Tufts Students Against Discrimination Sit-In

October 16 - November 29, 2000

Written by:
Adam Carlis
Louis Esparza
Elizabeth Monnin
Roger Winn

(Converted from html to text by Aaron Kreider. The original version is available
online at http://ase.tufts.edu/coalition/tsad/)




                       ***Table of Contents***
I     		TSAD Takes Shape

II 	   	The Good Sit

III 	        Negotiations

IV 		Thumbs Up!

V 		Nonviolence

VI 		Perceptions

VII 		Group Dynamics and Constituency

VIII 		 Morale

IX 		 Victory!





Chapter I:
TSAD Takes Shape

In the spring of 2000, Julie Catelano brought allegations of discrimination within
the Tufts Christian Fellowship (TCF) to light.  As word slowly trickled across the
campus, both the activist and the queer communities began to take head of these
warnings and look deeper into the TCF.  The case seemed straightforward enough: a
member of TCF, Julie Catelano, had asked to be a senior leader, the group's highest
leadership position, and the advisor of the group, Jodi Chang, told her that she was not
allowed to even be considered for the job because of her sexual orientation.  Julie had
been an active member within the group for a number of years and had held lower
leadership positions.  The difference now was that she was no longer praying to become
straight (which Jodi and the senior leaders had urged her to do).  This practice was
putting undue stress on her mind and was quickly becoming too much to bear.  Also,
Julie had come to the realization that being queer was an innate part of her being.
After hearing that TCF was holding a meeting on the evangelical view of
homosexuality, three members of the Tufts Coalition for Social Justice and
Nonviolence-Adam, Lou, and Shari-decided to attend.  The meeting was held in TCF’s
house on Sawyer Avenue.  During the meeting, a women from the Harvard chapter of
InterVarsity (the national group TCF is affiliated with) spoke.  The coalition members in
attendance were shocked by what they heard as the speaker justified the subjugation of
homosexuals through her own tale of personal sexual struggles.  To the non-TCF
members in the room, it became quite clear that the speaker was actually a lesbian who
had repressed those feelings so deeply within her own self-hatred that she was unable to
critically look at her life.  She advocated that through prayer a person can become
straight (a practice most psychologists say is gravely dangerous).  Furthermore, she spoke
at length on homosexual acts as a sin, quoting bible passages and using her own life as
evidence.
Following the meeting the coalition members were feeling sorry for the speaker
as well as a great urge to help Julie in any way possible.  There was; however, a fine line
that had to be tread between acting as the thought police and protecting Julie’s civil
rights as a human being.  There was a struggle between a group’s right to hold beliefs of
their choosing, and their accountability for their actions.  In other words, the coalition
members realized that no matter how much they disagreed with TCF’s archaic stance on
homosexuality, they could not attack the TCF members for their identity as evangelical
Christians.  They could only attack the fact that the TCF patently discriminated against a
queer student who was supposed to be protected by the university’s non-discrimination
policy.
Adam called a meeting for the following night in the lounge of Metcalf hall that
was attended by about 35 people; including the senior leaders from TCF, Julie, members
of the queer community, members of the activist community, and one associate chaplain.
Although, there was some vocal criticism on the possibly sensationalistic way that the
invitation to the meeting was worded, there was a great deal of very positive dialogue
that followed.  Everyone present was given a crash course in exactly what had happened
to Julie and the groundwork of the struggle to ensure the protection of the queer
community was laid down.  In fact, many of the participants of the forum would later
become members of Tufts Students Against Discrimination (TSAD)-the coalition group
that worked during the fall 2000 semester to ensure that the non-discrimination policy
was upheld.
Towards the end of the year, the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) met
in an emergency meeting and immediately de-recognized TCF based on their blatant
violation of the non-discrimination policy.  This marked the beginning of the intense
campaign by the religious right to pressure the administration into stepping in on behalf
of the TCF.  This pressure included massive phone calls, e-mails, and letters being sent
daily to the president’s office as well as threats from lawyers and allegations of
anti-Christian bias.  Right leaning Libertarian groups who accused the University of
acting as thought police backed the well-organized coalition of religious fanatics.  While
the religious right was veiling their homophobia by attacking the university on
anti-Christian grounds, the Libertarians took this as an opportunity to attack the very
existence of non-discrimination policies, which they feel limit free association.
During the summer, with the students who supported the TCUJ’s decision safely
at home, the University quickly caved to the religious right’s pressure.   The
student-faculty Committee on Student Life (CSL), which acts as the appellate body to the
TCUJ, ordered the re-recognition of TCF pending a new hearing, which was to be held
during the end of September, 2000.  The CSL did not order the hearing on factual
grounds; rather they were concerned that the TCUJ might not have acted in accordance
with University policy in making their decision.
Students returned to campus during the fall and became increasingly aware of the
upcoming hearing and its ramifications for the student body.  The TCF cranked up their
media campaign and submitted articles to the daily and the observer pitting themselves as
the oppressed minority.  Furthermore, letters, phone calls, and e-mails continued to pour
in as conservative Christian web-sights and radio shows picked up the story.  At the trial,
TCF was allowed to have legal counsel represent them, while Julie went at it pretty much
alone.  With a high priced lawyer, provided by InterVarsity, up against a college senior in
an attempt to convince half a dozen 18-20 year olds in a matter of legalese, the winner
was determined even before the trial took place.
Outside the hearing, which started at around five and continued until about 4:30
in the morning, a large group gathered to hold vigil in support of Julie.  The vigil was
organized by the Tufts Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Collective (TTLGBC) with
some help from the Tufts Coalition for Social Justice and Non-Violence.  Over 50
students participated at one time or another and Lou, Doug, and Adam braved the cold
and stuck it out until the end.  As the hearing let out, one of the TCUJ members took
Adam aside and confidentially told him the result of the ruling.  Dismayed, but not
shocked, Adam returned to his room for the night.
The next day, 24 hours before the ruling was released to the public, Adam, Roger,
Rachel and Lou met in the Arts house to discuss the ramifications of the TCUJ’s
decision.  The decision itself had its own inherent problems that were separate from their
failure to condemn TCF.  The TCF lawyer argued that they did not discriminate based on
Julie’s sexual orientation, but rather because she accepted her sexual orientation.  This
hair-splitting decision created a whole slew of problems because now a big gaping
loop-hole had been set up in the policy that would allow for student-funded hate groups
to simply re-word their message and become Tufts Community Union Senate (TCUS)
recognized groups.
What made matters worse is they sent the TCF back to the constitutional drawing
boards after explaining to them that discrimination based upon self-acceptance is okay;
however, discrimination against one’s identity is not acceptable.  The TCUJ basically
asked them to take the new loophole into account when rewriting their constitution.  It
would have been perfectly acceptable for them to include in their new constitution lines
like “only queers who hate themselves can be leaders in our group” or “you can only be a
leader in the TCF if you hate homosexuals and think that being gay is morally wrong and
a sin.” The progressive community on campus, as well as the queer community, became
very frustrated by this ruling. Once it was released on the following Monday, two
emergency meetings were planned: the first took place at 9:00 during the regular
TTLGBC meeting and the second took place in Oxfam Cafe at around 10:30.
 No one could sit still at the TTLGBC (Tufts Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
Collective) meeting-the overwhelming emotions were making us all fidgety.  You could
see the pain, frustration, fear, and anger in milling within everyone.  There was an
obvious split between the queer community and the activists who attended the meeting
(for many of them it was their first TTLGBC meeting).  The queer community was
pessimistic.  They asserted that it was a gay issue and, just like every other time, no one
except for them would care.  The activists were determined to fix the problem.  I know
that personally, I had not considered the larger issue of homophobia, but rather focussed
simply on the non-discrimination policy and I did my best in order to assure the queer
community that we would win.  A TCUJ member began the meeting by doing his best to
explain the decision to us.  When he finished, people began to argue with him. Tempers
flared and it was hard to keep the discussion from becoming a shouting match.  The
TCUJ member had pain in his eyes as his nerves crumbled.  As he left, a member of the
queer community pronounced “Now you know what we feel like every moment of our
lives.”  It was then that I realized the gravity of this issue and I became more determined
than ever to win this campaign to get a non-discrimination policy that protects all Tufts
students.
 After the meeting, most of us marched to Oxfam Cafe and the student coalition to
combat this issue was formed.  We called ourselves Tufts Students Against
Discrimination (TSAD).  The tone of this meeting was drastically different from the
TTLGBC meeting.  Many of us had gotten out our frustration and we began to plan a
course of action.  The split between the activist community and the queer community
was never more obvious than at this meeting.  While that activists shouted out ideas
ranging from building takeovers to campaigns designed to reduce applications, the vast
majority of the queer community remained almost silent, sometimes offering suggestions
more in line with letter writing and institutionalized forms of protest.  The one thing that
we were able to accomplish was the creation of a list-serve that allowed anyone to
receive updates on what TSAD was doing and how the campaign was going.  This list
was open to anyone.
There was a meeting at the LGBT center the next day and a small faculty
coalition joined TSAD in its second day of planning.  At this meeting Roger and Adam
pushed hard for direct action.  Since; however, there were many people who had never
participated in any kind of protest and many more that wanted to seek institutionalized
means to reach our desired goal, this idea was put on hold. Through consensus, we
decided to hold a rally and march the following Monday.  We pictured the rally as a
massive gathering that would allow students and faculty to vent their frustration.  It
would also serve as a tool to show our collective force; enabling us to speak with one
voice and demand a non-discrimination policy that functioned to protect all students.
At the end of the meeting, we decided to begin a letter signing campaign.  This
would serve both as an opportunity to educate the community (they would have to read
the letter before they signed it) but also as a way to show that TSAD had broad-based
student support from around campus.
 We had a plan, now we just needed to solve a myriad of logistical problems-and
we only had 6 days to do it in.  We had two immediate concerns.  First of all, we had to
get massive amounts of form letters printed on little-to-no budget, while at the same time
mobilizing an apathetic campus that rarely leaves their rooms for anything other than to
go clubbing.  Education became the key because only informed students would be willing
to attend a rally.  We used the freshly photocopied letters (care of the senate copy
machine) as a prop in our educational campaign.  We approached friends and strangers
alike during meals and classes as well as around campus, and even at parties.  After
explaining the case to them and getting them to sign a letter, we proceeded to remind
them about the rally that was scheduled to take place on the library roof at 3:30 on the
following Monday.  The conversations looked something like this:
“Hey would you be interested in signing a letter to reaffirm our
Non-discrimination Policy?”
“Yeah, what’s the problem?”
“Well, in the recent TCUJ decision, the J separated identity from acceptance of
oneself.  This means that a club could be formed that allows only for self-hating Jews to
be leaders.  If you were a Jew, and you thought that being Jewish was all right, you could
be discriminated against.”
“Can I read over the letter?”
“Yeah, sure.”
“Oh, on Monday there is going to be a big, fun rally on the library roof at 3:30pm.
You should be there.  It’s going to be awesome.”
“All right I’ll try to make it.”
“Cool, have a good day.”

