Student strike: more stories and updates
Students held yet another demonstration Tuesday evening and it remained peaceful.
(Listening to the CBC local news this morning I heard the news reader say the student demos had become “gradually more violent” which struck me as both inaccurate and inflammatory: the violence spiked in Victoriaville on May 4 but since then it’s been clear nobody wants a reprise of that kind of scene.)
Proof that injunctions can’t force people back to classes was demonstrated Tuesday at a CEGEP in Ste-Thérèse. Rima Elkouri ponders the ludicrous notion of using police methods to force people to teach and learn – while Jean Charest prepares a law to do just that.
Meantime, Michelle Courchesne may have said some magic words in her first pourparlers with student leaders.
Bill Binns 10:21 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
I think very little has been said (especially here) about what seems to be a significant percentage of students who want to attend the classes they paid for and complete their education on schedule. At a recent demonstration where the doors to a CEGEP were blocked by protesters, a crowd of students cheered when the police riot squad showed up.
These students are really getting screwed. Not everybody wants to spend five years in university.
Teachers who don’t show up for work should be fired. Anyone who blocks access to schools should be arrested. All of them. Hundreds at a time if necessary.
C_Erb 10:27 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Those who wish to end the strike and resume classes should show up to their respective GAs in numbers greater than those who wish to continue with the strike. The fact that this hasn’t happened at these universities and colleges where injunctions have been imposed by the courts suggests that there is a higher level of support for the strike than against at these schools.
Adam 10:28 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Kate, it’s obvious that you side with the red square movement, but what I genuinely don’t understand is how you can be so dismissive of the other side, the students who just want to go to class and finish their semester. By what possible right does one group of students have the right to prevent another from having access to the education that they’ve paid for? What right does someone have to tell another person, sorry, your life is on hold until I decide otherwise? The spectacle of riot police on campuses is as abhorrent to me as it is to you but the actions of these people blocking schools are appalling.
Adam 10:29 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
C_Erb, again, what right do they have to prevent people from educating themselves? Even setting aside the outrage of voting in public, with all the pressure that this entails, what right does anyone have to tell you or me that we’re not allowed to go to class if we want?
qatzelok 10:31 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@ Adam: “By what possible right does one group of students have the right to prevent another from having access to the education that they’ve paid for?”
You could say the same for any strike, and say that scabs have “the right” to work if they wish.
C_Erb 10:41 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Exactly. This is why picket lines exist on worksites where the labour union has gone on strike. A strike doesn’t work if enough workers are showing up to keep the factory/store/etc running. The same goes for a student strike. If you’re against a strike (labour or student) you’re going to be against this tactic which is why a vote is cast to make sure that the majority of the workers or students are on side.
Adam 10:44 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
qatzelok: they absolutely do, no one has the right to prevent people from working, either. But the law (which is profoundly immoral) says otherwise. With the students, there is no such law. There is no legal basis for them preventing their fellow students from going to class.
Incidentally, it’s sophistry to call this a “strike” – a strike is not going to work. Declining to consume a service is a boycott. It’s like ordering from Domino’s and then telling the delivery guy to shove it because you’re on strike against pizza. Whatever that is, it’s not a strike.
Joey 10:46 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
I don’t understand how Elkouri’s piece neglected to mention that CEGEP professors have been picketing outside schools where students have received injunctions to have classes reinstated. I get the bind professors are in when they are forced by judicial order to teach (though I think the particular discourse presented by Elkouri is a little over the top), but something must be said about professors who actively undermine a court order that they should be following. As long as teachers haven’t themselves gone on strike, there’s no justification for ignoring – and kiboshing – the injunctions.
Joey 10:53 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
It’s interesting how the students in Robitaille’s piece ascribe a lot of goodwill and openness to Courchesne, who it seems said basically nothing of substance in yesterday’s meeting. There seems to be this idea that she – the Treasury Board president! – would be more open to some kind of negotiated moratorium than Beauchamp, which defies all logic, as evidenced by the fact that the Liberals appear to be working on a law that will force classes to operate despite the remaining ongoing strikes. This is especially odd because the student groups’ reaction to Beauchamp’s quitting was basically “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Suddenly they’re optimistic? Isn’t it more likely that Courchesne, who is somewhat Charest’s right hand, will take a harder line?
