The Necessity for SDS

In my personal opinion there is a dire need for Students for a Democratic Society on our college campus. Montclair State is not known for Political Activist groups and it was not until recently that any existed. Since there has been a lack of general student involvement in any major decision made on campus, outside of SGA, students have been forced to roll with the punches. That is, until SDS sprouted and continues to grow on campus.  It is SDS’s duty to make sure that Montclair State’s administration knows that they are being watched closely by the student body. It is our job as SDS members to inform our peers on the unjust policies the administration and the Board of Trustees impose on us. Lastly, it is our duty to put pressure on those who do have decision making power. They must know that students are displeased with current conditions. We demand change on campus. We demand our voices to be heard and lastly we demand justice from those in power.

Thoughts expressed by G. Tuttle

What We Should Say to Her

The following post is in reference to the President of Montclair State University.

Next week we are going to meet with the school president to discuss our demands. I do not believe that we should form a list of say ten official demands that we want. I am very much opposed to that.

Occupy Wall Street is not about demands. They have never drafted a list of things they want to change. They have never marched to city hall to demand a meeting with the mayor. What happened yesterday was good because of the effect it had on *us*, not on the school's president or the administration. They don't care. Administrations are always increadibly resisntent to responding to protesters demands. She might humor us, she might throw us a bone, but unless we have the whole campus in an uproar, we don't have any real power over her.

Look at what happend at Rutgers. The students there fought for years. They had an occupation, they had lawyers, and they had thousands of supporters. What was their big accomplishment? A lower than usual increase in tuition. Not a decrease, not a freeze, an increase that was lower than it otherwise was. Their other big push, to change the zoning of the town government, failed. Now I'm not trying to diss them, and I'm sure they had a lot of other smaller accomplishments. I'm using them as an example of the resisntance we face.

If we go down their road and turn this organization into the Montclair Student's for Better Parking Club, than we will have isolated ourselves from so many other issues and opportunities, as well as the entire Occupy movement. Hundreds of occupations are springing up around the country, fighting together to change society, and under the banner "we do not have a list of official demands." I dont want to turn away from them.

So what DO I think we should say to the president on wednesday? I think there are two good options:

The first is to give her one thousand demands. Show up with a big stack of paper full of the things we want different. Everyone writes something down. Better parking, lower tuition, her resignation, universal health care, a new government ect... Ask her to go through all of it with us, and give us an answer on each and every point.

The other option is just one demand: End the rule of the one percet, and more specificaly, at Montclair University. Make this school a truely democratic and egalitarian organization.

Da End

Montclarion Editorial Response: Affirmative Action

    It is a very common occurrence that I find something that I disagree with in the Montclarion's opinion section. A lot of students like to write their opinions about what is going on in the world, but a lot of times I find that these "opinions" are not a good representation of reality. The Montclarion does in a sense seems to mostly have only conservative opinions represented. A lot of lies, fallacies, and assumptions cover many of the arguments. The implications of this is the fact that many students read this and will use this as doing their thinking for them when it comes to current politics. So, the one article that I want to talk about is one that was released in last week's paper which was released on the 20th called "Affirmative Action Perpetuates Racism in Schools" by Katie Winters. 

Link is here: http://www.themontclarion.org/archives/3739871.

     One of the major arguments that she makes to seem affirmative action seem bad is this: "Affirmative action is racist because it perpetuates racism. Likewise, affirmative action is sexist because it perpetuates sexism." How is that a justification against affirmative action that makes any sense? This follows a logical fallacy that is often referred to as "begging the question." This means essentially arguing that "a is true because a is true." Does that make any sense to you? She is saying something is racist because it is racist.

