First there was the inauguration day fiasco at Seattle Central Community College, wherein a campus group called "Students Against War" (also known as "Tofu Crusaders for Justice," "Students for Social Peace Through Poetry," "Hippies for Hemp," or any other ninny student group name you can think of) chased a U.S. Army recruiter off campus in a rather hostile manner. Then came word via the Seattle Weekly that the school's administrators would be asking for an apology. Now comes the hazer's declaration that they need not apologize (big surprise).
We bring you the inside scoop. Below is the "Students Against War" faculty advisor, Peter Knutson's response to the administration's request for an apology. Following that is the email that initiated the frenzy:
From: Knutson, PeterInteresting. The following is the email requesting an apology:
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 8:45 AM
To: Central; North; Siegal; South; SVI
Subject: SCCC demands student group apologize to the U.S. Army
To: GNA Garcia
Coordinator of Student Involvement
Student Leadership Division
Seattle Central Community College
In re: Your letter; Public Disclosure Request
I write in response to your emails of 1/27/05. You state that the student organization, Students Against War, of which I am the faculty advisor, will be disbanded as of February 3, 2005 unless the group sends a formal apology to representatives of the United States Army regarding "the events of Friday, January 21, 2005." Should they refuse your demand, Students Against War will be denied the use of public facilities at SCCC by the college administration.
I assume you actually refer to the Inaugural Protest of Thursday, January 20. I further assume that you write this letter in your official capacity as a functionary of the SCCC administration in the Division of Student Leadership.
You allege that Students Against War engaged in "intensely alarming behavior" in the presence of Army recruiters. You claim that members of the organization Students Against War menaced people in the hallways, disregarded civil rights of others and touted such behavior as "admirable" at the subsequent Westlake Center counter-inaugural demonstration. You provide no sources or names of witnesses. Based on hearsay, you would deny this campus group their voice on our campus, without benefit of due process. Consequent to your allegations I therefore append to this letter three legally binding Public Disclosure Requests to which you and your supervisors are required to respond.
I was teaching during the time in which you allege that Students Against War was harassing U.S. Army personnel. I have subsequently spoken with SCCC staff and students who were directly present in the Atrium during the time you reference. The following are the facts as I have been able to ascertain them:
1-Students Against War was permitted to conduct a rally on the South Lawn. This rally of nearly a thousand individuals was conducted peacefully.
2-Students Against War did not promote or orchestrate the events in the Atrium. You are correct when you state that Students Against War did not plan to harass recruiters or behave in an uncivil fashion towards the military recruiters who, in your view, had "equal rights to be on our campus" along with students. Not only did the group not plan such actions, but the group did not commit such actions.Students who demonstrated against the presence of military recruiters in the Atrium did so as a matter of individual conscience, not as members of an organized student group. As faculty advisor to many campus organizations since 1996, I have never been instructed by your office that any student group is to be responsible for policing the entirety of the SCCC campus.
3-U.S. Army recruiters were informed by SCCC staff prior to their activities that a large protest was scheduled for Inauguration Day and it was politely suggested that their visit be postponed. The recruiters ignored this request and proceeded to set up shop with knowledge of the campus context.
4-Seattle Police officers and SCCC security were in communication during the Atrium incident. SCCC security was immediately present and informed the SPD that their assistance was not necessary. Despite the immediate presence of security and nearby SPD, who presumably would have witnessed the menacing behavior and civil rights violation you allege, there were no citations made. If enforcement personnel on the scene did not witness violations of law, what specific institutional standards did the students violate?
I am troubled that the SCCC administration would force our students to write an apology to the U.S. Army under duress. What kind of a lesson does this teach them? If the group’s conduct violated the law or well-defined institutional standards, then give them due process, and if found in violation, apply sanctions. But don't force them to write false words that violate their integrity . That smacks of dictatorship. I didn't think we were teaching that.
Peter Knutson, Ph.D.