I’m tempted conclude that this is the same kind of amateur hour stuff we saw after the entente, which the student leaders all signed and then immediately refused to recommend and ultimately ripped to shreds.
Kate 11:07 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Adam, why do you expect me to make a show of supporting a position I don’t support?
The people who “can’t study” are perfectly free to study – on their own time, meet their profs outside of school, hold hedge classes outdoors in a park, I don’t really care, but nothing is stopping people from acquiring knowledge if they really want to.
In any case, I’ve repeatedly heard of cases where students didn’t show up for the strike vote. Any vote works the same way: if you fail to vote, you lose your chance to be heard. Don’t stay away from elections and then complain things did not go your way.
Kevin 11:17 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@C_erb
You just outlined the whole problem with the student movement in one sentence. Why should legitimacy *only* apply to people who stand in front of a building?
And, why should students who want to be in class (because @Kate you know as well as anyone that this protest is about much more than “knowledge” otherwise protesters would just go to the library instead of paying high fees) get into a street fight with their opponents?
We don’t need rumbles in the school yard. And we don’t need people claiming that might makes right.
Josh 11:20 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Kate, it’s not that anyone expects you to “make a show” of any position you have, it’s the wave of the hand with which you dismiss people that have an opinion counter to yours.
Let them study in a park? Really? That’s disingenuous.
Bill Binns 11:21 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@Kate – Of course students are free to self-study but this doesn’t get them any further down the road to graduation does it? This is about people earning their diploma in time to make their slot in grad school or being forced to spend an additional year in school rather than going out and earning a living.
Kate 11:22 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
The students who “can’t study” are actually getting a huge break! They’re getting weeks and weeks of additional time to absorb information and write their papers.
The internet means actual presence in a physical classroom is less important than ever. If these people want to study and interact with their prof they have many options. Don’t ask me to tear up for them.
Adam 11:22 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Wow, Kate. I wasn’t expecting that. So what you’re saying is that the so-called “strikers” have the right to shut down schools on the sole grounds that they are willing to commit violence. No legal basis whatsoever – just the fact that they’re willing to be violent.
Yes, people can acquire knowledge otherwise but you don’t just go to school for knowledge, you go to school for credentials so that you can get a job and live your life. Otherwise what are the “strikers” complaining about? Who cares how much tuition costs if you can just forget about school and crack open a book at home and get the exact same outcome?
As for the votes, as I’ve pointed out, they have no legal basis for what they’re doing. None. If the students voted to expel all ethnic minorities from the classroom, they would have no right to do so. If they voted to turn the schools into movie theaters, they’d have no right to do so. What if everyone on your block voted to help themselves to your bank account? Would you be obligated to give them your money? There’s no law that gives them that authority, but you don’t seem to care – you seem to be saying that a vote trumps everything. Fine, then I guess I will find a few friends and vote that, say, the Ritz now belongs to us. We’ll be rich!
It is beyond my comprehension that a literate and intelligent person could seriously be making the claims that you are making.
Kate 11:24 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
That’s fine, Adam. I would be more nervous if you were vigorously agreeing with me.
Adam 11:25 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
“The students who “can’t study” are actually getting a huge break! They’re getting weeks and weeks of additional time to absorb information and write their papers.”
Are you for real? Are you for real? This is GOOD NEWS for them? Tell that to the CEGEP students who will lose a place in university, or the university students who will lose a place in grad school, or the students who will miss out on a summer job or a career they were expecting to be starting right now. Tell that to the international students whose visas are expiring and will be in legal limbo. Tell that to the students whose bursaries are running out. Hell, tell that to any student who wants to go to class because he or she actually thinks that they’re NOT getting a huge break!
Seriously, have you no ability to empathize with other human beings at all?
Jack 11:27 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Kate, “hedge classes” classes you really are Irish! @ Adam I am ambivalent but calling someone illiterate and unintelligent because they do not agree with you is illiterate and unintelligent.
