Echoes of Colonialism: The Struggle for Space and Speech in Academic Institutions

About a decade ago, when I was in law school, the pro-Palestine student group planned a small demonstration on the campus, relying on the university's constitutional policy of allowing permitless gatherings in an area reserved for student speech. The zionist orgs, learning of the rally, found a loophole in the campus rules, which let you reserve that otherwise "free" space for "special events," which they did—and when the Palestine rally appeared, the zionists called the police to come evict the demonstrators.

Two years later, some months after the last major war in Gaza, a zionist group invited an I.D.F. commander to come speak at the law school, to justify the massacre. A whole wing of the building was cordoned off for the speaker, we students were kicked out of our lounge areas by special security, and the security goons came up to demand from us proper "identification" before "allowing" us to stay in our own building.

Colonialism isn't just a system in distant lands or overseas. It's something that makes claims on space, filters who belongs, demands special accommodations, and corrupts civil liberties and institutions, including and especially here. This is true in Columbia University now, and it's true in my own alma mater, which has perversely dedicated the current academic year to "freedom of expression," which seems to mean inviting ghoulish has-beens like Ann Coulter to give talks with names like "Immigration: the Conspiracy to End America" in the law school, while pressing criminal charges against their own students for nonviolent pro-Palestine protest, at the behest of U.S. congressional committees.

a reply to: BigRedChew

Why didn’t they just reserve the space first? Did they really follow the university constitution then? It’s sounds like it’s no different than things like zoo’s renting out to weddings and other events.

a reply to: Lazy88

It seems there might have been some confusion about the details. In the situation I described, the pro-Palestine student group was relying on the university's policy that allowed permitless gatherings in designated areas for student speech, which meant they did not need to reserve the space in advance for their demonstration. This was a regular practice consistent with the university's constitutional guidelines. However, the Zionist organizations exploited another rule that permitted reserving the space for special events, thereby blocking the previously free area during the time of the planned rally. This tactic effectively circumvented the intention of the policy supporting free expression by using the reservation system to preemptively stop the rally, despite the pro-Palestine group following the established guidelines for spontaneous student speech.

So your pro-Palestine group wasn't organized enough to reserve the spot to ensure their protests could go off with out a hitch and they were beaten to the punch by a rival gang?

I don't think reserving a meeting spot according to the rules of a university can really be considered colonialism... unless you have extremely thin skin.

Learn from your mistakes next time and reserve the spot first.

a reply to: Dandandat3

It's important to consider the context and purpose of the university's policy on permitless gatherings. This policy was specifically designed to support spontaneous student expression, reflecting a commitment to free speech on campus. The pro-Palestine group was acting entirely within the spirit and letter of this policy by planning a permitless demonstration in the designated area. This approach is rooted in the principle that a university campus should be a place where ideas and viewpoints can be freely expressed without the need for bureaucratic hurdles.

When the rival group used the reservation system to preemptively block the demonstration, it wasn't merely a matter of being "organized" but rather a strategic use of rules to suppress a particular viewpoint. This action goes beyond a simple reservation conflict; it reflects a deeper issue of how administrative rules can be manipulated to favor certain groups or perspectives over others, which is reminiscent of colonial tactics that control and restrict spaces to maintain power.

Describing this as colonialism highlights the systemic nature of such actions, where power dynamics are used to control spaces and limit the freedoms of certain groups under the guise of following rules. This isn't about having "thin skin"; it's about recognizing and challenging how systems can be skewed to suppress minority voices and maintain the status quo.

Moving forward, while it might be practical to reserve spaces to avoid such conflicts, it’s also crucial to address and possibly revise university policies that allow for such manipulations, ensuring they uphold the true spirit of free expression and equitable access for all student groups.

a reply to: Dandandat3


It looks like somebody pre-planned the events going on, at least enough to ensure they all had matching tents.

Reminds me of the long train of migrants that walk 1,500 miles through S.America and show up at the border looking refreshed, most without even a backppack and all wering what looks like brand new clothes and tennis shoes while browsing on their Iphones.

Just coincidence, I'm sure.

Having a meeting space reserved out from under you is mean spirited. But imagine the dangerous conditions Ivy League protesters are facing in the middle of New York City as their college denies them basic humanitarian aid. They are at risk of dehydration and starvation.

