<p>Honestly, that’s like saying it’s impossible to grade english objectively when you’re an author.</p>
<p>If any student or even any of you could present evidence as to why this Occupy movement is ‘garbage,’ and if it were compelling and honest, everyone on Wall Street would pack up and leave.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your analogy is false.</p>
<p>A better analogy would be having an English teacher who writes horrible novel but the teacher believes defines his or her career and then having students study the book and write papers about the teacher’s book. The students who praise the book get the highest grades while the students who point out that the teacher’s book is horrible get lower grades. That is the dilemma of the students who waste their time in the Occupy class. A teacher who is passionate enough about occupy to want to teach about it is not likely to see the world objectively in the first place.</p>
<p>Seriously, this isn’t a big deal. OWS is, like, shoved in our faces all the time. Sometimes the protests even reach campus. It’s really annoying. But, regardless, it’s there.</p>
<p>It’s just ONE class offered out of an obscene amount and it’s OPTIONAL. I don’t see how this discredits Columbia at all. They are not forcing anyone to take this class. And I don’t see why it’s such an issue that the professor is biased. It’s his class and he can teach it how he wants to. Students going into the class will understand that it is bound to be biased, and can choose to withdraw. </p>
<p>Keep in mind, I am conservative and I abhor the entire movement, but I see no issue with this class. It’s not highschool anymore-- it’s college. And in college you have weird classes. Whether we like it or not OWS is pretty important right now and it makes sense to have a class there.</p>
<p>I don’t think every news grabbing pseudo-movement warrants a class devoted to it. Their political platform and organization are so vague and disheveled that I think OWS is hardly even a grassroots movement. It’s a bunch of people whining about the inequity of those making millions; meanwhile, they themselves are unemployed. Hardly academic-worthy stuff.</p>
<p>“Hardly academic-worthy stuff”? Would you state this if the course is a study of how OWS compares and contrasts with other recent movements (say, in the last year) on this earth (say, the Middle East) that entailed, at some level, “a bunch of people whining about the inequity of those making millions,” but also involved sea changes in the political landscape and the lives of the “whiners”?</p>
<p>I’m an old business guy, but I would love to take this course. I’d also love to take a course on the Tea Party movement. Whatever happened to open-minded learning? Columbia students from 1968 must be shaking their heads in shame to read some of these reactions…</p>
<p>+1</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you’re saying, but I’ll infer that you are talking about the Arab spring. If that is the case, the two movements are, fundamentally, completely different.</p>
<p>1) Let us acknowledge that the arab spring was by definition wholly grassroots. This is so because, while both movements use politically unconventional means of participation, the arab spring was organized specifically for the purpose of deposition of tyrannical and authoritarian political leaders. OWS is focused on some vague set of perceived sociopolitical inequalities, and by virtue of this lack of unity, is precluded from grassroots considerations. Can a “non conventional” movement still retain significance without being grassroots? Sure. Does it lose a ton of legitimacy and credibility? Absolutely.</p>
<p>2) On the matter of credibility, the AS was certainly representative of a majority of national or cross national peoples. While I cannot support this statement with statistical facts, I am almost 100% certain that any given national MAJORITY was in favor of the movement. Contrast this with presumptuousness of the “99%”; they are no means representative of me or anyone I know. On the contrary, many in society are equally annoyed at how this small faction has the gall to speak on behalf of people who clearly don’t support it. If they were truly the 99% or representative of them, this country would have a BIG problem.</p>
<p>3) Lastly, and equally important, the AS enacted change. Through concerted efforts the AS actually affected change. They did this in earnest, often through life-risking sacrifice. OWS protestors live in the richest country in the world with ample opportunity relative to other states (yes, even in the midst of a recession). The sacrifices are at best suspect and at worst disingenuous–this is not a point of contention. Because of this, they are increasingly losing popular favor. Credibility is a BIG ISSUE. When an anti-establishment participant lands a job on wall street, you know there is a credibility issue.</p>
<p>Silence, give it up. You don’t owe any explanation to people so ignorant they would dismiss this course out of hand.</p>
<p>Iggs, thank you for your thoughtful response. Your thoughts seem to reflect much of what I suspect the OWS course is all about. That is, comparing and contrasting prior “movements,” successful and not, with the OWS.</p>
<p>The latest update to the story is that Columbia probably won’t offer the class after all. All new courses (especially those taught by new professors) must be approved months before the start of the school year. Seeing as how OWS didn’t even begin until after this school year started, the class wasn’t submitted for approval in time.</p>
<p>Bwog has more: [Anthro</a> “Occupy the Field” Class May Be History – Bwog](<a href=“http://bwog.com/2012/01/05/anthro-ows-class-is-history/]Anthro”>http://bwog.com/2012/01/05/anthro-ows-class-is-history/)</p>
<p>lol @ the whole OWS movement. If you just stop for a minute and watch you’ll see they’re all sheep. Go watch the youtube video called UC Davis Pepper Spray What Really Happened. Not only was that whole out cry a load of **** but you see one person starts yelling something and soon all the other automatons follow. It’s really a shame to see the demagogic atmosphere that the whole movement resonates. </p>
<p>Furthermore, its (OWS) actions are absolutely aimless. “Oh yeah guys lets go cross the Brooklyn Bridge.” Oh wait, now the “99%” can’t get to work in the city. Or lets go block the subway so the “99%” can’t get to work. The lack of dialectic and absolute stupidity surrounding the movement and those who support it is abhorring.</p>
<p>I agree… the victim cards are overused by those occupiers.</p>