TSAD received some sensationalized press in The Daily around this time that
really painted us a fanatical.  This, coupled with the negative press we had been getting
from the conservatives and homophobes that abound on this campus, really hurt our
spirits.  We had been working extremely hard on a campaign that we saw as only having
benefits for an inclusive, accepting society and now we were forced to work against both
the campus media and the administration.  This extra burden; however, proved to be
ephemeral and we put The Daily article behind us and focussed on the upcoming rally.
Our next meeting took place on that Thursday at Oxfam Cafe.  By this time we
were visibly tired.  People had been getting letters signed rather than sleeping.  The issue
itself had kept many TSAD members from being able to sleep at night.  Here we planned
the logistics for the rally itself.  Lou and Cat planned to meet off campus activists at
Davis Square at 2:50 and march with them towards the library roof.  A drum circle would
begin at 3:10 and, once everyone had gathered, Cat, Thea, and two professors would
speak to the group assembled on the roof.  Then, in a unified show of strength, we would
walk around the academic quad, encircle Ballou Hall, and then finally march in and hand
the president the letters that we had amassed.  The meeting closed with the realization
that banners and posters had to be made for the rally and we wold need to hang flyers
around campus, supplemented by chalkings that would remind people to attend the rally.
Over the next few days the real preparations began.  We sent out e-mails to
almost every group on campus explaining the situation to them and urging them to attend
the rally.  We attending the meetings of different culture groups in order to broaden our
coalition and explain the situation to them as well.  Flyers were made and before long the
campus was littered with hundreds of sheets of pink, orange, and blue paper urging
everyone to attend the rally.  It was here that we came face to face with the first signs of
backlash from the university’s conservative and homophobic population.  Many of the
fliers were torn down.  An on campus web-site was filled with homophobic and
anti-TSAD comments.  Some even urged that we be punished for postering in an illegal
way (TSAD is not a recognized group and therefor is not allowed to poster).  We brushed
this off and kept preparing for the big day that was now only 100 short hours away.
That Sunday, we had our last meeting before the rally and spirits were back up
again.  We had made several dozen posters and a few TSAD members had turned two
large window shades into giant banners.  We organized a door to door, dorm to dorm,
campaign in order to collect more signatures and remind the student body about the rally
on Monday.  After the meeting, we chalked the entire campus and painted the canon.  It
seemed to be all coming together.
When we went to bed that evening, the entire campus was filled with
anti-discrimination slogans and reminders of the next day’s rally and march.
Furthermore, a large ad was placed in the daily for that morning reminding students yet
again to attend the rally.  The ad served as an interesting point of discussion.  It cost
about $200 to print and we had no financial backing.  The Tufts Coalition for Social
Justice and Non-Violence was more than willing to finance the ad.  Unfortunately, doing
so would implicate them as responsible for the rally.  Since the rally was in violation of
Tufts policy, both for noise violations and lack of police detail, the group decided that it
was better to take the money out of our pockets, rather than implicate a supportive group
and risk repercussions.
I arrived at the rally site at around one and began to set up.  The large banners
were hung over the sides of the roof and the inside walls were covered with the three
dozen posterboard sized signs that we had made at the LGBT center.  So far, all of the
materials we had used had been financed out of our own pockets, since we had no
funding for TSAD.  This added to our feeling of community, but also put an extra strain
on the movement.  One does not realize exactly how many details go into planning even
something as simple as a rally until they try and do it.  The process had been both
financially and emotionally draining, not to mention physically exhausting.  All of this
work added even more pressure to the situation as I began to wonder if people would
actually show up.
I watched people in TSAD become engulfed by cynicism, but many of us still
tried to remain optimistic.  We hoped that the energy we created could pull the group
back to idealism, and finally create a chain reaction where our positive energy would
influence others.  We had organized as best as we possibly could.  It was now a matter of
whether or not the campus would respond.
 People began to trickle in, slowly at first, and then in waves as if no one wanted
to be first, but everyone wanted to be there. One of our goals had been actualized!
Energy rushed back into the group and we were ready to conquer the world.  With around
550 people amassed on the roof, the tension mounted as the group from Davis had yet to
arrive-and they had our megaphone.  A few of us did our best to entertain the massive
gathering on the roof with chants and drums.  Finally, we heard them making their way
across campus.  Megaphone in hand, Cat led the charge with a rousing rendition of “ain’t
no power like the power of the people ‘cause the power of the people don’t stop.”  One
of the largest rallies in the history of Tufts University had begun. We were loud, we were
unhappy with the state of the non-discrimination policy, and we were ready to make a
difference.
The members of TSAD present at the rally were simply overcome with a sense of
euphoria.  After the speeches were made, the “apathetic” masses ignored their title, at
least for one afternoon, and showed that the non-discrimination policy is a serious issue.
Marching across the academic quad were members of almost every student group,
including the TCUJ, the Pan-African Alliance (PAA), the Association of Latin American
Students (ALAS), Hillel, the Asian Community at Tufts (ACT), the TCUS, the CSL, the
Tufts Democrats, the Cultural Coordinating Committee (CCC), and many others.  We
walked in unison, singing songs, with over 1,300 letters in hand.  We had accomplished a
crucial goal: we managed to network with other organizations and minorities: we made
this more than just a “gay” issue.  Our organizing strategy was a success.  We marched to
Ballou Hall, surrounded it, and delivered the letters we had acquired in the past 6 days.
After the march some of the other rally organizers and I went back to Ballou Hall to
deliver a letter drafted by TSAD to the president addressing our demands.  He was
scared.  Very scared.  We had won the day.
 The crux of our demands was that the president address the issue by publishing a
letter to the community that stated, in unambiguous language, that the non-discrimination
policy protected students from being discriminated against based on self-acceptance.
Our letter, unfortunately, was not very clear, nor did it have a date attached to it.  At that
point the ball was in the president’s court.  We had to wait until he made his next move,
which meant that we finally had a few days to rest.
That Friday we had a meeting with the president.  It was in the planning stages of
this meeting that a chasm was created that would run through the rest of the movement.
Our email list was open to the public; administrators and anti-TSAD members were on
the list and they were even showing up to meetings.  Also, information posted to the
email group would appear on a web-sight that posted Tufts related rumors.  For these
reasons we didn’t want to post any confidential information, or information that the
general public could not know about.  As a result, another email list was formed in order
to discuss what to do during the meeting with the president.  An inner-circle was formed.
No longer was the dissemination of information democratized and a system of have and
have-nots was created, accidentally of course, within TSAD.  Those on the list knew
everything that was going on and those who were not on the list were left partially in the
dark and had to attend the weekly update meetings in Oxfam to catch themselves up.  I
personally was not on the e-mail list; however, I took it a lot lighter than many of the
TSADers.  Some even left the organization because of this.
At the meeting, due to poor negotiation, our demands were compromised.  Those
that met with the president had basically decided to go along with the system designed to
handle such complaints at Tufts. The meeting was not mentioned to the TSAD email
group and a decision was made without all of the members of TSAD.  We had broken our
own rules and we suffered because of it.  We no longer had any kind of deadline by
which the administration had to act and so they were able to keep delaying any public
statement.
 During the following Sunday’s meeting, we began to restructure the campaign by
creating a four-pronged approach that included education of students, dealing with the
CSL, adding the non-discrimination policy and a protection for self-acceptance into the
Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate constitution, and dealing with issues concerning
the administration.  Our new campaign allowed us to use many leverage points from
which to attack this problem.  Also, it enabled people to have more freedom within the
group.  People no longer had to commit to every part of the campaign.  Also this
separation of methods allowed us to be “nice” for some methods and “tough” for others.
 The next couple of weeks went fairly quickly and can be broken up into three
sections including, the hanging of banners, campus education, and planning for what
became our final method of constraint-a takeover of the office of undergraduate
admissions (Bendetson Hall).
We felt that a building occupation was the only way to win the campaign.  Since
president DiBiaggio was unwilling to meet with us in any kind of in good faith and
productive way, we realized that we needed to force him to meet with us.  In order to do
that we had to take something away from him that the University needed.  Our goal was
to do this without hurting the university or inconveniencing the student body.  The office
of admissions was therefor a perfect target, especially at this time or year because early
decisions were being processed.  The university needed daily free access to the building
in order to run tours, answer calls, and make decisions on early applications.  The student
body, however, unless they served as tour guides, never even sets foot in the building.
Furthermore, its small size and minimal number of entrances make it an easy target.
 After the meeting with the president, we realized that we needed to keep the
pressure on him.  A letter had been released to the student body that was an obvious
attempt to pacify the masses that were organizing against him.  The president’s message
was more insulting that it was pacifying as he failed to touch on any of the important
issues, not to mention creating a provision that would protect students against
discrimination against one’s identity.  Over the next few days banners were hung on the
academic quad, facing the administration building (Ballou Hall).  The first set of banners
was hung previous to the president’s statement and they urged him to  “reaffirm the
policy.”  The second set was hung after his disgraceful e-mail and they read “thanks for
the e-mail, now where is our policy.”  While these banners were hanging in the quad,
members of TSAD handed out fact sheets to everyone, including faculty and staff, who
walked by.  The fact sheets explained the situation and urged people to get involve with
the fight for a functioning non-discrimination policy.
 The majority of students on campus embraced this method of constraint.  It was
seen as far less of an attack than our rally had been viewed.  Furthermore, the strong
educational component gave us a wonderful opportunity to explain what was going on to
the students who still had no idea.  In fact, it was through one of these interactions that
two of the TSADers that took part in the sit-in learned about what was going on.  The
banners also provided a pretty stress free way for us to keep the pressure on the
administration, while keeping the student body informed at the same time.  The
administration didn’t want pre-frosh to continually pass banners that painted Tufts
University as an unsafe place to study.  Furthermore, the students passed by us every day
on their way to class.  All and all, this was one of the most successful education/pressure
campaigns that I have ever witnessed.