Columbia protester demands school get ‘basic humanitarian aid’

“Do you want students to die of dehydration and starvation or get severely ill even if they disagree with you? If the answer is no, then you should allow basic, I mean, it’s crazy to say because we’re on an Ivy League campus, but this is like basic humanitarian aid we’re asking for,’’

link

originally posted by: BigRedChew
a reply to: Dandandat3

It's important to consider the context and purpose of the university's policy on permitless gatherings. This policy was specifically designed to support spontaneous student expression, reflecting a commitment to free speech on campus. The pro-Palestine group was acting entirely within the spirit and letter of this policy by planning a permitless demonstration in the designated area. This approach is rooted in the principle that a university campus should be a place where ideas and viewpoints can be freely expressed without the need for bureaucratic hurdles.

When the rival group used the reservation system to preemptively block the demonstration, it wasn't merely a matter of being "organized" but rather a strategic use of rules to suppress a particular viewpoint. This action goes beyond a simple reservation conflict; it reflects a deeper issue of how administrative rules can be manipulated to favor certain groups or perspectives over others, which is reminiscent of colonial tactics that control and restrict spaces to maintain power.

Describing this as colonialism highlights the systemic nature of such actions, where power dynamics are used to control spaces and limit the freedoms of certain groups under the guise of following rules. This isn't about having "thin skin"; it's about recognizing and challenging how systems can be skewed to suppress minority voices and maintain the status quo.

Moving forward, while it might be practical to reserve spaces to avoid such conflicts, it’s also crucial to address and possibly revise university policies that allow for such manipulations, ensuring they uphold the true spirit of free expression and equitable access for all student groups.

What are you suggesting? That the universities should deny Jewish organizations from reserving meeting spaces on campus according to the rules of the university on the off chance that Pro-Palestinian groups want to show up for a moment of spontaneous free expression?

Perhaps the university can also bar Jewish students from using tables in the dining halls incase Pro-Palestinian groups want to use those tables.

And maybe the university can bar Jewish students from taking books out of the library so that Pro-Palestinian groups have full and free access to those books at all times.

We can extend this thought process to a lot of things. Eventually the Jewish students will just leave ... how great would that be?

a reply to: BigRedChew

So they were not to bright and got out maneuvered. They must have been law students who thought any arbitrary and capricious decision they made would stand. Then security kept out the haters who only thought they owned the building but didn't.

By the way, how can you call a pre planned gathering "Spontaneous" ?

a reply to: Dandandat3

The argument you're presenting misconstrues the issue at hand. It's not about denying Jewish organizations—or any groups—their rights to reserve space or utilize campus facilities. This is about ensuring that the rules aren't weaponized to silence specific viewpoints, particularly under the guise of administrative procedures.

Asserting that measures to prevent the misuse of reservation policies could lead to barring students from dining halls or borrowing books from the library is an extreme and unfounded leap. Such hyperbolic scenarios distract from the legitimate concern of ensuring that campus policies support, rather than stifle, free expression.

It’s crucial to recognize that facilitating a truly open and equitable campus environment means addressing any manipulations of the system that threaten this balance, regardless of the groups involved. If campus policies are left unchecked or are applied in ways that systematically disadvantage certain voices, we risk creating a suppressive atmosphere that contradicts the foundational values of academic freedom and equity.

The real question we should be asking is: How can universities refine their policies to foster an environment where all students, regardless of their affiliations, feel equally free to express their views without fear of being preemptively shut down? This is about fair play and maintaining the integrity of our academic institutions, not about targeting or excluding any specific group.

a reply to: nugget1

It's quite possible those just happen to be the model of tents on sale at Walmart right now.

I did a Google search for "Walmart Tent" and those green tarped tents were the first hit.

a reply to: BigRedChew

Interesting story. You said one group wanted to be at an area for a pre planned event. The area was supposed to be used for unplanned events in this case. So they violated the rules of that area.

Now, another group followed the rules of that area in arranging a gathering that was planned and the area reserved. They had followed the alternate rules for that area.

You agree to follow all those rules when you signed up for that school. Without doing that, you cannot attend.

Sounds to me like you need a refund if they were actually supposed to teach law to you. You know, what the rules mean and how to follow them.

Having read that story, I would never hire you in any capacity dealing with any law matter. You obviously did not learn from your law school.

a reply to: Albone

The assertion that the pro-Palestine group was "not too bright" and got "outmaneuvered" trivializes a serious issue regarding fairness and free speech on campus. It's not about cleverness or gamesmanship; it’s about whether university policies are being used fairly or manipulated to silence certain groups.