Adam 11:27 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Just so we’re clear, here’s what you people are supporting. It’s utterly repulsive.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/protesters-storm-montreal-university-gang-up-on-students-in-class/article2434498/
Adam 11:28 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Jack, you must be seeing things because I specifically called Kate “literate and intelligent”, as in, “how does a literate and intelligent person say these things?”
Adam 11:30 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
“A few men even grabbed two female students by the arm, telling them to get out. One spray-painted a red message on the wall of the classroom: “On strike, dammit!””
“None of the protesters were carrying weapons. They did, however, get into students’ faces, shouting at them, shoving their books and climbing on desks.”"
Grabbing women? Physically intimidating others? How brave. How noble. How inspiring. What is wrong with you people that you can support this without reservation?
Bill Binns 11:32 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@Adam – That article you linked to… Holy crap. I had not heard anything about that. It seems this is all leading towards some serious violence.
Kate 11:36 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Adam, I never said I thought the students are all saints or that I support every means they’ve used “without reservation” – I think messing with the metro, for example, was stupid and sends the wrong message (even though I also think that was not an action chosen by the majority of the students on strike).
Why are you pushing and pushing me on this issue? I am a blogger, I am not in a supposedly neutral job here and I’ve never claimed to be.
Bill Binns, CBC just talked to some people who were in that UQÀM incident. It was not pleasant for anyone on either side of the issue but it is now over.
Josh 11:39 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
When you defend people who take away people’s legal rights, Kate, (the students who would like to be in class right now paid money for it, have planned their lives around it and have every right in the world to be in class and expect that their profs will to), you can expect to be pushed and pushed on that position.
Kate 11:52 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
It’s not an issue of rights in any sense, let’s not escalate it to that level. You know, and I know, that the people who paid for their classes will get their classes sooner or later.
If the profs are on the side of the student strikers, it’s evidence that they too are aware the system is rotten, that the universities are badly managed, that government funds meant for education are being rerouted to other ends, and that the whole system of university governance needs to be aired out here. And you can’t fix that with an injunction. You can’t put a gun to a prof’s head and order her to teach.
Charest is dealing with a loss of respect, and it’s a loss of respect for authority that percolates through our whole society. Some of it is happening because we know a lot of what percolates upward here comes from corrupt sources. Some of it comes because the people running the schools have been shown to be operating only on the same principle that Charest’s neoliberal government does: profit is everything. And everything that percolates downward here also fosters a slavish respect for profit as the highest motive in human life.
In this regime, why would a university principal, blandished with big money, even think of turning some of it down so that more front-line professors could be hired and paid better (just as an example)? They’d be fools to act against the flow, because the whole system runs on greed, greed’s applauded, it’s given the red-carpet treatment and honoured above all other human impulses.
Quebec badly needs to have someone at that level of authority stand up and speak against the corruption in these institutions. Such a person could galvanize the whole situation, but no one has appeared with that much nobility of soul. The hour has not yet produced the man (or the woman).
It isn’t just about tuition.
Josh 12:03 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
It absolutely is about rights. If I pay for a class, and if I plan my life around taking classes, I surely to hell ought to have the right not to be intimidated away from those classes, don’t you think?
Do you think that students who disagree with the strike ought to have the *right* to attend classes without hostile words and perhaps even hostile physical actions directed at them? It’s a simple yes/no question, Kate, no matter what you think about the larger cause.
Kate 12:12 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
And have I stopped beating my wife?
It’s anything but a yes/no question. The people who wanted to attend class should’ve swarmed the student union strike elections and voted no. That’s what happened in most of the elections at anglo universities. The students you’re talking about are fighting now for a “right” they should’ve voted for months ago.
I am not thrilled at the physical expression of force on either side of the barricade, but I strive to understand why it’s happening.
Adam: please, enough demagoguery. Nobody is dying here. Lives will go on. No omelets without a few eggs breaking. Etc.
Paul S. 12:18 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Kate… siding with the bullies.. who knew?…(shakes head sadly).