 The campus education campaign, already gaining strength from the banner hangs,
took a new approach during the last few days before the building occupation.  A large,
double-sided information sheet was created that included TSAD’s goals, our
accomplishments, and how students could get involved with the campaign.  This sheet
was distributed to every student who lived on campus as TSAD members went to every
dorm and specialty house in order to slip the flier under student’s doors.  On top of this,
TSAD members stood in high traffic areas around campus, including the campus center
and dinning halls, in order to hand out the flyer to people who passed by.  We also sent in
numerous letters to the editor of The Daily, as well as had a Viewpoint published in the
paper’s Op Ed section.
 On November 2, 2000, we had reissued our demands to the president.  We clearly
stated that, by November 27, 2000, he had to release a statement to the general Tufts
population that clearly stated that the non-discrimination policy protects students from
discrimination based on one’s acceptance of their identity.  After handing the president
our demands, we set up a meeting with him that would take place on Wednesday,
November 22nd.
 The most difficult planning and actions; however, were those surrounding the
preparations and execution of the sit-in.  It still felt like the activists were pulling the
queer community towards an action that they were not quite ready for, but as the
planning progressed people became more an more comfortable with the group as well as
with the plan.
The first step was to get a working list of people who would be "down" with the
action so that we could contact one another in a safe way.  This kept us from having our
plans being compromised, as our previous e-mail list had been.  We began holding “super
secret” meetings once a week (generally on Thursdays) to supplement the regular Sunday
meetings that were still concentrating on working with the CSL and the TCUS.
The number of people present at these meetings ranged from 10 to 20 and that
became our primary concern.  We needed to make sure that we had at least 20 people
willing to take part in the action in order to ensure its success.  The problem became
recruiting people without letting our secret out because it would be the element of
surprise that would act as our deadliest weapon.
Our meetings turned into both planning sessions and solidarity building exercises.
At one meeting we all took small stones and wrote a word on them that represented what
we had to offer the group (I wrote energy) and we placed them on the table in front of us.
At the end of the meeting, we all took a stone that had on it something we need (I left
with protection).  This activity symbolically unified the group and prepared us for the
hard work that lay ahead.  There were still; however, some doubts within the group.
Many people had never taken part in any kind of direct action before and there were
others who had once been vocal supporters and now were discouraging this action and
even speaking out against it.  It took a lot of strength for the group to be able to work
through all of these outside influences, but we remained strong.
I made contact with the other universities from across the nation, namely
Wesleyan University, Ohio State University, and the University of Pennsylvania, who had
done similar actions during the past 18 months in order to ascertain how they were
successful and where they thought they could improve.  Their information proved to be
extremely helpful.  They shared information that could come from experience.  This
included making sure that someone remained on guard in each of the bathrooms, how the
administration might use scare tactics and bluffs in order to get us out of the building
before we were able to accomplish our goals, negotiation tactics, as well logistical
information about things that we should bring.  We also contacted the group of faculty
who was working on the issue.  At this time there were around 20 to 30 of them and we
asked them for support.  In response, they drafted a letter to the president urging him to
meet our demands and reaffirm the non-discrimination policy.  This added pressure on
the administration and this added much-needed support and enabled the group to get over
the hill between anxiety and empowerment.
As we departed for thanksgiving we learned that the meeting with president
DiBiaggio did not go well.  His quote was “I don’t respond to demands.”  We left for
Thanksgiving knowing that when we returned we had 36 hours in which to completely
prepare for what many people saw as both the scariest and most empowering action of
their lives.
The break also brought with it some good news.  That Wednesday, the Boston
Phoenix had a front-page article, complete with three pictures, all about TSAD’s
struggle.  This was our first piece of positive strength and it served as a catalyst for
sparking energy within the group.  The reporter who had written the story had been
following us around for a few days and a separate photographer was given access to our
meetings and banner hangs.
We split off into two groups.  The twenty or so of us that were planning on
occupying the building used the Thanksgiving break as a time to mentally prepare for the
action.  The handful of people who had pledged round-the-clock support from the
outside-both media relations, public outreach, and running errands for those inside the
building-used this time to get started on their press packet and psych themselves up for
the difficult road ahead.  At this point, our plan was to enter Bendetson Hall when the
custodian entered-around 4 a.m.-and, once we were safely inside, put down all of our
gear and chain the doors shut from the inside.  Once safely inside with the doors locked,
we planned to tape our non-violence pledge to the windows, hang our banners from the
balcony, take a deep breath and notify the media.
The Sunday we returned was our next group meeting and it was here that we had
to get all of the final planning done.  We had learned that if we occupied the building in a
sit-in fashion our punishment would be reduced.  Furthermore, we believed that by not
locking the doors we would be seen as less radical and more open.  Finally, by keeping
the doors open, it prevented the administration from simply calling the fire department
and having them remove us for a fire hazard violation.  The main reason that we were
unable to lock the doors; however, was numbers.  If we had 50, or even 30, students
willing to take part in the occupation, locking the doors would have been feasible.
However, with only 20 students, we realized that other means had to be entertained.  As a
result, we decided to march into the building at 9:00 in the morning, thirty minutes before
the first tour, and carry out the rest of the action as planned (except of course for locking
the doors).  This change also made a lot of people feel more comfortable with the action.
It was like a collective sigh of relief swept across the group.  As Thea put it, “we were
not wrong in planning to lock the doors, but now we are right in keeping the doors
unlocked.”  There were 20 of us and we were going to take a stand.  That night we left
feeling comfortable, yet a little scared.  Before going to bed, we delivered the last stack
of flyers to the dorms and prepared to meet again starting at around 6 p.m. the following
day.
At 6 p.m. that Monday, I moseyed over to 302 Boston Ave. apt. 3 and helped turn
the place into a command center of sorts.  A great deal still had to be done and there were
only about 15 hours left to do it in.  One by one people came by and dropped off food and
their backpack full of supplies.  A to do list was made and people began frantically
crossing off things that had been accomplished.  Julie showed up with about $300 worth
of food.  Lou and I purchased $200 worth at Jumbo express and we had enough food to
last us a week.  At about 7:30 there were 12 people in the apartment all working
fervently.  It wasn’t until about 3 a.m. that almost everything was finished.  We had
baked cookies to accompany the letter we planned to hand out to the employees of the
admissions building.  We had photocopies our non-violence pledge.  The press packets
were almost complete. We were exhausted, but ready for the next day.  Before leaving,
we loading up a few of the cars with the food and transported it up the hill to Oxfam
Cafe.  We scheduled the meeting for 7 a.m. the following morning, giving us a good 3
hours of sleep to take advantage of.
The next morning we met at 302 Boston Avenue and slowly began transporting
the rest of the supplies up to Oxfam.  This all had to be done by car in order to create as
little suspicion as possible.  We assigned tasks for people to complete once they entered
the building.  These including guarding the bathrooms, handing out cookies, watching the
doors, making a lot of noise, and hanging the banners.  We were all exhausted as the last
one of us trickled into Oxfam Cafe that morning, but we had accomplished a great deal.
When we later overheard the police lament that they “[didn’t] know what to do because
[we were] too organized,” we would look back on this moment of exhaustion and know
that it was all worth it.  At 8:30 we sent a sentry out to do some reconnaissance around
the building and make sure that there was not a police contingent standing guard.  When
she returned with a smile on his face we began to prepare.
At 8:45 we collected all of our things.  Our food, clothing, stereos, pots, pans, medical
kit, fact sheets, banners, and empty containers for water were piled high as we began to
march from Miller Hall (where Oxfam Cafe is located) to the admissions building.  The
progression was slow at first, and quiet as we did not seem to have the energy yet.  But,
as we neared the building the adrenaline began to pump and we began to shout, “ain’t no
power like the power of the people because the power of the people don’t stop.”  As we
opened the first set of double doors that served as the only barrier between us and the
lobby of the admissions building, we noticed that a young man was standing in the
second set of doors and attempting to block our entrance.  Liz and Adam took the lead as
the rest of the group, chanting louder now, continued to force there way into the foyer
area until finally Adam was able to pry their advisary's hands from the door frame and the
group marched in victoriously.