Faculty Advisor, Students Against War
Anthropology Instructor
Seattle Central Community College
January 26, 2005 Dear members of Students Against War, I am writing in regards to the events of Friday, January 21, 2005. Your student organization reserved the South Plaza from 11:30a.m.-2:30p.m. to hold an event—a rally for Seattle Central students and others.Posted by Ambra Nykol at February 04, 2005 07:30 PM | Email ThisPrior to the event’s start (scheduled for 12:30p.m.), participants gathered in the Atrium. According to several students and staff present in the Atrium at that time, close to 100 participants encircled the US Army Recruiter’s table. The participants shouted, chanted, and snatched materials from the recruiters’ table. They even threw some of the materials at the recruiters.
We do not assume your club planned to harass the recruiters. Neither do we assume you intended to behave uncivilly towards people who have equal rights to be on our campus. However, as the sponsoring organization for the event, it is the Students Against War who must accept responsibility for this misbehavior.
Friday’s actions in the Atrium were in complete discordance with our college’s basic expectations of civil conduct. We believe that no matter what cause or ideals your student organization supports, you cannot menace people in our hallways. Your disregard for the civil rights of others reflected negatively on your club and the college.
Our Division and other offices on campus have received numerous complaints about not only your behavior in the Atrium, but about statements made at Westlake Center by individuals claiming affiliation to your club who bragged about the alarming behavior as if it were admirable.
The Student Leadership Division assumes that all student organizations operating under our guidance will respect the written policies of our college and the civil rights of all people, including those whose ideals differ from their own. Your disregard for our college’s standards has placed your status as a ratified student organization at risk.
We request you write a letter of apology to the Army recruiters for the intensely alarming behavior to which they were subjected. If we do not receive a copy of your apology letter by Thursday, February 3, 2005, your club will cease to be in good standing on campus until the end of the winter quarter.
Sincerely,GNA Garcia
Coordinator of Student Involvement
CC: Lexie Evans, Associate Dean of Student Leadership
Bea Kiyohara, Vice President of Student Development
Peter Knutson, Students Against War Advisor
Mildred Ollée, President
3-U.S. Army recruiters were informed by SCCC staff prior to their activities that a large protest was scheduled for Inauguration Day and it was politely suggested that their visit be postponed. The recruiters ignored this request and proceeded to set up shop with knowledge of the campus context.
If a fraternity got this rowdy, what would a college do? I suspect it would at least turn to the group and ask them to use peer pressure to restrain the behavior the adolescent members of their group.
The college is doing no more in this instance. An apology from the group for the unacceptable behavior of many of their members would be a small step toward using peer pressure to teach the adolescents among them to act a little older than their mental and emotional ages would otherwise cause them to act.
The faculty adviser seems not to recognize any obligation at all to make an effort to advise his group to behave in a civilized fashion. Of what use is it to have him in an advisory role?
Posted by: Micajah on February 4, 2005 07:44 PMThat they shouldn't behave like scum?
Posted by: ScottM on February 4, 2005 07:51 PMAssistance was not necessary. Where have we heard that before in terms of riots in Seattle? It's so ironic that to excuse themselves of jihadist activities, they accuse the administration of being in collusion with their avowed purpose of rioting. Sound's like they were grumpy that the administration sold them out when the pressure got on. "Mr. Kettle, as counsel for Mr. Pot, I am advising you that my client is calling you black."
Posted by: Mogura on February 4, 2005 08:22 PMWell......Duh! I guess this person's denial of the "intensely alarming behavior" would have more merit - if the students hadn't gleefully photographed the entire event!
Posted by: Dan on February 4, 2005 08:36 PM
http://socialistworker.org/2005-1/528/528_12_StandUp.shtml
[snippet]Organized and led by SCCC Students Against War (SAW), more than 200 SCCC students marched out of classes and through the school’s main building, pounding on walls and chanting “Stand Up! Fight Back! Walk Out!” By the time the march ended, 100 more students had joined the walkout, adding to protesters’ confidence.
Demonstrators surrounded two Army recruiters who were arrogant enough to show up against the advice of the student government. The 300 students crowded around the recruiters, chanting, “Recruiters off campus!” and “No more war!” Students tore up Army information pamphlets and threw them back in the recruiters’ faces, while several pounded on their table.