     She makes the problem seem much more simpler than it is: "Affirmative action, especially at its worst, seems to assume that those who are a racial minority or women or financially disadvantaged can't get into college themselves." While this is somewhat true, this does not represent the complex problem that seems to affect minorities. She also goes on to say: "Rather than encouraging everyone to compete on a level playing field, affirmative action is belittling minorities by allowing them less stringent qualifications for acceptance." Then I must go on to say she links it like this: "However, one isn't limited to what is taught in the classroom. A student, one who is motivated can continnue his or her studies on his her own time." So, for the most part, Winters seems to argue that it is the minorities' fault that they are not successful enough. But how does she account for the wide educational gap between whites and minorities? Education, like anything in a capitalist society, is a commodity. The SATs have been known to benefit those with higher incomes, and usually white people with a good income are those who are able to succeed on the SATs. This seems to accord with capitalist thinking, that if we pull ourselves up on our bootstraps, we are able to succeed no matter what. However, Winters does not seem to account for the fact that there are broader social forces at play that hinder minorities and it is not their fault. (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/nytsatart112198.html) Considering this article, I find that if you can buy yourself a good score on the SATs, the better opportunities favor the dominating social class more than anybody else. Then there are minorities in urban areas that have a bad life at home with no parental support, that definitely has an impact on their education. When living in urban areas is based more on survival than anything, they are not spending to help education, but to survive. The educational achievement in urban areas are usually low and it often does not motivate those students to do well. These systems of oppression damage psyches and it is very often to undo the bruising that has been done with an educational system that does not motivate people to do well. There is serious need of education reform in urban areas. The issue is much more complicated than: "they need to try harder." Capitalist thinking is impractical in this sense.

     Ultimately, whites are more successful than minority groups in this country, and I find that is a trend to be reversed. Instead of trying to take away opportunities from the underprivileged, we need to empower them. "We should begin looking at applications through a truly blind process not because affirmative action is unfair to the majority of applications, but because it perpetuates the idea that minorities are not as good as intelligent or qualified as white males." Unfair to the majority of applications? Let's face it, minorities like the Hispanics are becoming MUCH more than a minority. Whites are so accustomed to privilege, so they are going to defend it and think that it is unfair. Winters seems to employ the "mob rules" mentality that seems to pervade many of the United States's thinking. This makes democracy a very tricky issue: do we legislate based on what the majority of people think based on the fact that they might be morally wrong? Do we legislate on morality despite the fact that many people might not want that? The "mob rules" mentality of democracy is used to take away privileges from many social groups, and that in itself is unfair! Affirmative action does not imply that minorities are not as good or intelligent as white males, but I find that it tries to deter discrimination from happening. Now, discrimination in itself is a very complicated issue. If you favor one group over another, it can be technically viewed as discrimination. It gets more complicated when you consider the fact that there is a good type of discrimination vs a bad type of discrimination. Due to societal forces that are beyond the control of the minorities, giving them opportunities is a good thing. If we do not give them opportunities, they do not get the social mobility to get out of their poor conditions. I thought in this country, we were all about social mobility! The bad discrimination is denying these opportunities to people and favoring white people who have enough privilege. This does not help the equality to come better in society, by denying equality to minorities. A lack of equality has pretty horrible effects on society, and I find that the book The Spirit Level by Pickett and Wilkinson eloquently explains why inequality is bad for EVERYBODY. I recommend you pick up the book. The dominant ideology (whites) often want to hold on to their power. Con arguments against affirmative action seem to appeal to peoples' emotions because many argue that they feel angry that they are "more qualified" than a minority group who is not as qualified as them. Often, the argument against affirmative action gets emotional, but it is all about never wanting to give up the power.

    Let's face it, the United States is one of the most unequal societies. As a result, we are often viewed as primitive by other countries with our ideologies. I find it ironic that Winters states this: "As a woman, I don't want to be treated that way." Despite the fact that the alternative to Affirmative Action is pretty much qualification based on discerning on the desirable qualities for the job, it will go against women. Despite the fact that the alternative is sexism, I find it weird that she would go against something that ultimately benefits her. Women who do the same jobs as men, often make less money. That is another problem in itself, but sexism exists and I think that women are often viewed in a more negative light compared to men. As the article that we read for this class recently suggests, that we value things in our culture that are masculine and devalue feminine traits as weaker. Since society cannot behave and implement a paradigm of equality for all, then laws such as Affirmative Action need to continue to exist. I know many libertarians want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claiming it is unconstitutional. However, this goes on the assumption that liberty will do the right thing and not these laws. Yet I see a problem, with all of the racism that goes around in this country, I would imagine that this would backfire and create a situation similar to before the Civil Rights Movement. I am not saying that would be a definite because that would be fallacious, but we cannot count on people to change their paradigms. You cannot count on people to not be discriminatory without Affirmative Action because even when it is in place, Affirmative Action does not make the gap between minorities and whites more equal.

