On graduation eve, U Chicago Student Prez faces expulsion

[GMTplus7]

On Eve of Graduation, University of Chicago Student President Faces Expulsion

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/us/university-of-chicago-protests-tyler-kissinger.html

On an afternoon in May, 34 protesters breached the locked doors of the administration building at the University of Chicago and dashed upstairs to the fifth-floor lobby of the president’s office. Sprawling on chairs and on the floor, equipped with food and chant sheets, they settled in for a long sit-in. The protesters, who were mostly students, demanded, among other things, a “living wage” for campus workers, more accountability from the campus police and disinvestment from fossil fuels.

It was part of a school year of student demonstrations across the country, often tolerated or even celebrated by members of the faculty or administrators. But this one was different: Days later, the student body president, Tyler Kissinger, who had allowed the protesters into the building, was threatened with expulsion the day before graduation.
…

Mr. Kissinger said he had been formally charged with “premeditated and dishonest behavior to gain entry to Levi Hall, creating an unsafe situation.” He is to appear before a disciplinary committee on Friday, about 24 hours before he was expecting to graduate.

Should U Chicago expel this student?

[Zinhead]

Maybe.

[Gator88NE]

Maybe.

On the day of the sit-in, Mr. Kissinger got past security by saying he was on official business as student body president. He hid in a bathroom for a few minutes, he recalled, then used his backpack to prop open a door to let everyone else in.

The protest ended an hour later when a university official told the protesters they could be arrested and students possibly expelled. Four days later, at a meeting of the student government, the university provost, Eric D. Isaacs, was confronted with students and campus workers pressing the demands.

[Gator88NE]

Back in the 60’s UChicago decided to pass on all of the craziness and it looks like today they will not be jumping on that Crazy Train…

[MYOS1634]

No.
The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Essentially, expelling a first generation student who got into Uchicago, let alone on the eve of graduation, ruins his life for something that may have been ill advised but certainly isn’t a crime or even a misdemeanor. Kids sat for one hour in a corridor and some staff members disrupted proceedings demanding living wages (something which, as a son of a cafeteria worker, he must have a better idea of than many board members.)
Expelling a student for this seems completely out of proportion.
Students invade, present their demands (who h can be harebrained or not), sit around, are taken outside. Some demands are considered and voted on by the University Senate or relevant body, others are summarily thrown out. Expelling anyone for such actions has no place on a college campus.

[mom2twogirls]

I agree with @MYOS1634 that expulsion is out of proportion.
I do think some repercussion is fair though. Maybe not allowing him to participate in some (or all) of the graduation activities.

[MYOS1634]

^ yes, that would be fair.

[GMTplus7]

Maybe they could let him graduate, then press criminal charges.

[MaterS]

This isn’t about the protest. He violated university rules by entering a building through deceit, then allowed others to enter the building and failed to consider their safety. It shows a lack of moral character.

Do I think UofC will punish him? Absolutely not. It doesn’t fit their recent history.

Personally I don’t think he should be allowed to walk. Expulsion is far too severe.

[T26E4]

but @MaterS , your judgment of his deceit as “lacking moral character” could equally be applied to many forms of protest (Boston Tea Party e.g.) or whistle blowing.

I think it’s sufficient to say you disagreed with the extent of his actions for his movement. Many might applaud his willingness to break convention to push an agenda of social justice. I don’t give carte blanche to anarchists but lacking moral character isn’t a phrase that jumps to my mind when I consider the protesters of a cause I may disagree with.

I’m much slower to cast issues in a “us” versus “them” narrative in my older age. Without people raising their voices, lots of what we consider as “normal” wouldn’t exist: no-lead gasoline, mandatory airbags & seatbelt, the FDA, child labor laws, women’s suffrage, Civil Rights and the Voting Act, consumer protection laws, banking regulation, just to name a few.

Just my 2 cents

[JHS]

Back in the 60’s UChicago decided to pass on all of the craziness

That would be news to many 1960s University of Chicago alumni, including one Bernard Sanders (who led the first sit-in described below).

