Institute for Urban Education, our students’ work in Cambodian orphanages, or New Orleans? Is there any mention of the classes we offer throughout our university by full- and part-time faculty – whether economists, scientists, artists, or writers – which approach our disciplines by way of activist, politically astute, anti-sexist and anti-racist analyses?

Continued in Read More link below...

Read More... (2.91 KB) | comments? |

| Score: 4

Open Letter on the Tom Ridge Protests
Posted by alvinjohnson on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 (13:02:51) (422 reads)

This latest student letter is part of recent development in the unfolding Tom Ridge incident at the New School. We'll post more updates and details as they emerge, but it seems this issue will continue to grow.

To the New School Community:

Last week student activists peacefully disrupted an event designed to promote the newly published book and future political aspirations of former PA governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. A key player in the Bush Administration, Ridge actively supported and executed policies of "extraordinary rendition" (torture), domestic spying, the harassment of Arab-Americans, environmental and anti-war activists, and the aggressive military action against Iraq. In his capacity as Secretary of "Homeland Security", Ridge was in a key position to tie the Bush Administration's flouting of domestic and international law to the imperative to protect American soil. He was therefore central in making the case to the American people and the global community, which has been proven since to be duplicitous. The climate of fear engendered in these years (embodied in the color-coded terror alert levels recently revealed by his own admission to be manipulated by Ridge for political purposes) was used as a smokescreen to obscure the commission of these illegal acts at home and abroad. As anyone familiar with the myriad acts of misprision committed in these years knows all too well, to call Ridge and his cohorts criminal is scarcely an exaggeration. However, the Obama Administration has been clear about its unwillingness to prosecute these crimes, and the perpetrators walk freely and are received with warmth and respect.

This is hardly an argument I expected to be making at The New School in 2009. I was certainly surprised that Ridge was invited to begin with, but given Bob Kerrey's long-standing complicity in the political spectacle of Washington DC, it should not have shocked me when, chucking, he patted the arm of Ridge and bragged: "We've been friends for years." This much could have been expected. However, the controversy surrounding the decision to confront Ridge with his crimes has taken me quite by surprise. The overwhelmingly negative response suggests that this school is no longer in touch with its rich heritage of anti-fascism. Could I have been deceived by clever marketing to think that this is an institution unlike others? It certainly costs more than many others; is that what sets us apart? Has The New School become the proverbial Starbucks cleverly re-named and fashioned to resemble an indie coffee house? Before entertaining such unpleasant thoughts, let us first for allow the possibility that those who have responded so negatively to this direct action have done so due to several misconceptions which I will now address.

The Administration's condemnation of these students, issued unilaterally and without a proper examination of the facts, on a medium to which the students do not have access, is buttressed on the issue of "Free Speech".

It has been argued that the student demonstrators should have vented their grievances during the event's question and answer session, and would have been allowed to do so. This claim is inaccurate. Prior to any disruption, Bob Kerrey stated that the question and answer session was to be limited to Milano students, who occupied two rows of reserved seats in the front of the event, clad in matching business attire. The claim that this was a discussion open to the entire New School community is false, and is flatly contradicted by Bob Kerrey's own words to this effect at the event itself. Bush Administration devotees will remember this strategy from the past decade of public appearances by top Bush officials: questioners are carefully selected in order to ensure the discussion remains within acceptable parameters. There surely was "free speech" at this event, but only in the sense that fenced off parking lots blocks away from political conventions are "free speech zones".

Along this same convoluted line of argument, it has been claimed that the demonstration was a violation of the free speech rights of Ridge, Kerrey, and those seeking to participate in the event. This claim is inaccurate. The event was terminated by Bob Kerrey when a non-Milano student took advantage of the confusion and stepped up to the microphone. This student was granted the floor by a befuddled Kerrey, and respectfully posed a question which Tom Ridge began to answer. The student asked Tom Ridge if his decision to execute over 200 people as governor of Pennsylvania was a factor in his appointment to the Bush Administration. Polemical, surely, but a valid question nonetheless. As Ridge began to answer, Kerrey prevented the question from being answered and declared the event over. By this time student demonstrators had settled down and the crowd respectfully awaited Ridge's answer. What's more, this sequence further invalidates the claim that proper channels were in place for non-Milano students to engage Ridge in anything resembling an "open discussion".

Tom Ridge's book and the talk he delivered on Thursday highlight policy imperatives rooted in his experience as a central figure of the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration is bad enough! The last thing the world needs is these rouge and lawless individuals regaining a seat at the table. And a seat at the table is exactly what Bob Kerrey offered Tom Ridge. Legitimating his criminal actions, Kerrey strove to limit the discussion to certain parameters within which the discussion of Ridge's crimes and totalitarian vision for American "security" was disallowed. This was the free speech violation. The student reaction was a celebration of free speech.