Referring to the security actions that day, the use of security to enforce what was effectively a suppression of free expression under the guise of rule enforcement is not a triumph of policy but a failure of the university's commitment to an open dialogue environment. The notion that only those who reserve a space "own" the right to speak there contradicts the very principle of free speech, especially in a designated free speech area.

Moreover, to clarify the term "spontaneous" once more: it does not imply a lack of organization or intent. It means that the gathering was meant to occur without the need for pre-approval from authorities, thereby allowing students to express urgent or timely political and social concerns. This is a critical function of free speech areas in academic settings, where students should feel empowered to voice their opinions without undue barriers.

Dismissing this as a mere oversight by law students undermines the broader issue: that policy can be weaponized to privilege some voices over others. We need to challenge this misuse robustly, not applaud it. If we stand for true academic freedom and equality, we must demand that university policies be administered in a way that genuinely promotes inclusivity and dialogue, not just the interests of those who 'play the game' best.

originally posted by: BigRedChew
a reply to: Dandandat3

The argument you're presenting misconstrues the issue at hand. It's not about denying Jewish organizations—or any groups—their rights to reserve space or utilize campus facilities. This is about ensuring that the rules aren't weaponized to silence specific viewpoints, particularly under the guise of administrative procedures.

Asserting that measures to prevent the misuse of reservation policies could lead to barring students from dining halls or borrowing books from the library is an extreme and unfounded leap. Such hyperbolic scenarios distract from the legitimate concern of ensuring that campus policies support, rather than stifle, free expression.

It’s crucial to recognize that facilitating a truly open and equitable campus environment means addressing any manipulations of the system that threaten this balance, regardless of the groups involved. If campus policies are left unchecked or are applied in ways that systematically disadvantage certain voices, we risk creating a suppressive atmosphere that contradicts the foundational values of academic freedom and equity.

The real question we should be asking is: How can universities refine their policies to foster an environment where all students, regardless of their affiliations, feel equally free to express their views without fear of being preemptively shut down? This is about fair play and maintaining the integrity of our academic institutions, not about targeting or excluding any specific group.

I guess what you are failing to explain is in what capacity is it a weaponisation of school policy to simply follow school policy?

You are accusing Jewish organizations of manipulating the system by following the rules of the system.

You are accusing Jewish organizations of denying equitable use of school property simply by following the rules put in place to ensure the equitable use of school property.

Show some evidence were these Jewish organizations used some form of corruption to put their names at the top of the list or forced to school to drop pro-Palestine groups from the list and then you might have a point.

But right now all you are doing is crying about the fact that there are rules and that people are following the rules and that some other people missed out because they didn't think it was important to reserve their spot in line.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

It appears there's still some misunderstanding about the policy dynamics at play. The area in question was designated for spontaneous, permitless gatherings as part of the university's commitment to free speech. The pro-Palestine group was utilizing the space exactly as intended under those policies—no reservation required, promoting open and immediate expression.

The issue arose when another group exploited a different rule that allowed the space to be reserved for planned events, effectively circumventing the primary purpose of the space as a venue for free, spontaneous expression. This wasn't just following the rules; it was using one rule to nullify the intent of another more fundamental rule meant to ensure free speech.

Regarding the rules and learning law, understanding and navigating legal frameworks isn't just about following rules; it's about interpreting their intent, scope, and application. It's crucial in legal education to question and critique how rules serve or fail to serve justice and fairness, especially in an academic environment where the expression of diverse ideas is foundational.

Asserting that this understanding disqualifies someone from practicing law overlooks the essence of legal education, which is to prepare individuals to think critically about how laws are applied and to advocate for changes where they fail to serve equity and justice. Such critical engagement is vital in law and should be seen as a strength, not a liability.

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
a reply to: BigRedChew

Interesting story. You said one group wanted to be at an area for a pre planned an event. The area was supposed to be used for unplanned events in this case. So they violated the rules of that area.

Thats a good point

a reply to: Dandandat3

The weaponization of school policy occurs not through the mere act of following rules but through the strategic use of those rules to systematically disadvantage or silence specific groups. The key issue here is not that rules were followed; it's that the application of these rules circumvented the spirit of free and open expression on campus, which is a foundational aspect of academic life.

The use of a reservation system in a space traditionally designated for spontaneous expression—especially when employed in a context that predictably prevents a particular group from expressing their viewpoint—raises legitimate concerns about equity and fairness. This isn't just about "following the rules" in a vacuum; it's about how these rules are leveraged in practice to produce outcomes that contradict the intended purpose of those rules, which is to ensure all voices are heard.

