Well, time to destroy whatever goodwill I had left with University administrators.
As you’ve probably heard through Duke’s official statements and emails, the Allen Building is currently shut. The reason, we’re told, is the ongoing occupation of the building by nine students representing Duke Students and Workers in Solidarity, who in their occupation apparently pose an insurmountable disruption to the operations of the building.
The trouble with this of course is that they…don’t. Allen is a large, three-story building with multiple entrances, and the occupiers are camped out in one waiting room on one floor that can be very easily avoided even if the occupiers were being disruptive—and as a wonderful photo from The Chronicle depicts, they’re really not. In fact they can’t pose disruption to the rest of the building because there are security personnel posted inside Allen preventing the occupiers from moving beyond the one room (and the corridor connected to it) that they’re staying in. Closing the Allen Building for the nine people in one of its waiting rooms is essentially analogous to closing the Bryan Center because Red Mango got a little crowded or shutting down the whole of Wilson because of an unusually large number of people on the squash courts.
It would take—what, two minutes?—to walk around the Allen Building to the next entrance if you wanted to avoid the occupiers. Now I don’t want to seem too accusatory here, but if the University was indeed so keenly interested in preventing disruption to student life and travel times, perhaps they shouldn’t have spent the last two years systematically shutting down areas of campus for renovations no one wanted. I mean, come on: if that two minute longer walk justifies shutting down the Allen Building altogether, then the closing of the Plaza should have caused the whole of Duke to shut for two years.
So this begs the question: why is the Allen Building shut if business there would be unaffected by the presence of the occupiers?
Well, it’s probably because Duke, not the protestors, wanted to shut it down.
Look at it this way: if Duke had allowed Allen to open after Sunday’s amnesty then anyone would have been able to come and go through the building. The occupiers would have been fully resupplied, they would have been able to socialize normally with visitors, their spirits would be raised and most importantly, their numbers might have grown. The administration would be left with an even more dramatic problem and potentially further inflated media coverage. As such it’s in their interests to keep the Allen Building shut while the protesters are still there.
One problem, of course: keeping Allen shut means disruption for all the people who work and study there and more discontent as a result. To deal with this potential PR issue, in my opinion, I contend, the university is embarking on a spin campaign. In emails and statements all over campus, Duke proclaims that it will not negotiate any further with the occupiers until they leave, on the basis that they’re causing too much disruption by being in Allen. But as already discussed, this disruption doesn’t exist and nor do the protesters want Allen shut. Yet by framing the closure as a result of occupier-caused disruption, Duke can make it seem as though it is the protestors, not the university, whose closed-mindedness is keeping the building shut. The protesters, Duke makes it seem, are selfishly continuing on their hopeless campaign in spite of the inconvenience it’s causing for their fellow students: but of course these protesters aren’t causing the inconvenience—Duke is. And the longer Duke keeps the Allen Building shut and alleging that this is a necessary consequence of the occupation the further public opinion turns against the occupiers.
It’s a clever strategy: play on the trope of the entitled, politically correct college student in a bid to make your own unwillingness to negotiate seem like their disregard for their peers and common sense. Michael Schoenfeld, Duke’s Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Affairs, is one such administrator that forwarded this point, claiming in a Chronicle interview that “a non-negotiable position is a very selfish one. That’s not what we’re about.” Now, perhaps we have different understandings of the word “selfish,” but by my definition, holing yourself up in a room with no access to showers, clean clothes or normal human interactions for an extended period in a bid to secure fair labour practices for Duke workers—especially when you yourself are not one of those workers—doesn’t quite match up with the notions of selfishness or entitlement with which I’m familiar.
The truth is, if those students leave the Allen Building then they lose all their leverage and any hope of getting anything serious done. This battle hinges on public opinion: if it’s in the protesters’ favor more people will camp out outside Allen and the media circus will grow. If it’s against the protesters support wavers and so does morale. Duke has made the protesters inconvenient: by making them inconvenient the University can make the occupiers seem obnoxious and turn public opinion against them. But let’s be clear: these protesters pose no inconvenience to you. They’re forgoing basic amenities for an indefinite period so they get a shot at securing better standard of labour for the people that make Duke run for you. They are fighting hard for something good at no cost to you so please, don’t fall for the vilification. And Duke—head back to the negotiating table. It’s not as though you have to go far: they’re sitting in your waiting room right now.
Bron Maher is a Trinity senior. His column runs on alternate Wednesdays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.