Chapter II:
The Good Sit





Food goes on the left side and get your sleeping bags out right away...
Okay, lets start--‘aint no power like the power of the people ‘cause the power of the
people don’t stop!
SAY WHAT?!
‘aint no power like the power of the people ‘cause the power of the people don’t stop!

 We arrive at Bendetson Hall with food, clothing, sleeping bags, and toiletries in
hand.  An admissions officer jumps up and barricades the front door with his body.
“Stop--You guys can’t come in here,” he says.  At the head of the pack, Liz looks at
Adam and says, “We’re goin’ in.”  Adam pries the man’s fingers off of the door frame
and we march forth.  Backpacks, sleeping bags, and potato chip bags pile onto the
expensive waiting area carpet.  Someone shouts, “Okay, let’s go!”
  Where are the stairs?
   How do I get to the bathroom?
    Where are the letters?
     Who is passing out cookies?
      Who’s hanging the banner?
 A blizzard of confusion, commotion, excitement, and fear envelops all of us.  I
hear Mike shout in frustration, “Where are the stairs?”  I put down my briefcase and
motion for him to follow me.  We push through various doors, frightening the little old
ladies working in their offices.  “There they are,” I say.  We rustle up the stairs with a
banner dragging behind us.  Courtney stands at the top of the staircase and warns us that
the workers are upset about Laurie climbing out the window to place a banner out over
the balcony.  We thank her and move on.  The Bendetson workers were left disilliusioned
with our strict organization.  They became disoriented and they just begin to congregate
in a central location on the top floor, as if they were on a coffee break.  Mike and Laurie
are tying the knots while I standby to make sure no one gives them a hard time.  I see the
director of admissions go to his office, pick up the phone, and dial some numbers.  I
quickly leave them to hide just outside his door to listen in:

 Hello?...  Yes, uhh, we have a bit of a problem here over at Bendetson...  Well,
 there’s a bunch of kids running around the building screaming and banging pots,
 and they’re causing a big ruckus...  Uhh, I dunno, 30 or 40 of them... Something
 about the nondiscrimination policy--listen, I don’t know what to do.