     One of the other major arguments that she makes is this: "Personal statements should allow the universities to discover if a student has a unique perspective or not, without basing it on his or her ethnicity or gender. This is the only way to eliminate racism and sexism for college admittance programs, because even if it benefits the minority individual, making considerations based on race or gender is still racism or sexism." If we were to eliminate Affirmative Action, I bet we would see less minorities in college. Therefore, college would not represent the pluralism in society and represent that whites will usually be the ones that will be the most educated since they will mostly be accepted to the best colleges. Is this an accurate picture of a pluralistic society: educational institutions that barely have minorities? "Affirmative action may seem harmless, but it teaches harmful ideas." I do not think that it teaches to consider one group of people better than another, but in fact levels the playing field for trying to eliminate the vast levels of inequality in society. What is so "harmful" about empowering people who have been denied opportunities in life? "It says we cannot compete with white males." They can compete with white males, but white males are typically favored for positions of power over others -- hegemony applies here. Plurality cannot be suppressed in our culture anymore because it has became much more prevalent today -- we are a heterogeneous society. We talks about how it is "harmful" and "racist", but I do not see her give any explanation how. I find that she cites this to appeal to our anger: "At worst, I've heard of employers making two piles of resumes, one of white males and one of women and minority men. They will then go through the pile of resumes belonging to women and minority men, and only if they cannot find a single qualified candidate will they consider a white male for the position." How am I to know that is true? Winters has no ethos, how can I trust her if she cannot give any source of her information? She could have made up. She might have heard it from somebody, but it can be a lie.

      I find that dismantling Affirmative Action is in the interests of the richest. I see it all over the news: the rich's scheme to divide and conquer the working class. Rather than blaming the corporations that are screwing them over, each other is all the blame that can be put. It is a distraction! A good analogy I find is the debate over public unions. The private sector is being pitted against the public sector rather than the private sector fighting to increase their benefits. Public unions set the bar for private sector when it comes to pay and benefits. The private sector is often forced to compete with the public sector. It is in the interests of the wealthier people to cut down on the benefits and pay of the people because it increases profits. The wealthiest want a reason to deny the minorities the equality that they deserve. Why accept less than you deserve? Not only that, I find opposing affirmative action racist. It is a desperate attempt for whites to hold on to their privileges. I am white, and I know about how we are treated compared to other people. And I can say that it unfair to treat people not as your equals because of their gender or ethnicity. Maybe it is discrimination to favor those minorities over whites, but at the same time I feel that it is not discrimination because it gives them opportunities that they would otherwise not have had.

     I find that it is all words on her page, but all full of falsehoods and promoting capitalist ideologies that ultimately give people false hope of anything. The "American Dream" is broken, folks. Winters makes the issue seem much more simpler than it is and asserts that they are seen as not being able to compete with white males. They can compete with white males, but we are living in a discriminatory society. Here is the differentiation that needs to be made: employers often believe that you cannot compare to white males, not affirmative action since that believes that you can and wants to give you the tools so you may. Begging the question by saying Affirmative Action is racist because it is racist. Appealing to the emotions inside us that might anger us toward minorities does not unite us, but divide us against each other. Minorities have trouble competing and they need the help they can get because this country is morally bankrupt in a lot of respects. She uses language that puzzles me: "belittling the minorities." Yeah right. The rhetoric here is misleading and erroneous. A lot of either/or situations are given too. Capitalism does not work for everybody. The "American Dream" is an idealist assumption, often not a reality.

    It is much more complicated than I explain here with my thoughts, but I have only had begun to scratch the surface. There is much more to this issue than I talked about, but I do not have the time to expound upon that as of now. I just wanted to give some food for thought. The Montclarion can often be a scary paper. I find that it says it has been the voice of the students since 1928, but I do not see that it represents the voices of the campus. The paper seems to print very conservative opinions. I find that many of the opinion editorials can be misleading to people and I find that those editorials must be questioned -- especially the Wall Street editorial that was released.

Mr. Mimikos

Montclairion Interview by Lisa Grab

- How are you involved with Students for a Democratic Society? Why did you become involved?

I am an organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. I founded the chapter at MSU because it became obvious to me that the campus needs an organization where students, who are normally taken advantage of really easily by the administration, can have a voice and be heard. Right now, among other things, I am heavily involved in promoting Occupy Wall Street on the campus and in increasing the student voice within the movement. We are planning a teach-in about Occupy Wall Street on October 26th at 2:30 at the outdoor amphitheater (Dickson 172 if it rains).

- What do you think about the current protests and what is the goal of the movement?