C_Erb 12:20 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@Kevin, the students standing in front of the building have a level of legitimacy because they voted to go on strike, the same way that labour picket lines have legitimacy. @Adam’s assertion that these are just random groups of students getting together to vote is disingenuous. The votes are facilitated by student organizations or student unions who are made up of representatives voted in by students. These aren’t ad hoc organizations, many of them have been in existence as long for as their schools have been open and are generally recognized by their schools’ administrations. They have structures in place to deal with strike votes. If a majority of students voting were to vote against a strike, then a picket line would be illegitimate, but in a school where a majority voted for (such as UQAM law), the students going to class are essentially scabs (as workers who cross a labour picket line would be) and are going against a decision made by the majority of (voting) students in their program/school.
There was a time when workers’ picket lines were seen as illegitimate by the State and were broken up by the police quite violently. It was a long time and a lot of blood was shed before they gained the right to organize and strike without repression. I think the students are fighting that same battle right now.
ant6n 12:26 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Doesn’t the strike have to be renewed by vote every week?
(This is what GND claimed on TV, saying that there is a continued large support for the strike. He also said that the most aggressive people at those votes are the people against the strike, meaning they seem to have no problem ‘expressing’ themselves despite the non-anonimuous vote)
paul 12:27 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
When you sign up to go to university, you don’t sign up to join a union, nor to be represented by said student union. You are in university as an individual, not as a collective group. The union doesn’t speak for the students.
Charest, as the polls indicate, is actually dealing with an increase in respect thanks to the short-sightedness of the protesters. If it is not about tuition, what is it? A class war? Fought only by one (increasingly extreme) demographic? It sounds more like a group of bullies to me trying to force people to see the world through their eyes, only it is having the opposite affect.
I guess the ends justify the means in your eyes Kate? I guess you won’t complain when the ends that the government moves ahead with justify THEIR means as well (whatever they may be).
Robert H 12:36 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Josh, je pense qu’elle a déjà repondu, et maintenant ce que nous avons ici est une bataille pour qui aura le dernier mot. Nous devrons être d’accord d’être en désaccord.
Josh 12:41 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Robert, you’re right. Although I like Paul’s succinct point at the end.
C_Erb 12:42 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
The reality is that you do. Most schools don’t have an “opt-out” of their student union. I’m sure it would be possible to get enough people together to force a vote of dismantling a union or students could get together and run for a place on the union with the intention of ending it but I’ve never heard of this happening, at least in recent times.
You often don’t get to choose what structures are built around you to represent you. I’m not really a fan of the current parliamentary structure that currently exists and represents me in Canada and Quebec, but there isn’t really a whole lot I can do about it.
Adam 12:43 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Kate, I have never claimed and never will claim that you have a duty to be neutral. You can advocate whatever you like, this is your soapbox. The reason I keep pushing is that I am gobsmacked by what you are arguing. It is a position that is devoid of reason, legality or, frankly, decency. “No omelets without breaking a few eggs?” Do you realize that this is profoundly affecting people’s lives? I’d like to see how you’d feel if you were one of those eggs that was being broken. No, one’s died (yet – I would not be surprised if we’re on the way there, either due to the cops or the thugs among the students). But is that the bar for whether something is moral? As long as no one dies, it’s fine? Have you no empathy for the people whose lives are being seriously affected, even if they’re not being killed?
I’m pushing you because, as Paul, says, you are siding with the bullies. Read that article I linked to. There are female students getting assaulted. Where do you think this might lead? What do you think is in the backs of those women’s minds right now? I can bet you that they’re wondering how good an idea it is for them to be walking around along tonight. I don’t get it. This is turning into violent mob rule. The inevitable response is going to be an escalation from the police (what’s the alternative? letting these people run rampant?). It is going to end in a very, very bad way unless cooler heads prevail.
And I don’t know why this point is not sinking in with c_erb, but once again, let me repeat: there is NO LEGAL BASIS for the “strike” votes. The student “unions” *are* “random groups” when it comes to voting to deny students access to the classroom. They have NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO. The fact that the student union exists doesn’t give it the right to do anything to anyone, any more than a condo board can just decide to kick out a co-owner because she’s unpopular.