After a noisy 10-minute standoff, a nervous and intimidated Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Due told one student, “We’re not leaving until you leave.” Yet just five minutes later, the recruiters were gone, escorted by campus security.
Students were close on the recruiters’ heels as they left, chanting, “You should be ashamed!” and “Don’t come back!” Outside, students were met by a crowd of over 1,000 protesters, bands and speakers. “We are the majority,” University of Washington student Jesse Hagopian told the cheering crowd.[end snippet]
Posted by: Deborah on February 4, 2005 08:41 PMOffice of the President, SCCC: (206) 587-4144
The apology would have been the easier, and more noble, way out.
Now we must ask that SCCC use the AP photos to discern the students, and suspend or expel them immediately. If the student group was willing to apologize, I was willing to forgive and forget.
Since the student group is shirking responsibility and blaming individuals, those individuals must be held accountable. Easy cheesy.
Posted by: Larry on February 4, 2005 09:09 PM3-U.S. Army recruiters were informed by SCCC staff prior to their activities that a large protest was scheduled for Inauguration Day and it was politely suggested that their visit be postponed. The recruiters ignored this request and proceeded to set up shop with knowledge of the campus context.
Why would the SCCC staff have to do this if they didn't think there was some threat to the recruiters?
And the recruiter shouldn't need to postpone his visit to another day. It is ASSUMED that students will be demonstrating peacefully (that's a big assumption when we're talking about left-wing crazies, I know), so why then should he have to reschedule?
Apology in order for inciting this garbage. If it were my group, I would at least let this fine recruiter know that OUR group was not part of the garbage (if it's true, that is) and let him know how disgusted we were with the conduct. I don't hear of these students even doing that. They seem pleased at the whole incident. Where is the condemnation, if they did not approve?
Posted by: Michele S on February 4, 2005 10:54 PMHmm, sounds like a good time...
I'm a pretty standup guy when it comes to First Amendment rights..but this goes way beyond what's acceptable. I would hope the administration would have the guts to go forward with the "punishment," such as it is. Lashing with a wet noodle is better than nothing at all.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 5, 2005 12:34 AMIf you're going to correct my spelling, best to correckt it correctly. Hostilely? I don't think so. Oh and you missed another one too.
Apologies all, spell-checking HTML irks me to no end. Problem solved.
Posted by: Ambra Nykol on February 5, 2005 12:42 AMWhile we will be peaceful, we won't be quiet! And let's pull a trick out of the old lefty protest handbook-- PEPPER THE PRESS WITH NEWS RELEASES!
Maybe, just maybe, we can squeeze an apology out of these "whackos", but if not, we can settle our consciences by knowing we stood up for our troops. Who's with me?
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on February 5, 2005 01:13 AMThis is an example of extreme hate generated by
left wing zelot commentators on Air America......oh why bother. In the eyes of the MSM and most lefties, this is just perfectly fine.
Imagine the PLU Young GOP's forming a mob and chasing a liberal proff off campus. Oh , I forgot, there would be consequences and the kids have the character to turn away from mob behavior.
Posted by: Brad on February 5, 2005 06:15 AMDisturbingly, SPD and SCCC security apparently does not enforce laws on vandalism, harrassment, assault, and bullying behavior. I am not sure that I am surprised, for on the basis of the facts, Seattle has decriminalized such behavior IF YOU ARE APPROACHING THE SITUATION FROM THE LEFT ONLY. WTO protesters find 25 dollars, people hanging from bridges not even charged, no attempt to locate arsonists protesting medical research, no action taken against car keyers, all perfectly acceptable to the law enforcement folks in Seattle.
This is such a big joke so as not to be believed. It is now a standard of behavior in Seattle to mask a disposition to incivility in a left wing mantra and have license to be disruptive to great extents without penalty. Enabled, as it were, by the power structure and people maintaining that power structure. And clearly accepted by the populace of those who live in Seattle.
In my opinion, the answers become clear. Until laws are enforced and civil behavior is promoted, remove all state and federal grants from Seattle. Substantially reduce state and federal support from SCCC. Remove the accredidation from SPD as a police force. AG investigation into politically motivated gap in enforcing laws, policies, and regulations on SCCC by all entities. Urinalyses for EVERYBODY! A bill presented to SCCC by the DoD for the materials destroyed.