This is from the website of the University library. Note that in 1969 42 students were expelled and 81 suspended for a two-week sit-in (involving, initially, at least 400 students) at the administration building.

CORE Housing Sit-In (1962) and Students Against the Rank Anti-Draft Sit-Ins (1966 and 1967)
In 1962, members of the Student Government and the local chapter of the Congress of Racial Quality (CORE) occupied the area outside University President George W. Beadle’s office to charge the University with discriminatory practices in managing its off-campus rental housing. In May 1966 President Beadle announced the University’s intention to provide class rankings and other academic information to Selective Service draft boards, with each student retaining the right to withhold this information from the board. A new campus group opposing this policy, Students Against the Rank, led a sit-in in the Administration Building that began on May 11, 1966 and ended on May 16. More than 400 students participated in the sit-in, while 350 other students endorsed the position of Students for a Free Choice, which suppoted sharing of information with draft boards. A second anti-draft demonstration took place a year later. On May 29, 1967, 120 students took over the Administration Building for several hours for what was called a “study-in.” As a result of this demonstration, fifty-eight students were suspended for the Autumn Quarter of 1967, although most of the suspensions were not carried out. When Edward H. Levi was appointed University President, members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Hyde Park Area Draft Resisters’ Union demonstrated at a civic dinner in his honor in November 1968; their protest was spurred by the fact that the main speaker at the dinner was McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation and former national security adviser to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

Marlene Dixon Sit-In (1969)
The most well-know political demonstration at the University of Chicago took place several weeks later. At noon on January 30, 1969, four hundred students occupied the Administration Building of the University of Chicago, protesting the University’s decision not to reappoint Marlene Dixon, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and the Committee on Human Development. Activists charged that Dixon had been treated unfairly because of her leftist political views, her commitment to teaching instead of traditional scholarly publication, and the fact that she was among the small minority of women on the faculty. Within minutes of the beginning of the sit-in, all staff in the Administration Building were evacuated and security guards were placed in the hallways. In contrast to administrators on other campuses then being faced with similar student protests, University President Edward H. Levi refused to call in the city police to maintain order. University officials and staff moved to other campus locations, while the Council of the University Senate and Committee of the Council of the University Senate met daily to address the situation. On February 12, 1969, a faculty committe chaired by Hanna H. Gray, Associate Professor of History, concluded that no violation of normal appointment procedures had occurred in the Dixon case. It recommended, however, that she be offered a one-year terminal reappointment since the resolution of her status had been delayed by the controversy surrounding the decision. Marlene Dixon did not accept this offer. On February 15, the student protesters who were still occupying the Administration Building voted to end their sit-in. In March 1969, at the decision of University disciplinary committees, forty-two students involved in the Administration Building sit-in were expelled, eighty-one students were suspended, and three were placed on probation.

[MaterS]

@T26E4
Actually I think whistle blowers have more integrity than the average person, who sees wrong and does nothing.

For the record, I don’t disagree with Kissinger’s causes, I disagree with his method. From The Chicago Maroon, “Students led chants and gave speeches calling for a $15 per hour minimum wage for campus workers, equitable policing, and divestment from fossil fuels, among other demands.” There were far too many subjects raised for discussion for anyone to disagree with all of them.

[T26E4]

I’m aware that some recent college protestors’ manifestos have contained all sorts of “demands” – some on the face are absurd whereas some merit profound consideration. As you can see, I’m more lenient with the spirit of protest. The bldg wasn’t damaged and no real “danger” arose. I think UC would be seriously amiss to heavy handedly curtail this healthy action – but that’s my opinion only and that, plus a dollar will get me a sweet tea at McDonalds.

Personally, I think there’s a fine balance of tolerance and encouragement for protest that’s essential for US democracy. I’ve walked past Westboro Baptist “God Hates Fxxx” chanters going to a military funeral. I’ve driven through union picket lines to go to a white-tie event as well.