At this point, to continue to support the actions of the students is to argue that might makes right and that violence is a perfectly acceptable means of getting what you want in life. It’s the sort of position that I would have hoped was beyond the pale in a civilized society. Apparently not.
ant6n 12:55 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@Adam
Arguing that injunctions and police is right is arguing that might is right.
Raoul 12:56 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
physically ejecting students from class is crossing the line. I doubt many will object when cops get physical with them.
Bill Binns 13:05 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
The events described in the Globe and mail article are completely indefensible. This sounds like the type of thing that happens in the Middle East. What’s next, groups holding classes in dark basemnts while roaming bands of masked thugs roam the city searching for them?
C_Erb 13:23 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@Adam, I’m curious as to where this legal basis and authority is supposed to come from. If your response is the government, I’m not sure how its legal basis and authority differs from the student organizations. Both have the same amount of legitimacy as far as I can see (both are made up of representatives elected by the people under them and both have sets of policy designed to guide how decisions are made). Hell, it could be argued that the student unions/organizations are more democratic in that they allow referendums on major issues such as bylaw/policy changes or whether or not to strike. In my lifetime, I’ve only ever seen the government in Canada (at any level) offer a single referendum.
steph 13:27 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
When strikers start sabotaging the work place, employers force a lock-out. For anyone to step in and force the schools to re-open under current conditions is just naive.
paul 13:56 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@CErb:
You have mentioned that you are studying to be a planner, it is going to be a difficult position if you don’t see the government as having any sort of legitimate authority and expect democratic consensus on every decision.
There are referendums in Canada on a semi-regular basis; just last year BC voted to reject a tax harmonization. I think a referendum would actually be an interesting idea in this case.
A general question: If Quebec held a referendum, and the government’s policy was supported – would the student protesters respect the results?
ant6n 14:16 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@paul
You are using a straw man argument, c_erb is not arguing that government has no legitimacy.
The point is that a democratically elected government is essentially a representation decided by voluntary elections, but then government somehow has the monopoly of force and legislative power. You can’t opt out of government and it’s laws, it’s essentially a construct somehow coming into existence through some ominous social constact or som’thin’.
In the same way, the students came together and voted on representatives, and vote on decisions. You can argue that their legitimacy is not all that different from government.
The issue of democracies being an oppression of the majority, trampling on minorities is an interesting point. At the student level, there’s exactly the argument being made here that the majority of students (among the striking faculties) is forcing the strike essentially ‘trampling’ on the minority of students who don’t give a fuck and just want to finish their semester.
On the other hand, there’s the government with it’s majority essentially trampling on the students; and it seems a vague majority of Quebecers are cheering for that government out of contempt for students.
paul 14:43 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Fair enough ant6n, you are right about the ability to opt-in/out of government. Not a very valid argument from my part.
You raise a good point about oppression of the majority…
If there is one thing that the students have learnt from their ancestors (unions, separatists, etc), it is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Should you reward the loud minority or the silent majority? Does rewarding those who yell the loudest, eventually result in the loss of majority rights?
ant6n 14:54 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@paul
I generally don’t understand this framing of the issue in terms of “should we reward the protestors”.
I personally feel that students have not been listened to, people just focus on the strike and some stunts and not the issue, they are constantly portrayed in the most contemptuous terms, as kids who can be dismissed, as spoiled entitled brats, as lazy etc. etc. Charest’s arrogance is appalling.
The issue started with one giant trample on the students. They feel it’s unfair they don’t have access to the same cheap education as was available in the last 30 years, and they believe it will affect us all. They feel it’s unfair that they won’t be able to graduate without debt.
So students put a lot of effort into trying to have their case heard, to get some generational fairness. If they “get their reward”, which would be tuition levels at the same levels as during the last 30 years, what kind of reward is that? What is this “everything” that students would be getting?