You are correct in suggesting that proving actual corruption or manipulation would strengthen the argument. However, the critique isn't necessarily about overt corruption but about how perfectly legal frameworks can be used in ways that ultimately undermine the principles they are supposed to uphold. This is a common issue in both law and policy: the difference between the letter of the law and its spirit, or its practical impact.

To address your point about evidence: The concern here is less about proving illicit actions taken by these organizations and more about questioning whether the policy itself—when it can be so easily used to suppress specific groups—needs revision. This isn't merely "crying" about the existence of rules but calling for a critical examination of how those rules maintain fairness and support the university's commitment to free speech.

a reply to: BigRedChew

So the intent of the rule was to allow anyone to gather spontaneously in the event that the space was not reserved. But when the space was reserved it stopped being an area for spontaneous gathering and became an area for the reserved gathering.

Some people were using the space spontaneously; and some time later had to stop using that space because it had been reserved.

Then the people who received the space used the space for their gathering untill their reservation expired.

Then the space reverted back to being able to be used by all spontaneously untill the next reservation.

Sounds like equitable way of yousing limited space. Allows all people time in the space and when their is contention the space goes to the group that requested it first.

What are you complaining about again?

originally posted by: BigRedChew
a reply to: Dandandat3

The weaponization of school policy occurs not through the mere act of following rules but through the strategic use of those rules to systematically disadvantage or silence specific groups. The key issue here is not that rules were followed; it's that the application of these rules circumvented the spirit of free and open expression on campus, which is a foundational aspect of academic life.

The use of a reservation system in a space traditionally designated for spontaneous expression—especially when employed in a context that predictably prevents a particular group from expressing their viewpoint—raises legitimate concerns about equity and fairness. This isn't just about "following the rules" in a vacuum; it's about how these rules are leveraged in practice to produce outcomes that contradict the intended purpose of those rules, which is to ensure all voices are heard.

You are correct in suggesting that proving actual corruption or manipulation would strengthen the argument. However, the critique isn't necessarily about overt corruption but about how perfectly legal frameworks can be used in ways that ultimately undermine the principles they are supposed to uphold. This is a common issue in both law and policy: the difference between the letter of the law and its spirit, or its practical impact.

To address your point about evidence: The concern here is less about proving illicit actions taken by these organizations and more about questioning whether the policy itself—when it can be so easily used to suppress specific groups—needs revision. This isn't merely "crying" about the existence of rules but calling for a critical examination of how those rules maintain fairness and support the university's commitment to free speech.

I don't know. It sounds like your simply upset because your pet group didn't get the space when they wanted too and you're making up esoteric arguments about "free expression" to explain why they should have gotten preferential treatment over another group who followed the universities policies and reserve the space.

Can I believe the reserving group were being mean spirited? Sure, maybe they were, none of us can read minds to know for sure ether way. But that's why we have rules in society; so we aren't left with just the biased opinions of the people involved.

The Jewish organizations followed the rules and the Pro-Palestinian organizations missed out. No big deal, the Pro-Palestinian group can easily remedy the situation by reserving the space next time they want to use it. It's not a tragedy, it's not colonialism, it's life and some times you're up and some times you are down.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Your reduction of this issue to mere scheduling logistics is both dismissive and overly simplistic, missing the fundamental point of contention. This isn't about a fair rotation of space usage; it's about the deliberate timing and manner in which the reservation policy was used specifically to block a group's access during a critical and timely moment of political expression.

To suggest this is merely about 'who gets the space first' ignores the strategic suppression of free speech through bureaucratic maneuvering. It's not equitable when the system is manipulated to consistently disadvantage one group over another under the guise of rule adherence. The way you frame it—as if everyone had a fair shot at the space—completely overlooks the context in which these reservations were made, which was not about sharing time but about silencing specific voices.

If we were truly discussing an equitable use of space, we'd see a system that doesn’t just favor those who reserve first, especially when such reservations strategically coincide with planned spontaneous events known to administrators and other groups. The fact that this needs explaining underscores a lack of understanding or a refusal to acknowledge how policies can be, and are, used to enforce selective silencing.

You’re painting a picture of a simple first-come, first-served scenario that’s anything but simple in practice. It’s manipulative to present it as such, and it’s disingenuous to pretend that these tactics don’t have a chilling effect on free speech. This isn’t about sharing; it’s about shutting down, and that’s a significant difference that needs to be recognized and addressed.