Lately, everywhere I turn, I see another Conn student, holding a sign or dressed as a banana, protesting some latest injustice on campus or in the world. Maybe it was because I was an oblivious, overwhelmed freshman last year, but I don’t recall seeing as much activism on campus then as I have in the past two months. It’s refreshing to know that there are students on this campus who don’t fit the apathetic college student stereotype, but at the same time, I feel like I see the same students protesting for different causes.
I am not the most politically or socially active student on campus and I don’t think I have the authority to criticize anyone based on their participation in activism or lack thereof. However, as a college community, I believe it is our job to voice our opinions about certain issues we want changed. If we don’t stand up for what we believe in or work to improve institutions or rules that we find unjust, either at Conn or in the world outside of it, we’re letting our talents and brains go to waste. We’re in college to learn, to be intellectually stimulated, and to think critically about the establishments around us. We should use the skills and the information we acquire from our time here to help us eloquently articulate our discontent with social and political injustices and to actively engage in events that will get our points across to others.
Dissatisfied with the current sphere of politics and economics in the U.S., some students have formed a new group on campus: CC Dissent. For a group of dissenters, they’re a very calm, rational group of people who are working toward a common goal of supporting the Occupy Wall Street — and more locally, Occupy New London — movements. What makes this group distinct from other activist groups on campus is their decision to forgo pursuing club status.
Group member Eliza Bryant ’12 explained the decision at a general body meeting last Friday. “Our role is dissent. Trying to get support from a government body is counteractive. We don’t need SGA to support us. That would be like Occupy Wall Street asking the U.S. government, ‘Do you support us?’”
I see the statement they are trying to make: they can do this all on their own, without any help from a political body. But aren’t the Occupy Wall Street protesters trying to get the government’s attention? Don’t they want the government to support their requests for economic change? That’s the point of protesting—to voice their concerns with the current economic state of our nation, and to appeal to a higher body that can do something about it and help generate change. Marching around New York City holding a sign isn’t going to create jobs, but it will garner the attention of the U.S. government, and they’re the people who can do something about the situation. The CC Dissenters know this, so their decision to exist without recognition from SGA confuses me a little.
At last Thursday’s SGA meeting, members from CC Dissent gave an hour-long presentation to the members of Conn’s student government. But they weren’t asking for SGA’s support for their group, despite some confusion from some of their members. They spent an hour asking SGA to support the Occupy Wall Street movement. If they put so much effort into a presentation to persuade SGA to support their cause, why wouldn’t they ask them to also support their group? The two seem to go hand-in-hand. Local change is more obtainable than national change. If CC Dissent and SGA found a common ground to work on, they would be setting an example for the Wall Street protesters and the U.S. government: compromise. CC Dissent’s choice to decline SGA’s backing from the onset of their club is analogous to the Wall Street protesters refusing government support for their proposals. The 99% can’t exist without support from the 1% and I’m not sure that a group can exist without the benefits of SGA support, such as funding. But I’m willing to be proven wrong.
I don’t disagree with the purpose of CC Dissent. In fact, I support the group and their initiatives. They’re a group of students who are passionate about a cause and are actively pursuing change. They remind us that if we’re unhappy with the conditions and institutions that surround us, it is our civil duty to go forth and occupy.
– Melanie Thibeault
Arts Editor
Melanie,
I have some issues with your article.
At first, you make a call for action, warning students that it is a waste of talents and brains to not stand up for causes they believe in, immediately after admitting that you yourself are not politically active. This hypocrisy and/or refreshing honesty isn’t such a big deal because it’s pretty irrelevant to the point of your article, though, so I’m not going to address it in depth.
My main problem is your understanding of CC Dissent’s decision to eschew SGA approval and funding. You think it’s a mistake for CCD not to seek SGA support because it is “analogous to the Wall Street protesters refusing government support for their proposals.”
It’s not analogous at all, in my opinion. The biggest difference between the federal government and the student government of Connecticut College is that one has teeth and the other doesn’t. One has the ability to influence job creation, forgive student loans, regulate corporations, etc. while the other decides on whether or not Oasis sells bottled water.
CC Dissent needs SGA’s approval and paltry allocation (probably like $300 for the whole year based on my experience with the funding proposals with similar clubs) as much as I need CollegeFashionista.com’s style advice. The SGA has absolutely no power to affect the types of changes that Occupy Wall Street would like to see. (That makes me think, though. Does SGA have any say in tuition freezes? Someone should look into that.) SGA’s support would basically mean that they agree with the stated objectives of CCD, which would serve an essentially nominal purpose and do absolutely nothing to help OWS’ cause. It’s a waste of time for CCD to seek SGA funding. At this point they need to focus on formulating a coherent message and working on their PR strategies. If they can’t get good press in the Voice, I don’t think they’re going to stay relevant.
Case in Point:
Eliza Bryant, CCD Organizer:
“Our role is dissent. Trying to get support from a government body is counteractive. We don’t need SGA to support us. That would be like Occupy Wall Street asking the U.S. government, ‘Do you support us?'”
FACE PALM.
Bryant is right in that CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine? Colony Collapse Disorder?) doesn’t need SGA’s support, but spectacularly wrong about Why. Government support is not counteractive. It’s exactly the opposite, and you were right on in taking issue with that. Where I disagree is when you say that CCD does in fact need SGA support. Again, SGA has no teeth and their stance on OWS does not affect other students’ opinions.
CCD has really shot themselves in the foot. Their fixation with “dissenting” has led them to eschew institutional approval, but without any sort of validation they’ll remain marginal. And in calling themselves dissidents but not actually doing anything to prove that label, they look even worse. It’s time for them to validate themselves or to drift into irrelevance. Like, get Seamus to mace them or something.