 A elderly African American staff worker approaches me.  “Are you waiting for
him?” she says.  “No” I reply.  “He is on the phone, you’ll have to wait outside,” she
says, as she attempts to close the door.  I sit down in the doorway and say “I don’t think
I’ll be doing that.  This is just as much our space as it is yours now.”
 When the head honcho at admissions is through, I get up and check on the banner.
When I look out the window I see two Tufts police cars driving ACROSS the academic
quad, over the manicured grass, towards the building.  I bolt down the stairs and join my
fellow sitters in singing and chanting.
‘aint no power like the power of the people ‘cause the power of the people don’t stop
 There were some ‘important looking’ people outside the front doors of
Bendetson.  Police entered the building and permeated the area.  Emily was standing
guard at the bathroom upstairs, Laurie and Dan were posted in the basement level
bathrooms.  Everything seemed normal even after the police scattered around the
building.  A door closes that fed into the hallway that led to the stairwell.  It was propped
to allow visibility between the main group and Emily in the bathroom.  No one noticed
the door closing, and I paid no mind to it... until we hear a scream, “Help, guys, come
quick!”  Several of us rush over to the bathroom where a police officer had forced
himself into the facility and was attempting to remove Emily from her post.  We then
realized that too many of us had split from the main group and only four people stayed
with Emily.  The four of us sit down around the bathroom entrance to support Emily.
Geoff says slyly, “Excuse me sir, the lady needs to deficate.”  After a good chuckle we
begin to sing We’re not gonna take it.
 Provost Sol Gittleman enters through the door that we had just come through
shortly after we had sat down.  “Alright everybody, listen up!  I said shut up!  Listen, I
have something to say!” he exclaims.  When the lobby area refuses to quiet down, Sol
becomes furious--he turned beet red.  After some more yelling we all quiet down.  Before
he begins speaking I remind everyone that he could be lying or trying to intimidate us.
“Are you calling me a liar!?” he shouts.  I reply with “No, I am just saying that you could
be.”  Sol continues with his emotional ranting, scolding us and telling us that the
President will be very disappointed with us when he hears about what we have done--of
course the President will be disappointed!  Thea Lavin gave Sol a copy of our pledge of
nonviolence to assure him that the integrity of the building would be upheld and
protected.  Sol in turn gave us a copy of the page in the Pachyderm that outlined the rules
that we were breaking.  Delightful.
 Later, I found out that the banners had been confiscated from the balcony because
we are not allowed to hang things from buildings.  Besides that, things calmed down a
little bit after Sol leaves.  The bathroom is secured and the Dean of Students, Bruce
Reitman, arrives to negotiate with us.  Bruce is a short, balding, white man with a mild
demeanor and an all-around ‘nice guy.’  He will act as the messenger for the President
henceforth.  Bruce is accompanied by Chuck Lenero, TUPD Chief of Special Operations,
a tall, stocky guy with a fetish for cigars and black TUPD turtlenecks.  The two enter the
negotiating room with our two negotiators, Adam Carlis and Thea Lavin.  In the
meantime, the rest of the crew is dancing around the lobby area, banging pots and pans
while singing “We get our policy, you get Bendetson!”  Adam and Thea emerge from the
meeting room for a 2-minute break.  Adam informs us that the negotiations are going
well thus far and that we should keep making noise because it is definitely putting
pressure on them.  Of course we continue our party throughout the duration of the
meeting.  When Bruce and Chuck left the confines of Bendetson, we had a meeting to
discuss what had occurred behind those closed doors.  Adam and Thea had secured full,
24-hour access to the lobby area, the meeting room, the kitchen, the two bathrooms on
the main level, and the bathrooms downstairs in the basement.  The third floor was made
off limits due to the classified data that was up there.  The same reason was given for our
limitations of the basement and the one office on the main floor.  We were told that the
President was away on business and would try to cut his trip short to come to Tufts
tonight.  The issue was not discussed in detail, only the logistics of the building.  At this
point we were happy that we had secured the building and that none of us were in any
immediate harm.  It was the calmest time since we had entered.  All was good.
 By now, our outside support was gaining.  We had a table set up outside that
remained there until the end of the sit-in.  Vanessa Dillon and Jesse Alderman lead the
way with the compilation of press packets and contacting the media ASAP.  They were
able to get a hold of the Boston Globe, Herald, Phoenix, the Somerville Journal, the
Chronicle of Higher Education, Channel 5 and plenty of other media outlets.  Others
passed out flyers and helped put up banners that read “We’re still here,” “Where’s our
policy?,” and “We get our policy, you get Bendetson.”  They strung heart-shaped
inspirational messages from the lampposts around Bendetson, clearly defining our turf.
We clearly would not have been as effective had those people not been so committed and
supportive outside of the building.
 The university sent a public relations representative to give their side of the story
to the press.  He banned any press from entering the building.  The Boston Globe
correspondant attempted to enter the building, but was held up on basis that there were
no cameras allowed inside.  The man had no camera on him.
 Bruce is back.  And I don’t mean the Boss.  He was welcomed by happy,
screaming, stomping, clapping protesters and entered the meeting room once again with
Chuck, Thea, and Adam, but this time he brought along the Director of Public Safety.
During the meeting, Bruce and Chuck informed Thea and Adam that the building would
be closed for the evening at 5pm.  It was well before 5pm at the time, but they then
proceeded to lock all entrances to the building without warning.  We had been moving to
and from the building freely throughout the day and when the police locked the doors,
three students who had been in the building with us and had intentions of spending the
night were locked out, with their belongings still inside.  Of course this was outrageous
and we called them on it.  Lee Vigilant’s Social Movements class had secured a meeting
place with us in Bendetson, but the class was locked outside.  Many of the students
stayed to find out more about the situation and to support what Lee later called “the
fabulous four.”
 Bruce and Chuck wanted to meet with all of us.  The Director of Public Safety
and another TUPD officer accompanied the dangerous duo.  They informed us that we
were currently not breaking any laws, but that at 5pm in the evening we would officially
be considered trespassers.  Bruce attempted to persuade us to leave the building and
accept a meeting with the President in Ballou Hall the next day.  Of course we responded
with disgust citing that a sit-in ending in a meeting just like the ones we have had with
the President throughout the semester will do us no justice.  They also threatened with
action on the grounds of disturbing the peace.  We immediately accused them of foul
play.  The police had locked out three essential members of our student action unfairly
and without adequate warning.  We said we would be unable to reach consensus without
them.  Many members of TSAD vocalized their disapproval of the administration and
police’s actions.
 The administrators and police left, leaving behind two options:
· Leave the building and meet with the President in Ballou Hall tomorrow
· Stay in the building and be possibly dragged out in cuffs
They promised to return shortly after 5pm with a warning of trespassing.  We had an
extensive meeting that afternoon, discussing the possibilities of the night ahead of us.
We all had decided that we would not leave the building and possibly risk arrest.  Many
of believed strongly that the administration was bluffing.  If they tried to arrest us the
headlines would read:
Tufts Students Arrested for Defending Gay Rights
This is certainly not the image Tufts wants to portray of it’s self--especially after the
strong Boston Phoenix article pointing to hate crimes and administrative fence sitting.
 They returned.  Chuck warned us about how “this action could follow you the rest
of your lives.”  He officially warned us that we were in fact trespassing and could be
arrested at any point in time.  He strongly urged us to leave the building.  We told them
exactly what we had decided and that were not going to be leaving voluntarily unless our
demands were met.  They were powerless.
 Bruce met with all of the students in private.  In this meeting we told him exactly
what we wanted, why were not leaving, and all of our concerns.  We reiterated, spelled
out, and reemphasized all of our talking points that had been proposed earlier.  Thea
Lavin was our spokesperson that delivered the address that we had sculpted prior to the
meeting.  A sense of pessimism was the common sentiment among the group when
dealing with administrators—and with good reason, given what they have done all
semester and asking us to trust them after locking our friends out.  Thea gave a strong
presentation.  The reason we approached the meeting in such an aggressive fashion was
because we wanted to take the initiative.   Prior meetings had an agenda set by the
administration and we wanted to control this dialogue.  It turned out to be more of a
monologue.  Bruce’s response is an interesting reaction to analyze psychologically,
politically, and sociologically.
 Bruce spoke very quietly, slowly, clearly, and seemingly honestly.  He came off as
trying to be our friend, or “playing good cop to Chuck’s bad cop image” as one TSAD
member put it.  Many of us knew where Bruce stood on this issue before walking into the
building.  Bruce is a supporter of the issue and a strong proponent of student opinion.  He
reminded us of this in his first words.  He commented on something that Chuck had said
earlier; Chuck had warned us that this action could affect us for the rest of our lives.
Bruce openly disagreed with him.  Whether that was a planned ‘good cop-bad cop’
scenario, that is impossible for us to know.  He continued by telling us of how he once
took over Ballou Hall in protest back in the 70’s and that he sympathizes with us.  “I was
once in your shoes” he said.  He was telling us that President DiBiaggio is a good man
and he is morally torn on this issue.  He expressed optimism for our cause and thought
that DiBiaggio would in fact state that one’s self-acceptance of one’s identity is
understood in the nondiscrimination policy.  Bruce was not helpful in explaining why the
President was lagging in affirming this fact if he did indeed believe this.  He explained
that we could walk out of the building right now, meet with the President tomorrow and
given the events that have occurred, he would understand and finally affirm what the
policy is meant to say.  He went on to say that even if he did not affirm the policy, that
another course of action could be taken—for example, we could walk right back into
Bendetson.
 To this proposal, I was quite cynical.  I expressed to Bruce that I felt that the
President, for whatever reason, is ignoring our request.  We have met with him five times
over the course of the semester with no progress.  We have rallied over 500 students and
faculty members, but the President’s comment on the rally was nothing more than “I am
heartened.”  We expressed ourselves to him via email, posters, flyers, banners, letters
from parents, viewpoints, letters to the editor, rallies, and now by occupying the
admissions building.  He has not listened thus far; we must force his hand and make him
listen.  This is an issue of civil rights and it is important to many people, not just on this
campus, but on campuses across the nation, and also to people off campus and their
struggles for equality.  Why would we leave now—at the pinnacle of our struggle—and
trade it all for another lousy meeting with the President.  It makes no sense.
 To this he replied simply that he has been in our shoes before and that he
sympathizes with those sentiments.  He gave us his support on our issue and was even
encouraged to see that we cared so much about it to risk arrest and our academic lives for
it.  He said that he would think no less of us and that the issue would be no less important
if we did in fact decide to stay in the building.  He went on to say that he might even
think even more highly of us if we did.
 At the meeting’s end, everyone thanked Bruce for his honest and mild demeanor
and for siding with us.  It was clear to him and to us that we were going to stay in the
building and that the possibility of arrest over that night was slim.  We discussed what
Bruce had said.  Most of us believed every word that he said and trusted him.  There was
another party, of which I belonged to, that felt that although Bruce is probably on our
side and may even like us, he is still an administrator.  He wants what the administration
wants—he wants Bendetson back.  To deny this is to be naïve.  We also felt that we
needed to be on our toes.  It is very easy, because Bruce is such a ‘nice guy’ that he may
trick us into something that he makes sound very reasonable, but is actually something
that is undesirable for us.
 Regardless of what we thought of Bruce, we all decided to go ahead with our
original plan—to spend the night in Bendetson.  We decided that at least two people
should be up keeping post of police and/or other threats to the group.  We followed this
up with a short meeting and had dinner.  Dinner consisted of salsa and chips, peanut
butter sandwiches, and vegan cookies.  This was illustrative of the constituency… college
students.  Right before dinner though we executed a little nonviolence training roleplay
in the event that we were to be arrested.  It was a crash course on going limp when
touched.  We had some fun with this one.  One of our protestors had to leave at this
point--Geoff.  He had a record in Philadelphia and given the risk of arrest, Geoff decided
to bail on the action.
 Most of the night was calm, talking to our friends through the screens in the front
windows.  Some people did school work on laptops, others conversed on cell phones, a
game of hearts broke out, and even a battle of chess ensued.
 A friend of ours, the director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered
(LGBT) Center, Judith Brown  came to meet with us briefly late in the night.  The police
had allowed her in the building in the hopes of hastening our departure from the building.
She came and met with some of us about possible outcomes.  One recommendation was
to leave with the creation of an LGBT Task Force that would make sure that a proper
statement is released and oversee the process.  Another possibility was to change the
wording in a letter that the President had written to 22 of the faculty, which showed
significant progress, but was far from what we wanted.  I entered the meeting rather late.
Stacey summarized what had been said and there had been some points of contention.  I
gave my comments on the Task Force idea rather bluntly:  “Why doesn’t he just say the
one sentence that we want him to say and we’ll be on our way—none of this bureaucratic
Task Force business.”  The comment was received with agreement and laughter.  I then
realized that it was Judith Brown that had suggested the idea and felt bad that I had
ridiculed it.  I then apologized for the manner in which I expressed myself, but it is what I
truly believe.  There was no real outcome that came from that meeting.  If the intentions
of the administration in sending her in there were to get us out of the building with a
Task Force, then they failed miserably.
 There was one police disruption during the night.  When the majority of the group
decided to go to bed, the police officers
[wanted to use adam’s radio]
 on post brought in two radios.  The volume was cranked up near max, purposely I am
sure.  This was quite unprofessional of the police and we would not tolerate such a
disturbance.  Lou immediately approached the officer with the radio.
Lou:   Excuse me.  <long pause> Ahem, I said excuse me… Sir?  SIR?  <pause>
HEY!
Officer: <with a look of disgust> Yeah?
Lou:  Could you please turn down the volume on your radio?  People are trying to
sleep.
Officer:  I could
Lou:  Could you please do so then.
Officer:  I could
Lou: <catching on to his childish, unprofessionalism>  WOULD you?
Officer:  Oh!  <pause>  no.
Lou: <with a tone of annoyance> ok!