[Karenk6]

About time a college stands up to the immature and ungrateful rabble rousers. A living wage? A $260,000 financial aid package to a top 10 university in the world isn’t enough? “Give em an inch and they want a mile.”

[bluebayou]

The protesters, who were mostly students…

A clear security breach. It would be one thing if they were all students – but they were not. Those not students, if University employees, should be written up in the HR files. If not University employees, (perhaps outside agitators?) then I’d file a complaint with Chicago PD.

No, expulsion does not fit the crime. Banishment from all graduation ceremonies probably does, land perhaps even a “suspension” for a quarter. In the case of the Prez, that means he won’t get his degree conferred until Dec-16. Other students who sat in should also be written up for a violation, which will be expunged if they ‘keep their noses clean’ (as my dad would say) for awhile.

Yes, protest is part of our nation’s history – but so is the willingness to stand up and pay the price of protest. Show the depth of your convictions. (One thing I don’t get about today’s political protests is the gutless wonders who wear masks…)

[Gator88NE]

A recent letter from this student group…

To be clear, we are asking that the Diermeier and Isaacs attend this meeting, but we are not just asking that the University divest from fossil fuels, expand and revitalize Student Disability Services, end its racist policing practices, and pay its workers a living wage. Those are demands. The Trauma Care Coalition, our own CEP, and Faculty Forward have all shown that great, persistent organizing can and does win huge concessions from this powerful institution. We’re not going away, and we will keep putting pressure on administrators until they respond to the needs of their students, workers, and members of the surrounding community.

—The IIRON Student Network at UChicago

http://chicagomaroon.com/2016/04/14/letter-iiron-calls-on-new-provost-to-meet-demands/

Since the university administrators refused this groups generous offer to attend a public meeting to “discuss” the demands, the group decided on the sit-in. Which didn’t go as planned…

The protest ended an hour later when a university official told the protesters they could be arrested and students possibly expelled.

To bad we don’t have any video…

[Periwinkle]

T26E4, the Boston Tea Party was not a peaceful protest. It destroyed 46 tons of tea, worth roughly $1,700,000 today. Had the protesters been caught, they would have faced severe consequences.

[Consolation]

I say good for him. I think he displayed real moral character. This protest was modest in scope and neither damaged anything nor endangered anyone.

Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile? Yeah, those uppity black kids who think that cafeteria workers like their parents should make a living wage. This is what happens when Massa lets them up to the big house.

Sheesh.

[cobrat]

No and not only because the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.

Expelling him for what is essentially a mild protest compared to the campus protests at Oberlin during my time there in the mid-late '90s or moreso…campus protests across many campuses during the '60s would be a strategic mistake on the part of UChicago’s administration.

Creating an effective martyr through disproportionately heavy punishment…especially considering his family SES background* could seriously backfire on the UChicago admins and make them PR villains to many sympathetic or even neutral to the protests(assuming they don’t have latent authoritarian tendencies).

• Could also highlight the possible disparity in how lower SES students...especially first generation students are treated for similar disciplinary actions vs say....some siblings of a few undergrad college friends who are UChicago graduates whose upper/upper-middle class parents have substantially greater social capital to influence the UChicago admins and could hire the best lawyers money can buy for those siblings if they were in the same position.
  

T26E4, the Boston Tea Party was not a peaceful protest. It destroyed 46 tons of tea, worth roughly $1,700,000 today. Had the protesters been caught, they would have faced severe consequences.

The Sons of Liberty which instigated the Boston Tea Party also committed other actions which would definitely be considered criminal today…such as kidnapping and physically assaulting* officials in charge of collecting various taxes.

• Seizing officials, tarring & feathering them, pouring hot tea down their throats, beating them up, destroying their offices, etc.
  

[Karenk6]

What does his SES or first generation status or race have to do with ANYTHING? Like why are you all posting about it so obsessed with it?