Occupy Harvard
The demonstration raised issues of privilege and economic inequality, particularly as they relate to students and administration at one of the world's wealthiest and best-known universities.
[7] Many Harvard graduates work in the financial sector based on Wall Street; many others hold prominent positions in the world of business.
[8] Harvard's investments have also come under scrutiny (as they did during divestment campaigns targeting apartheid in South Africa), with particular criticism leveled at holdings in HEI Hotels & Resorts.
[16][17] Demonstrators expressed support for Occupy Wall Street and published an open letter to Mankiw:[18] Harvard graduates play major roles in the financial institutions and in shaping public policy around the world.
If Harvard fails to equip its students with a broad and critical understanding of economics, their actions are likely to harm the global financial system.
We are walking out today to join a Boston-wide march protesting the corporatization of higher education as part of the global Occupy movement.
[20] The walkout immediately produced heated debate about Harvard and Ec 10, in particular the question of whether the class really separates "descriptive" from "normative" claims.
"[23] Mankiw said that his course was a "relatively apolitical" introduction to economics, that he was planning to teach a lecture on inequality, a topic that might interest the protestors, and that he could "understand their desire to think about alternative ways to structure society".
We see injustice in Harvard’s investment in private equity firms such as HEI Hotels and Resorts, which profits off the backbreaking labor of a non-union immigrant workforce.
We see injustice in Harvard’s lack of financial transparency and its prevention of student and community voice in these investments.The group also announced that it would make policies through a regular General Assembly.
According to reporter John Stephen Dwyer: The shutting of Harvard’s gates has determined the character of the protest and the criticism made against it.
[28]Supporters of the demonstration criticized the gate closure, saying that the administration was reinforcing its elitist image and "shutting down" the university by preventing free flow of people and dialogue.
[29][30] Faculty supporters published open letters to Harvard President Drew Faust asking her to reopen the gates.
[28] One group of professors connected to Romance Language programs at Harvard wrote: We sympathize with your difficult position, but all of us agree that locking the gates is contrary to the principle of open inquiry for which the university stands.
"[32] Francis Xavier Clooney, a Jesuit priest at Harvard Divinity School, described the demonstration as a "Vigil" and called the security "unduly strict, disproportionate, unnecessary".
[7] The tents themselves served what organizers called a "symbolic" role, since members of Occupy Harvard continued attending school and work during the encampment.
)[12] The tents were reportedly purchased with funds from the Student Labor Action Coalition, and the Service Employees International Union.
"[29] A constant theme, connected to the broader Occupy slogan of "people over profits", was the desire for Harvard to prioritize educating the populace above money.
[28] When journalist Chris Hedges addressed the group (outside the gates, so that others could attend), he stressed the symbolic importance of Occupy Harvard to a larger struggle against plutocracy.
[36][37] The group maintained its information tent, a single weather-proof dome, until administrators ordered the structure removed on Friday, January 13, 2012.
Recent declines in recruitment rates for the finance sector have been attributed partly to the growing sense that these jobs are undesirable and unethical.
Students who attempted to enter were denied access to the building by Harvard Police and Office of Career Services officials, even after showing identity cards.
[19][40] The Crimson criticized the demonstrators for singling out Goldman Sachs and for attempting to create animosity towards their peers bound for jobs in finance.
[56] In February, three members of Occupy Harvard published a statement in The Crimson describing an ongoing forum, held in Lamont Library, to discuss the course of these changes.
Occupy, whether at Harvard or Wall Street, challenges and refuses the devastating willingness of our broken society to view humans as expendable resources and systems as ultimately beholden to profit.
The proposed library transition not only fails to address these systemic problems, it replicates them.We insist on an alternative vision, one that cherishes the human communities and collaborative processes that make intellectual and civic engagement—on campuses and in public parks—not only possible but also fruitful.
Topics included privatization and the larger economic ideology of neoliberalism, which occupiers said interfered with freedom and openness of education and libraries.
[61][62] The group held a rally outside of Lamont on Friday September 17, 2012, announcing support for library workers, holding signs, and chanting (e.g., "Hey, Harvard, you can't hide / We can see your greedy side!
[7][46][68] Contentious issues included the possible hypocrisy of privileged Harvard students, wastefulness of the tents, and, most of all, inconvenience created by the locked gates.
They were "likely to be wealthy, well-appointed young people groomed and professionalized at an early age precisely so they would impress admissions officers".