“Adam!” he yelled.  “Would you please call Chucky on the cell and tell him to get those
radios out of here?”  Adam proceeded to call Chuck.  Within 10 minutes, an officer
arrived on the scene, removed one of the radios and ordered the officers to turn the other
down to background music.  In the meantime, we danced and sang to the music that they
were blaring from their radios to assure them that they would not get the best of us on
this one.  They didn’t.
 I didn’t sleep very much that night.  I didn’t sleep very much the night before
either.  I had received 2 hours and 45 minutes of sleep in the past two nights.  I stayed up
to help prepare for the action the night prior and stayed up during the night to keep an eye
out for trouble.  Luckily there were people outside in solidarity with us to keep me
company, as well as another person who stayed up with me.
 The TSAD supporters outside of the building had pitched a tent.  There were
permanent people that would stay the entire night as well as people who came and left on
shifts.  They were amazingly well prepared and it was very heartening for us to see the
community support.
 The night was a long one, but the day proved to be longer.  We planned to awaken
the sleeping bodies inside Bendetson at 9AM, but Bruce arrived with Chuck promptly at
8:30AM.  As soon as they arrived we began to wake people up.  It took us a minute or
two, but we all met in the negotiating room shortly after Bruce’s arrival.
 Bruce had come to inform us that the President would like to meet with us today.
He would only meet with a maximum of six of us.  To this we agreed.  He also pleaded
with us to consider reducing the noise level that we create.  To this we did not agree.  He
left with no promises of us silencing our voices, but with us only considering to do so.
 This was a topic of heated debate.  In a meeting that took 3 hours to reconcile, we
discussed whether or not we should consider limiting our noise levels.  At the beginning
of the conversation, most people said that they were willing to give up noise with a few
people adamantly refusing to give up this liberty.  If it had been a vote, we would not
have made noise, which speaks to the effectiveness of our decision-making process of
consensus.  By the near end of the meeting, most people were willing to continue with
the noise.  One person had strong concerns speaking to the implications on how the
community might view us and how we are perceived by the administration if we did
make noise.  By the time that she was singled out as the only vocal dissenter in the group,
lots of wasted noise making time had passed.  Workers were upstairs carrying out their
business and nothing in their working life is different.  I was very upset, and spoke very
bluntly to try to bring an end to the meeting.  I said to her, “Would you be willing to
break consensus on this issue?”  A consensus decision does not necessarily mean that
everyone in the group in gung-ho about the decision, it just means that everyone agrees
that it is the best course of action for the group to take given the make-up of the group
and the situation that they are in.  I was essentially asking her whether or not she thought
that her opinion was valuable enough to her that she would be willing to postpone a
decision until one that she can agree with can be made.  The implications of this would
mean that either we would keep arguing in the room or that we would come to another
decision, possibly giving up our noise-making ability voluntarily.  Both of these scenarios
were unthinkable to me and so I saw no point in staying in that room, continuing an
aimless discussion.  Seemingly disheartened, she began to give other reasons for her to
let go of the discussion.  “There are people in here that have been working on this a lot
longer than I have and care about this issue more.  It is not fair of me to stop you guys
from doing what you want to do.”  To this comment we reassured her that her opinion is
just as valid and equal as anyone else’s and she should not suppress her ideas for this
reason, but only if she truly believes that the group is making a mistake that she is
unwilling to go along with.  She was not ‘unwilling’ to go along with making noise, she
just did not think it was the best idea.  Finally a decision was made to go out into the
lobby and cause a bit of a ruckus.
 Not too long after our pots were bangin’ and voices were shoutin’, more police
arrived on the scene.  All we were doing was making noise, but the police presence
increased.  We were definitely causing some disruption of their work.  A prospective
student and his mother approached the building.  Adam went out into the foyer to
welome them to Tufts.  A police officer followed Adam into the foyer and asked him, the
prospective student, and the mother to leave.  All but Adam emptied out into the quad.
Another officer entered the foyer.  The officers threatened Adam with arrest, but Adam
refused to leave.  Catching notice of this i began to bang on the door to the foyer and
chant “Let him in!”  It did not take long for the bewildered officers to allow Adam back
into the building.
 Not too long before our meeting with the President, they send in LGBT director
Judith Brown and English professor, Jonathan Strong--both allies of ours.  They
presented us with the President’s proposal.  We basically said, we have nothing to say to
you, where is the President.  That is the message we asked them to deliver to Ballou.
 After lunch we had a meeting where we decided who would represent us at the
meeting with DiBiaggio.  After some discussion we agreed that there should be three
males and three females on the delegation.  Those members were picked and we set the
agenda for the meeting.  The meeting with the President was only 30-45 minutes long.
DiBiaggio apologized on three separate occasions for not meeting with us the night
before.  He had arrived on campus at about 9PM, but had to be briefed on the events and
had to discuss the possibilities with his fellow administrators and some members of the
Board of Trustees.  The president gave us some ideas that he had for his letter and we
commented on them, tweaking the wording around so that we would be happy with it.
He said that he would have to go back to his lawyers to make sure that the wording did
not carry too much legal baggage.  On the issue of publishing the letter in newspapers, he
would not budge.  He stopped at an email to the Tufts community, and published letters
in the Tufts Daily and Observer.
 We discussed whether or not we were going to concede some of our demands,
including the different media outlets that the President refuses to publish in.  I was
among the few that wanted to wait it out and see how much we could get.  “This is our
last action in this campaign.  Let’s make sure we do it right.”  Others disagreed.  One
person said, “We have to be careful that we are not sacrificing the war for this one
battle.”  It was a tense political, ideological, and emotional point of contention.
Eventually we decided that if it had to come to that point—that if we wanted this to be
published in the media outlets we had outlined, then we had to spend at least another
night—that we would concede on that demand.  One TSAD member stressed that she
was angry at other members who were pushing for more things when all we were inside
for was a nondiscrimination policy that works.  She cited that for her mental health and
the mental health of others, that we should not stay inside any longer.  It was the most
emotional point in our unwelcome stay at Bendetson and arguably ranked at the lowest
level of morale in the whole ordeal.  Another group member had to leave following this
meeting.  We were a bit concerned about numbers inside the building, but it was not a
major issue that we had to deal with at the time.
 Bruce returned shortly with 20 copies of a printed letter signed by President
DiBiaggio.  We all read it with great anticipation… and there it was:

I further want to emphasize that the university’s existing nondiscrimination policy
encourages individuals to accept their identity on the basis of their gender, sexual
orientation, race, color, religion, disability, and ethnic origin, and supports
individuals in doing so, and I affirm that the nondiscrimination policy is
understood to include such self-acceptance of identity.

There was a long pause—a very long pause.  Bruce fielded some questions about the
letter.  I had to leave in the middle of the meeting for about 30 minutes while I was being
interviewed via cell phone by Gay BC radio.  They were very supportive of us and
attempted to sensationalize the issue.  I ended up playing a more moderate role and trying
to explain the opposing argument rather than bash it and pigeonholing the opposition—a
position I never before would have seen myself in.
 In the middle of the interview, Roger interrupted to ask me if I approved of the
letter.  I asked him what the general sentiment of the group was.  He said that everyone
else had approved it and they were checking with me to make sure that everyone was
indeed okay with it.  The letter was satisfactory; it had exactly what we wanted it to say
in there.  I approved it.  After the interview, I returned to a group that seemed to be eager
to get out of the building with the letter.  The media demands were dropped.  All we
wanted now was the letter.  Bruce tried his best to send the letter out that night.
 Bruce also promised us at that particular meeting, a printed version of
DiBiaggio’s statement in a brochure that is distributed yearly.  This is an institutionalized
way to incorporate the President’s historic words into administrative policy.  We took
these things that were given to us—the policy, the Tufts Daily and Observer ads, and the
brochure—and we ran.  There was a sense of relief and accomplishment in the room.
But the night was not over yet.
 In order for us to leave the building, the administration would have to send out
DiBiaggio’s letter over email to the Tufts community that night.  When Bruce heard this
he immediately reached for a phone to contact the technology representatives who would
be able to do so.  While he was off making phone calls we were drafting a contract that
would ensure his commitment to us.  He had promised us a brochure and two ads and we
were going to make sure that we received them.  I got on the phone with Dowling Hall to
request a notary public in order to make it official and legally binding.  It was close to
5PM and workers were beginning to leave.  I requested that a notary come to Bendetson
Hall to notarize the document.  The phone attendant said that this was not possible.  By
this time Bruce had reentered the room.  I asked the phone attendant whether or not it
would help if Bruce shared my concerns and would like a notary to come to Bendetson.
She said yes and I said, “Well Bruce would like you to send a notary up here right away.”
The room burst into laughter as Bruce’s face turned red with embarrassment.  “You guys
are gonna get me in trouble” he noted jokingly.  In disbelief, the attendant asked me if
Dean of Students Bruce Reitman was really here.  I said yes and asked if she would like
to speak with him.  Bruce exchanged some heartfelt words with her and told her that he
would call her back.  Bruce pleaded with us, “The notary’s got her coat on, let her go
home.”  In one of the lightest moments throughout the sit-in we agreed.  He called her
back and told them to go home.  He looked over the contract and signed the agreement.
 Bruce told us that the email was being taken care of.  We opened up a laptop to
wait for the email to arrive in our inbox.  Simultaneously we told Bruce that there was
just one more thing that we needed.  With a nervous look on his face he replied “What’s
that?”  “Co-ed housing.”  Relieved, Bruce welcomed the joke with a smile as we all let
out the frustrations of the previous 30+ hours with a good laugh.  To this Bruce replied
“You just had it last night.”
 When the email arrived, we all were quite relieved.  We stood up and let our
emotions run freely.  We laughed, cried, hugged, screamed, and jumped up and down.  It
was truly a great feeling.  The police allowed a few people inside to join our initial
celebration.  A Tufts Daily photographer was on the scene and took a picture perfect
photo of Julie Catalano hugging Vanessa Dillon which appeared on the front page of the
Daily the next morning.
 At 7PM that evening we marched out of Bendetson to a welcoming crowd with
our reaffirmed policy in our hands.  We shouted, “We got our policy, you got
Bendetson!” as we placed our belongings to the left of the entrance and realigned
ourselves behind the press table.  Courtney read aloud our statement and DiBiaggio’s
letter—both welcomed by great emotion and cheers.  Jonathan Strong made a few
statements following her, stating that this interpretation will cause a ripple effect and
shape the way other nondiscrimination policies at other universities will be interpreted.
 When all was said and done we celebrated with a dinner at the Near East Café.
We caught up on sleep and threw a crazy party the following night.  It was a momentous
occasion—not only for the victim of the discrimination, not only for her queer friends at
Tufts, and not just for the queer community of the United States.  This is a time for
everyone to celebrate the reaffirmation of their civil right to accept their own identity.