I am really hopeful about the current protests. I’ve heard some people say that it’s just going to turn into a reelection campaign for Obama. I would like to think that the people at the 1,000+ occupations will not be satisfied that easily.  I also keep hearing criticism from people, most of which have just walked through the occupation several times or have not been there at all, about the occupation being misguided, lacking direction and leadership, and just a bunch of “lazy jobless hippies.” This is not the case at all. The protest is in no way misguided because it is a symbolic attack on the 1%, it exposes their tyranny, and brings people together. I don’t think its lack of demands is a weakness either. The list of demands is always growing and I don’t think people should limit their visions of a better world to a list of demands. The protest sends the message: “We are outraged with the way society is functioning right now. We are going to recreate our own version of society and show you that it is possible, fun, and honorable to take care of one another instead of living a greed-filled life.” Or something like that.

- What do you think will be resolved by the protests?

I have no idea what will be resolved by the protests. I hope a lot. Like I said earlier, the people who are staying there over night are set up to stay for a long time. The problems being presented are problems that are almost never brought up by mainstream society; they are taboo--ever-increasing poverty, student debt, unemployment, endless amounts of money being poured into war, etc. These problems can not be solved by passing a few laws because laws have loopholes and probably aren’t enforced anyway.. Massive structural change has to happen in the United States. Let’s start by giving people their basic rights: right to a decent education through college, right to food, healthcare, clean air and water—obvious things that are denied to people, when we definitely have enough technology and money to the provide support (Dear tea partiers, we could have almost INDFEINITE amounts of money if we slashed our pentagon spending). If we don’t give the people rights like these, they might be appeased for a while by a few laws, but it will never shut them up for good. People will always organize for change when there is injustice, no matter what the risk is.

- Have you gone out to the occupation? If so, please describe what it was like for you?

I have spent an extensive amount of time at the occupation with various members of the SDS. It’s different every time. During the marches is when it usually has the most power and energy. When there is nothing going on, Liberty Plaza sort of becomes a tourist attraction. But it never really loses its political message. It’s not like a bunch of hippies just hanging out and having a good time. Everything they do has a deliberate political message. People are talking politics everywhere, learning from one another, sharing beliefs, connecting on levels that are otherwise denied by the constraints of “private lives” and 8 hour work days (constraints that prevent people from organizing or caring about one another and serve to isolate individuals).

I’ve also participated in civil disobedience at the OWS protests, which almost got me arrested, but at the same time was life changing. We tried to march onto Wall Street last Wednesday night and I was in the front lines as cops started spraying mace and beating people with their batons. They then proceeded to corral us (like sheep) with orange netting until we were fenced in. We sat in the closed area for a half hour and I thought for sure I would be arrested. But I knew what I was doing was right—exposing the injustices built into the system. Later that night, we (a group of at least 1,000 people) tried to do an impromptu march down the streets as an act of civil disobedience (“Whose streets? Our Streets! Whose streets? Our Streets!”), and I saw people being dragged onto the ground by cops right in front of me. This is not a fantasy of some anarchist punk who wants to be a rebel and disobey the rules. The civil disobedience that is going on is not given a lot of media attention, yet is probably the most important element of the protest because it directly challenges the laws that limit the voice of the movement. It raises the questions, who are the police really protecting and why?

- Why did you get involved with the protests, how does it speak to you particularly?

I knew about the protests since July and wanted to get involved from the start. The first day I went, it looked like about 100 people trying to turn the protest into some sort of artistic expression. I went home disappointed, thinking this was the worst protest I’ve been to. Now, its grown and has more organization to it. Normally people go to protests, march, and then they go home back to their fragmented and isolated lives. Now, they stay there or come back repeatedly and gain more people.

- As a representative of the 99%, what is your message to the masses?

Your life might be comfortable, but that’s not what is important. It’s not an accident that we are left disempowered with the belief that we can get by as individuals fighting for “the survival of the fittest.” It’s becoming obvious that that method is destroying society and more importantly, the world. The 99% have to learn to work together. If you are of the 99% (you probably are), you can criticize and critique the Occupy Wall Street movement, but if you try to dismiss it altogether, you better come up with an alternative way of fixing society because something needs to be done fast

Opinion: Occupy Wall Street

   The Occupy Wall Street movement is quite romantic: thousands of disenchanted citizens

fed up with a top 1% not paying their fair share. It evokes images of Tunisia or Egypt

from the Arab Spring. Hell, some might call this our Vietnam.