And, oh by the way, CG? I know you read Stefan's blog, so take this to heart. It will be a cold day in a hot place before I support anything regarding any increase in funding for education until these matters of incivility are addressed.
And, as for the good Doctor, well, it's my regret that he has been judged unworthy to attend to an institution in Berkeley. Pretty sad state of affairs, really, when one is rejected by the actual torch bearers of his apparent beliefs, and he is exiled to the backwaters of the world, and becomes insignificant wannabe at a sixth rate institution. A life wasted, really. Sad. Pathetic.
It's a self perpetuating situation, based on the belief of CG and those of her ilk that extremeism in the defense of the liberal power structure is no vice. Apparently, a situation without end.
Posted by: Patches Pal on February 5, 2005 07:59 AMI now seek, in addition to the above,
1) mandatory sensitivity and diversity training for faculty and students identified has having participated in this event.
2) Institution imposed community service requirements that would 'help the healing' by putting the offenders to work, helping the families of our deployed soldiers.
It would only seem fair to impose the same types of rememdies brought out so often against people who 'victimize' people and groups, declared and undeclared, that are more socially acceptable to people within the power structure.
Sorry, but a letter asking for an apology, and having that request denied is not sufficient.
Posted by: Patches Pal on February 5, 2005 08:12 AMSituation over. They learned a valuable civics lesson. The world is better for the new understanding.
Interestingly, battery was committed, with water bottles during the melee, according to online and paper reports. The Socialist pages indicate that this group was 'recently formed.'
Does anyone have any pages that would show upcoming events they are planning? I've not located any, and am quite curious to see the 'best and brightest' at some point in the future. Maybe help them with some diversity?
Posted by: Patches Pal on February 5, 2005 09:37 AMPeter Knutson, director of Friends of Fishermen's Terminal, a fisherman activist and anthropology professor at Seattle Community College, said he and other fishers are concerned about replacements for both positions.
Knutson sent an earlier message to Sewell stating that the selection of a new director to replace Serrill at Fishermen's Terminal "should involve an open public process. This is a critical juncture for this facility and it is especially important that the new director be sensitive to public concerns over the future of this key industrial facility ... we would urge you to open this process to public participation and conduct an open search."
After he learned of Sewell's plans he sent another message, this time to Mick Dinsmore, executive director of the Port of Seattle, stressing the fishers' concerns. "We also are very concerned that now the Seaport Director replacement search also be an inclusive public process," rather than internal search.
It would be nice to see Professor Knutson live up to the standards he demands of others.
And what the hell does this mean?
…Students Against War did not plan to harass recruiters or behave in an uncivil fashion towards the military recruiters who, in your view, had "equal rights to be on our campus" along with students.
Is it your view, Professor Knutson-professor, activist, protector of rights, that military recruiters do not have equal rights to be on campus?
The burglars did not plan to kill the occupants of the home. They thought the house was empty. Therefore they are innocent of homocide because they did not plan it. Harumph.
STUDENTS AGAINST WAR MTG 02:00PM-04:00PM BE-3219
I found this meeting notice here. It looks like they are meeting often over the next few weeks.
Anyone care to stage a counter-event, or protest their assemblage? Standard fanfare suggested: lots of big American Flags, several enlarged portraits of W., materials from ProtestWarrior.com, perhaps even some classy "orange attire"?
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on February 5, 2005 11:14 AMAnd please don't play the 9/11 card. To manipulate 9/11 to justify this war is an unfathomable insult to the 3,000 victims and their families.
Posted by: TaxPayingEmployedFulltimeStudent on February 14, 2005 11:34 PMUntil we have a draft, let's get off this "sent people to die" stuff. No, people volunteered to enter into a field where their lives could be in danger.
Now, if you want to talk about the socio-economic disporportionality in the military, that's another topic. Namely, the fact that we never see the children of the powers that be fighting in the war. On that shadiness, I will agree, but that's not the topic at hand.
Posted by: Ambra Nykol on February 14, 2005 11:42 PM