Chapter III:
Negotiations

We decided that, because all 20 of us could not negotiate with the administration,
a negotiating team should be created.  Thea and I acted as negotiating representatives.
This meant that we had the responsibility of meeting with the administration
representatives in order to convey the student’s position.  We had no real bargaining
power because any decision we arrived at had to be ratified by the entire group using the
consensus process.  Unfortunately, simply acting as negotiators gave us access to
information before the rest of the group.  This, in and of itself, made being a part of the
negotiating team a position of power, despite our best attempts to diffuse the power
hierarchy.  We had considered switching negotiators with every meeting in order to
decentralize the power inherent in being one of the negotiators, but we quickly realized
that it was important for the negotiators to establish a rapport with one another.  Since
Thea and I were quickly able to establish such an understanding, we decided as a group
that Thea and I should continue to act as negotiators.
The consensus process was able to relegate that power a little bit, but not
completely.  Thea and I tacitly decided to do our best to keep from dominating the group
discussions.  Rather, we attempted simply to give the group all the information gained
from the negotiating session and then step back as the decisions were made.  We did;
however, add to the conversation when we felt that our insight would be unique or
especially helpful in the situation being dealt with.
As a team, Thea and I worked very well together.  Thea did the majority of the
talking and she acted as the peacemaker.  She did the majority of the actual talking and
she spent a great deal of her time attempting to assuage the administrators.  However, she
was very tough and never once did she so much as budge on a non-negotiable point.  I
chimed in sporadically with statements that usually started with “we need” or “I’m sorry,
but that is not negotiable.”  It wasn’t quite a “good cop” “bad cop” scenario because both
of us were respectful and cordial.  It was just our different negotiating styles at play with
each other.  Never once did we contradict one another, nor did we slip up and give away
something without the group’s consent.
The first meeting took place around noon on Tuesday.  Thea and I were joined by
Bruce Reitman, Lt. Charles Lonero, and the director of public safety.  This meeting was
the least stressful of our sessions.  It began, like every session began, with us offering the
administrators something to drink.  And, like every session, they refused.  By offering
them something to drink, we were doing two things.  First of all, it let them know that we
had a large and varied supply of food and drinks that could last us a while, so much so
that we didn’t even have to ration it at all.  The second thing it did was put us in a
position of power as the host of the negotiations.  By refusing they attempted to take the
power back, but Thea and I constantly sipped on Green Tea and Soda as their dry mouths
watered across the table.
This first meeting had a polite, generous air to it as our requests for a “safe space”
to meet out of ear-shot of the police, free access to at least four bathrooms, and
guarantees that both the heat and water would remain on were met.  Their two big issues
were the noise that we were making and the safety of their confidential files.  Thea and I
quickly told them that we were not planning on looking at or tampering with any
university files of any kind.  We assured them that we would remain off of the upper
lever, which had already been locked, in order to ensure that no damage occurred to their
files.  We; however, made it quite clear that the noise level was not a negotiable thing,
especially because our banners, which proclaimed our presence, had been taken down by
the police.  The administration left with a request that we do our best to keep down the
noise.  We respectfully acknowledged their request and then began a drum circle.
As the administration’s representatives returned to the building at 3:30 there was
a decisively different tone.  As soon as they walked in Thea and I realized that they were
about to attempt to scare us.  We were told that the building would be locked and,
starting at 5:00, we would officially be breaking the law and could be removed at any
time and arrested.  They threatened us with outrageous things like rejection from law
school, separate jails, and a record that would follow us around for the rest of our lives.
Bruce requested that we leave and have “faith” that the president will continue to work
on the issue.  Bruce then explained that the president had sent an e-mail to the faculty
coalition that “probably” contained “some” of the wording we were looking for.  He
requested that we leave in good fait, assuming that the e-mail met our needs.
Furthermore, he offered a meeting with the president the following afternoon, if we had
left the building.  Thea and I explained that we would not be able to leave the building
until we had met with president DiBiaggio and had our letter.  The disappointed
administrators gave us one last threat and then asked to speak to the group as a whole.  In
order to buy time, we requested that Thea and I be allowed to meet privately first.
During that time, Thea updated the whole group in the safe space that had been provided
for us.
The next morning, at around 8:30, we awoke to the arrival of Bruce Reitman.  His
early surprise arrival was a thinly veiled attempt to regain the power we had taken away
from him the night before.  This session was brief.  Basically we were informed that we
would meet with the President at around 1:30.  Thea and I were pleased to be in the
building and had no new requests from the administration.  We agreed that the president
would come to us for the meeting, rather than risk being divided and locked out in an
attempt to meet with him in Ballou.  Furthermore, holding the meeting on our turf kept
the power in our court.  Dean Reitman had a lingering concern.  He wanted us to keep the
noise down.  Thea and I explained that we would take his request to the group and could
not tell him one way or another.  He seemed disappointed, but understanding.  We also,
made it clear that we appreciated his help, but we really needed to deal with the president
so that we could better hammer out an agreement.  At this point, Bruce realized that his
power had all but completely eroded and he left.
We cleaned up after our long night and prepared to great the president.  At 1:30,
he walked into the back room with Vice President I. Melvin Bernstein and Bruce
Reitman.  Bruce remained silent during almost the entire meeting as did-to a lesser
extent-Mel Bernstein.  This meeting was extremely short.  The negotiating team for this
meeting grew to six students and we started the meeting by explaining to the president
exactly what we needed from him.  We suggested that his e-mail include the wording
“the nondiscrimination policy is understood to include one’s acceptance of their
identity.”  After apologizing three different times for not meeting with us earlier, he left
with our suggestions in hand for a meeting with his advisors.
The importance of having a small negotiating team was highlighted by the way the
administrators spoke to the group as opposed to when they spoke to only a small number
of us.  Behind closed doors they spoke to us as equals.  However, they assumed the role
of professor when speaking to the group.  This allowed them to hold a slight advantage
over the group as a whole.


Chapter IV:
Thumbs Up!


http://www.tmn.com/~lsartor/sunburst.htm

 During the sit-in, our group was faced with innumerable meetings; it seemed if
we weren’t sleeping, then we were meeting.  Our choice of decision-making structure
therefore played a large role in the effectiveness of our sit-in.  As we decided upon a
method to use, we looked at for two main qualities: the effectiveness system and the
fairness of the system.  We decided for our decision-making structure to use the
consensus process.  Consensus is a process, in which everyone must agree that the group
should implement a decision; consensus process does not mean that everyone necessarily
agrees with the decision, but at the time finds the decision to be best for the group.
Unfortunately, as C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein point out, “If the [decision-making]
structure is vague, decisions can be difficult to achieve” and countless meetings
involving consensus have been fruitless due to a vague process.  Butler’s and Rothstein’s
Formal Consensus Process provides a very defined structure for consensus, thus
increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the decision-making process.  Their
structure contains various, “…guidelines and formats for managing meetings, facilitating
discussions, resolving conflict, and reaching decision” (www.ic.org). Butler’s and
Rothstein’s system operates on five steps through three levels, in order to achieve
consensus (fig 1).  In the first step one presents and clarifies the problem, presents a
proposal or issue, and clarifies the presentation.  The group then enters the first level,
“Broad Open Discussion.”  In this level the group discusses the information presented,
however, concerns brought up in this level are noted, but not discussed.  Butler and
Rothstein see the discussion in this level to have, “…a philosophical or principled tone”
(www.ic.org).  This level is also the optimal time to challenged the validity of the
proposal.  If the group seems to be in general agreement as the discussion tapers off, then
consensus can be called, otherwise the decision moves on to level two, “Identify
Concerns.”  In this level all of the concerns that arose in level one are publicly stated and
any other concerns about the issue are listed; related concerns are then grouped together.
The process then moves to the third level, “Resolve Concerns.”  At this level initially the
group attempts to clarify concerns in clusters.  If all of the concerns are addressed, then
there is a call for consensus, otherwise the process moves into the fifth step.  If all of the
concerns are not resolved, then each unresolved concern is addressed, clarified, and
discussed.  If all of the concerns are addressed then there is a call for consensus.
Otherwise, the member with concerns can be asked if they are willing to “stand aside,” or
consent to the proposal or solution without agreeing with it; if not, then the proposal or
solution is blocked.
Butler and Rothstein believe the best way to call for consensus is to have the facilitator
ask, “Are there any unresolved concerns?”, with ample time left for people to respond;
however, this is not the only method by which one can call consensus. Another such
method is the “thumbs up, thumbs down” method; this method, when consensus is called,
has everybody put their thumbs up (if in acceptance) or thumbs down (if in
disagreement), if the everyone puts their thumb up, then consensus has been reached.
Other methods have also been created to reach consensus, as well.  The best method for
calling consensus is a method that is the least intimidating. Butler and Rothstein show
that the wording of the question can affect the intimidation level; as they point out,
asking questions such as, “Is there consensus?” or “Does everyone agree?” has a tone that
there should be consensus.  The question “Are there any unresolved concerns?” is more
directed to the members, if any, who are dissenting and thus is more amiable.
Butler and Rothstein also see six crucial rules as part of the Formal Consensus process;
these are guidelines that, “…seem almost always to be true,” to them (:

1) Once a decision has been adopted by consensus, it cannot be changed without
reaching a new consensus. If a new consensus cannot be reached, the old decision stands.
2) In general, only one person has permission to speak at any moment. The person
with permission to speak is determined by the group discussion technique in use and/or
the facilitator.
3) All structural decisions (i.e., which roles to use, who fills each role, and which
facilitation technique and/or group discussion technique to use) are adopted by consensus
without debate. Any objection automatically causes a new selection to be made. If a role
cannot be filled without objection, the group proceeds without that role being filled. If
much time is spent trying to fill roles or find acceptable techniques, then the group needs
a discussion about the unity of purpose of this group and why it is having this problem, a
discussion which must be put on the agenda for the next meeting, if not held
immediately.
4) All content decisions (i.e., the agenda contract, committee reports, proposals, etc.)
are adopted by consensus after discussion. Every content decision must be openly
discussed before it can be tested for consensus.
5) A concern must be based upon the principles of the group to justify a block to
consensus.
6) Every meeting which uses Formal Consensus must have an evaluation.