“Here you spoiled brat, you screamed so loud you gonna get everything you asked — namely, things ain’t gonna get worse for you”
Adam 15:03 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
“I’m curious as to where this legal basis and authority is supposed to come from”
Well, the legal basis from from the law. I thought that would go without saying. There is a law preventing people from working when a workplace is on strike. I don’t agree with that law, but at least it exists. There is no such law preventing students from going to class just because other students have voted not to do so. It doesn’t exist. The right by which the student blocking classes are doing so is the right of he who has the greater ability to use violence. Nothing else.
“Arguing that injunctions and police is right is arguing that might is right.”
If you really believe this then your wires are crossed. Injunctions are grounded in law, which is the exact opposite of might making right. An injunction is handed down by a court, which has no power at all apart from its moral authority. The cops using violence against people at random is might making right. The protesters using violence against other students is might making right. But what is done by the law is the exact opposite. You people keep going on about democracy – what about the democratic process whereby the law under which the injunction was adopted was created? Does that count? Or is your definition of might making right whatever those opposed to these protests do, whereas your definition of democratic and legitimate is whatever these protesters do?
You guys are twisting yourselves into knots trying to make arguments that contradict themselves. It would be amusing if it weren’t defending such vile actions.
Bill Binns 15:18 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@ant6n – I think the core message..The tuition increase is unwarranted and would not be necessary if schools stopped pissing money down the drain on harebrained schemes… Is a pretty good one but where did it go? Is this even about the tuition increase anymore?
Whats with all the “down with capitalism” and “anarchy” nonsense? I have to wonder if these students even understand the terms that they are spray painting on walls.
I honestly think that this thing is continuing because the majority of the people involved are having fun and have tasted the opiate of power.
Tux 15:26 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@Adam I’d just like to give you something to think about. Is not the government’s “authority” to create and enforce law based on violence? Do they not beat and imprison those that don’t obey? When your politicians don’t represent you, and the laws don’t protect you, just what exactly are you supposed to do, sit there and smile? Protests and civil disobedience are essential to our continued growth as a society. When you feel you’ve been screwed, don’t just quietly file a complaint on go on your way. Governments, school, big companies… any bureaucracy has too much inertia and too many people who have risen to their level of incompetence to change from within. Did the U.S realize slavery was wrong and just pass a law and the problem got taken care of? As small as the tuition increase seems, it represents 2 important things: 1) We are willing to make education less accessible if it will balance the budget (you can argue that the tuition increase is small enough to be insignificant, but if we are willing to do it this one time, why not dozens more times until only the comparatively wealthy can afford to give their kids a good education?) and 2) We are apparently unwilling to take money from anywhere else (let’s sayyy… Loto Quebec) for the benefit of future generations of Quebecers. When your concerns aren’t represented by government, and their response to your increasing volume is to beat and jail you… is it really surprising that people say the entire system is broken and ought to be razed and rebuilt? I’m not exactly an anarchist but I can understand the feelings of people who are.
ant6n 15:28 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@Bill Binns
Well let’s get one things straight, and this is a fact I believe nobody should be able to argue with:
Adam 15:38 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Tux, I *am* an anarchist so you don’t need to get me to think about the violence that the state perpetrates against individuals. The state is, by definition, violence. But given the choice between violence done in the name of a law that was duly adopted and the violence of an angry mob (which is what the students are descending into), it’s not a hard choice. There is at least some semblance of reason and due process associated with the enforcement of a law. There is no such thing in these protests. It’s simply a case of “do as we say because we are strong and you are weak.”
As for the so-called anarchists protesting for lower tuition, they are nothing of the sort. They are merely goons who want to break things (and, I suspect, people). Anarchism is at its core simple non-aggression. And these people want to use the state’s coercive power against others to seize their property and hand it over to another group of people. It’s immoral and offensive. They want the very violence that the police are perpetrating against them to be used against their fellow citizens under the guise of “collecting taxes.”
I like protests, but I’m not a fan of protests in favour of bad ideas. And I’m *not* OK with protests that consists of rampaging, violent mobs. Between these thugs and the cops, God (or someone) help us.
ant6n 15:45 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
@Adam
accessible education is not a “bad idea”, protesting for it makes sense
you have a very exaggerated sense of the “mob” of students. Most strikes are largely peaceful. The student movement is essentially peaceful.