I had advocated a sit in at the next SGA meeting.  They would be speechless. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: word on the street
"with his history a love-in might be more appropriate ... (please note sarcasm.)"

---

A great idea -- but be prepared. When some of us took over the Dean of Arts office in 1990 at RIT we held it for four days. On the fourth day they cleared the campus and brought in a 40 member fully armed swat team and gave us a choice.

The GOOD thing about this is that the decision to call in the team was made by the Dean -- who was fired within two weeks. Less than three months later the President followed him into obscurity. The decision to take up arms against an unarmed group of students was so horrifying that the power brokers in Rochester was uniquely embarrassed.

Sometimes if you can get power to expose itself people actually do see the malevolence that sometimes lurks below . . . .

quote:

---

Originally posted by: present professor
"
On the fourth day they cleared the campus and brought in a 40 member fully armed swat team and gave us a choice."

---

Some of us are old enough to remember Kent State.

For whatever my opinion is worth, my guess is that a sit-in would not be your best move at this point.  It would give SFT a PR bonanza; it would allow him to play his "disobeying authority" card and make the protestors look like unreasonable lawbreakers rather than reasonable folks with a genuine grievance who are willing to work through legal channels.  This kind of protest may become necessary later, especially if there is any sense that the IHL process is rigged, but I would counsel against it at this point.  Remember that Ronald Reagan generated huge public sympathy when, as governor, he vowed to take California's college back from people who were taking over college buildings.  This was at a time when many more people in the general public probably sympathized with the protestors' cause than presently sympathize with yours.  You are living in a state in which taking over a public space would be considered beyond the pale; I speak as someone who lives in a similar state.  I am not saying that the idea should not be considered at some point; I am simply advising that it be kept in reserve for now.

Also, I am actually inclined to agree that right now is not the time to organize a sit-in, although it may be an option worth looking into at some point in the future, depending on how events unfold.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: usmstudent
"I do see your points about the sit-in being detrimental, but I agree with the idea of the list of student grievances.  Thames needs to understand that he IS affecting the students of USM, though he claims us as his "prized possessions."  The faculty senate has tried, with the open letter, to inform him of specific problems.  He felt the need to announce that he did not read that letter (though we all know that he must have scanned it, at the least).  If a group of students were to schedule an appointment with him to list our problems with the current administration, he would have almost no choice but to listen.   "

---

 

This sounds, to me at least, like a good idea. If you treat him VERY respectfully (no matter how you may really feel inside) and if he treats you with disdain or condescension, you will have won an important victory.  It might be good to invite a reporter or two (especially from the student newspaper) to accompany you.  Witnesses are important in cases like this, especially since SFT seems to have a tendency to put his own "spin" any ball tossed in his direction.  The important thing is NOT to lose your temper or be overtly confrontational; the more you can let him reveal himself as the authoritarian personality he seems to be, the better.