   But Liberty Park is not Tahrir Square, and Wall Street isn’t even on Wall Street anymore

(someone should tell them that…). The “Occupants” are not the peace-seekers of the late

60s, mainly because they aren’t really “seekers” of anything. The movement’s followers

openly admit they don’t exactly know how Wall Street works. In fact, this movement and

its lack of leadership, direction, and clear demands or goals poses no real threat to the

“system” they rail against. The best thing Occupy Wall Street has going for it has been an

unusually warm couple of weeks for October.

   But it’s going to get colder. And, without goals, progress can’t be measured. If this

movement has any chance of sticking, it needs to figure out what it’s for, and not just

what it’s against.

   Reporter Bob Braun observes that the protesters are there to demand economic justice,

jobs, and just flat-out recognition of their economic pain. Okay, you’ve got everyone’s

sympathy. It’s not right that the 99% bear burdens imposed by the top 1%. It’s not fair

that the banking collapse on Wall Street has hurt people on Main, Maple, and Walnut.

But what’s next?

   The danger in Occupy Wall Street is the same danger presented by the Tea Party: a large,

loosely-defined organization whose members don’t know much, but know they’re pissed.

And when those people who are willing to take everything to the brink get their way, our

country doesn’t work. When the American people voted in Tea Party members, they got

exactly what they asked for when the debt crisis happened this summer: no compromise,

no better ideas, just a stalwart denial of all that is.

   If the Occupiers can’t steer their ship, they’ll be done in a couple of weeks. If they

continue along the path of radicalism, they’ll be labeled as the Glenn Becks of the left.

Am I happy that members of my generation have found their voices? Absolutely. I didn’t

know they really cared. Does our economic system need reforms? Many, and they need

to come quickly.

   Is capitalism as a system at fault? Nope, and to assert this proves that one is unwilling or

incapable of grappling with more complex ideas. The founders of this country

undoubtedly knew the benefits of a regulated financial sector, having just seen the effects

of the South Sea Bubble. They knew that capitalism and regulation were not mortal

enemies, and that a free market can be regulated, just enough so that the little guys don’t

get stomped on in the process. That’s why their Revolution has lived for over 230 years,

and is why this one won’t go past Thanksgiving.

Thoughts of the above post are the sole views of Mr. Mann.

Opinion: Occupy Wall Street

Occupied Wall Street (OWS) is long overdue. The young people leading it should resist its being co-opted by the Democratic Party. They need to realize that Wall Street cannot be separated from the capitalist system.

The capitalist system works only for the super-rich and those who are well paid to serve them. Nowhere is this more clear than in the USA.

The richest country on earth is a site of massive social injustice. Hundreds of millions have no health care; no pensions; are unemployed or under-employed; live in slums; suffer from miserable prison-like schools; pay huge amounts for “public” education.

The foulest racist ideas and practices are promoted by major networks, news media, and schools, to keep incomes of non-white workers a fraction of that of white workers, and their lives shorter and more impoverished in every way.

US rulers send soldiers to murder tens of thousands of people around the world every year to steal the natural resources (like petroleum) and secure cheap labor which drives down wages for American workers.

The capitalists run the country and both Republican and Democratic parties. Finance capitalists, symbolized by Wall Street, created the current Depression, then got their flunkies in both parties to bail them out with public money – yours and mine.

Now “conservatives” -- politicians like Gov. Christie, and those paid off or brainwashed by the rich – are blaming everybody but those really responsible. Public workers. The unemployed. Undocumented workers, whom they call “illegal aliens.”

The Republican Party is openly the enemy of US employees, far worse than Al Qaida. Its policies kill more Americans than a dozen 9/11’s every year.

(Sign seen at OWS last week: “Keep Undocumented Workers – Deport Republicans!”)

But the Democratic Party is, in a way, worse. They promise reform only to stab reformers in the back. The Dems will try to coopt the OWS movement. Don’t let them do it!

So OWS is good because it is the beginning of a fight against exploitation. This consciousness needs to be clarified and sharpened. Evil as Wall Street is, it is just the tip of the iceberg.

The youth of today need to make the 21st century the era when capitalism – the exploitation of the overwhelming majority by the evil few – is buried for once and for all.

Let’s make OWS the beginning of that powerful movement we so desperately need.

Thoughts of the above post are the sole view of Mr. Furr.