In writing all of this I can only claim to speak for myself. However, I can say that the anger and disgust at Ridge's invitation amongst politically aware students has only been amplified by the treatment this act has received in campus discussion. It is my hope that those so eager to condemn consider the perspective espoused above, and other accounts by concerned students, and come away with a different view of this event. Otherwise, I may be at the wrong school.

Jarrod Shanahan
MA Student
Department of Philosophy
NSSR

comments? |

| Score: 0

Open Letter to the Movement from CT Students Against the War
Posted by alvinjohnson on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 (01:59:03) (407 reads)

Keep Jeff Bartos Free! Solidarity! Support the IVAW! Defend Free Speech!

As many have heard, CT Students Against the War member, CT Iraq Veterans Against the War treasurer and former Army Sgt. Jeff Bartos was arrested last week at G20 protests while attending to the medical needs of a reporter that had been teargassed by police. After hearing of this arrest, the antiwar movement managed to flood the Allegheny County Jail with enough phone calls to engineer his release. Jeff will return to Pittsburgh on Wednesday to plead 'not guilty' to charges of disorderly conduct and failure to disperse.

Several CT-SAW members will be accompanying Jeff back down to Pittsburgh for his court date. Until then, however, we need to make sure we put enough pressure on the Pittsburgh court system that they will have no other choice but to hear our demands. CT-SAW is calling for a 36hr call-in campaign to the city offices below to demand all charges against Jeff and all other G20 protesters be dropped. In addition, we are encouraging all supporters of civil liberties in the Pittsburgh area to rally in front of the court house Wednesday morning before and during Jeff's 8am hearing. We also encourage all to attend the national united marches on October 17, demanding an end to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and occupations.

The police brutality used last week against protesters, bystanders, students, reporters, medics and veterans is unacceptable. We call for everyone to join in solidarity for those prosecuted for standing against the G20 and its policies. Connecticut students stand side by side with all the victims of the G20, from those who have been terrorized by their economic policies to those who have been attacked by their police protectors.

In solidarity,
CT Students Against the War

Continued in Read More link...

Read More... (879 Bytes) | comments? |

| Score: 0

A Student's View on Kerrey and the New School
Posted by alvinjohnson on Monday, May 11, 2009 (19:23:39) (594 reads)

KERREY MAY BE LEAVING, BUT HE'S NOT GONE YET
Students Looking Forward to Rebuilding Legacy and Integrity of Historical Institution

May 10, 2009 - New York, NY –It is with great delight that the we mark the announcement that New School President Bob Kerrey is leaving the New School, however we have grave concerns about the problems Bob Kerrey will continue to pose over the next two years. Also, it should be made clear that Bob Kerrey is not not leaving on his own accord, but rather he is being forced to leave by a community effort involving student, faculty, staff and even members of the Board of Trustees who all agree he is not fit to be our President. The past academic year has been a tumultuous one, and much of that discord is a direct result of how President Kerrey and his senior administration have attempted to transform the New School. Once known for our innovation and ground breaking ideas and scholars, the past decade has witnessed a continual erosion of the core principles of this great institution, something that our first President Alvin Johnson worked hard to create and protect. The announcement of Kerrey's departure signals a sea change for our school.

Continued in Read More link...

Read More... (2.17 KB) | comments? |

| Score: 5

Parsons faculty respond to Provost and firings
Posted by alvinjohnson on Saturday, April 25, 2009 (17:47:16) (747 reads)

Re: Message from the Provost Tim Marshal on Parsons Fine Arts Faculty

Peter and laurence boldly respond –i.e. our response is in bold face

NEW YORK, April 22, 2009 -- The following is a message from Tim Marshall, the Provost of The New School regarding recent events in the Fine Arts program at Parsons:

I am writing to you with an update on the situation in the Parsons Fine Arts program. Since our letter of April 8, 2009, we have heard from many people on the changes that are being enacted in the program. While there is considerable enthusiasm for the general direction we are moving in, there has also been concern voiced by some valued members of our faculty community. Our failure to consult and communicate adequately as we strive to broaden our Fine Arts program is simply that: a lack of communication and participation. I am committed to improving the former and working to create the conditions to enable the latter.

Except, Tim, it was not quite that "simple". Under cover of a failure to consult and communicate adequately the administration managed to deprive 12 faculty members of their jobs and without consultation to turn the curriculum on its head. Thus it is hard to believe that the failure to communicate wasn’t by design. (sic)

Continued in Read More link...

Read More... (5.54 KB) | comments? |

| Score: 0

The New School In Exile

Student Legal Support Fund

Student Solidarity

Student Senate

Main Menu

User Info