These rules allow for an effective process, and without them the consensus process can
lose validity.
However, rules and processes are not the only components that make Formal Consensus a
successful decision-making structure.  The role of the facilitator and members
participating also are of vast importance to making Formal Consensus successful.  The
role of the facilitator is to guide the process of the meeting.  The facilitator is in charge of
calling on people to speak, making sure that everyone who wants to speak gets the
chance, getting the group to stay on topic, giving background information, making sure
the agenda is followed, making sure information is clarified, and suggesting various
means to make sure that the meeting flows well.  The facilitator is absolutely not to
direct the content of the meeting, nor let one point of view dominate—the facilitator is to
play a neutral role; this also means that the facilitator has no more power than anyone
else participating in the discussion.  (However, if the facilitator wants to make a
comment on an issue, he or she can temporarily leave the facilitator position, make the
comment, and return to the facilitator position.) Although everyone participating in the
Formal Consensus process should work to make sure the consensus process is followed,
the facilitator is the person who makes sure that the process is followed.  All of the
participants (including the facilitator) have to be actively working to make Formal
Consensus a successful process.  According to Butler and Rothstein, Formal Consensus is
built upon eleven tiers: trust, respect, unity of purpose, non-violence, self-empowerment,
cooperation, conflict resolution, commitment to the group, active participation, equal
access to power, and patience (www.ic.org).  Humility and discipline are two other traits
which are vital to successful Formal Consensus.   If participants are lacking any of these
qualities then the effectiveness of consensus can be severely threatened.  Participants also
have the obligation to be active in discussion; if members do not express their concern,
then the most effective solution will not come about nor will those silent members be as
enthused by the decision.  Each participant involved must actively work to include these
traits in the discussion.  Due to the non-hierarchical nature of Formal Consensus each
member holds equal responsibility for including these traits, therefore each member also
has equal ability to disrupt the process.  Participants must also make sure that they stay
on task, contribute ideas, and are willing to compromise ().  Not only do participants
have to make sure that they include these traits, but there are also traits that they have
which they must overcome.  Butler and Rothstein saw three major impediments which
have to be overcome: lack of training, external hierarchical structure, and social
prejudice (www.ic.org).
Despite all of the difficulties that come along with consensus, it is still the best
decision-making process available.  Consensus is the most non-violent decision-making
structure; it holds strongly with the non-violent philosophy, as well as being the most fair
system.  C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein contend that, “Traditional nonviolence theory
holds that the use of power to dominate is violent and undesirable” (www.ic.org);
consensus process dispels power to dominate by giving everyone a voice that must be
listened to in the decision-making process.  Other structures, whether voting systems or
dictatorships, give people the power to dominate.  Since in these systems participants or a
group have the ability to silence dissenting voices, the power of domination, a violent
power, is inherent in the structures. Butler and Rothstein point out that with voting and
Parliamentary Procedure that, “The will of the majority supersedes the concerns of the
minority.  This is inherently violent” (www.ic.org).  Also, consensus shifts the decision
process away from winning the vote to get a decision implemented, to getting everyone’s
agreement in order to get a decision implemented.  Instead of creating schisms  through
different voting factions, consensus keeps everybody in the same faction and therefore
working together.  Even though other decision-making structures tend to make decisions
more quickly than consensus, this does not mean as a whole that other structures are
faster when implementation is included.  When a consensus decision is finally made, it
can immediately begin to go into effect—everyone already knows why they agreed to the
decision, and why it is the best.  However, when a decision is made through
non-consensus means, support must be bolstered for that decision.  With a dictatorial
process, the decision-maker must convince the other members why the decision was
made and why they should comply with it; with a voting or parliamentary structure, the
majority must convince the minority why they are right and why the decision must be
implemented.  With implementation included in the time count, Formal Consensus
compared to other structures is not much longer, if longer at all.  Decisions implemented
by consensus need less enforcement than decisions made through non-consensus means.
Since with consensus everyone agreed with the decision that was made, there would be
no reason for resistance; reminders might need to be made, but not heavy-duty
enforcement.  However, with non-consensus means it is likely that enforcement will be
necessary for the silenced minority, since their issues were not accounted for.  Also, the
decisions made by non-consensus means do not reflect the whole group—they only
reflect the decision-makers; consensus allows for the whole group to be represented in
decisions.  The meeting atmosphere of consensus is also much more productive than the
meeting atmosphere present during other decision-making structures, according to Fen
Labalme. Labalme sees this difference because, “Consensus assumes that people are
willing to agree with each other, and that in such an atmosphere, conflict and differences
can result in creative and intelligent decisions” (www.activism.net).  All of these
advantages led us to use the consensus process during our sit-in in Bendetson Hall.
Largely the theory put into practice was successful.
While we met before to plan the sit-in, we were also indirectly preparing for
consensus. All of the meetings we sat through together allowed us to become acquainted
with each other and also express our dedication to the action.  During this preparatory
time, we definitely began to work on building the thirteen points necessary to have a
successful Formal Consensus process during the sit-in.  Through organizing for the letter
campaign, the rally, and the sit-in we built a lot of solidarity among group members; the
trust and respect earned through these activities definitely was a cohesive force that held
the group together.  Our dedication of time to this cause made everyone involved very
committed to the group.  Also, as the group collectively came up with the demands for
the group, therefore our unity of purpose became extremely strong: we were all protesting
for the same demands.  Although people had different views on just about every other
political cause, our work on this issue brought us to an informal consensus on what
politically should be done.  This political cohesiveness allowed us to only have
disagreements about means instead of ends, which drastically decreased the amount of
time we spent debating things in meetings.  Before the action everyone involved in the
group pledged to be non-violent for the action.  Since the organizers were looking to
make a stride for equality through the action, in the group there was work for equality, as
well.  There was a somewhat conscious view of gender and power roles during the
planning and the action; consensus was the logical decision-making structure for the
group.  Once we entered the building the rest of the attributes fell into place.  Due to the
radical nature of occupying a building, the action itself led to empowerment of the group
and individuals.  I remember feeling the control I had to accomplish change as the
administration realized we were in the building indefinitely.  The empowerment I
received from this helped me feel comfortable in articulating myself during meetings.
We had control.  The self-empowerment, as well as facilitation techniques, led to active
participation of the group.  Although some people felt that some people could have
spoken more, multiple people felt that people’s voices were being heard.
The self-empowerment and active participation of people led to equal access of power
for the group, as well.
*DICTION
In order to negotiate with the administration, we had a two-person negotiation
team to deal with them; this team could have inevitably led to a large power
stratification.  However, all decisions that the negotiators made were ratified through
consensus.  Also, it was brought up that a maldistribution of power could occur, by
having constant negotiators; bringing this idea to consciousness helped keep the power
distributed somewhat equally.  The equal access of power and diversity of political views
(from moderate to radical) led to successful conflict resolution.  The protesters had lots
of radically different plans on how to deal with the administration, how hard-line we
should be, and how much we need to worry about our views in the community—all
issues became challenged.  During the challenging of ideas, people cooperated very well
in order to reach a decision that appeased the group.  There were no underlying tensions
in the group, and everyone knew that success was close; therefore, we were very willing
to cooperate in order to win.  Although many disagreements naturally came about, we
were more than willing to work civilly to come to an agreement.  And even though these
agreements sometimes took an inordinate amount of time to achieve, for the majority of
decisions we were quite patient. Since we had put ourselves solely to the task of
occupying the building, this scenario gave us a bit of time and allowed us  to dedicate our
time solely to the action—these two factors helped us keep our patience immensely.
Everyone had a reasonable level of humility, since from the beginning of the movement
we had attempted to organize non-hierarchically.  Our discipline was very focused due to
the determination and focus of the action; we knew this was one of our last moves, and
we needed to be successful—the necessity of the action kept us very disciplined.
Our dealings with the three impediments of Formal Consensus tended to be much
more difficult..  External hierarchical structure was our easiest of the three to overcome;
social prejudice was a seemingly easy obstacle to overcome—however this was not true.
TSAD had conducted all of its meetings without a hierarchical structure, however an
informal hierarchy did exist.  However the ills of external hierarchical pressure were
irrelevant, since there was no other body or group pushing us away from the use of
consensus. The only group which could have possibly pushed us away from consensus
was the administration through negotiating, but our group solidly stuck with the
principles of consensus.  Social prejudice in the group was not accounted for, but were
somewhat challenged.  Occasionally gender roles or power roles were mentioned during
the meeting; by bringing these ideas up our ingrained social prejudices were beginning to
be attacked.  However, the group did not find the time nor energy to successfully deal
with all of the social prejudices the group brought into Bendetson Hall.  However, our
largest problem was lack of training.  Although everyone agreed to use the consensus
process, not everyone was trained in it.  During our first meetings adjustment to the
decision-making structure was made; also, people not trained in facilitation sometimes
had trouble being an effective facilitator.  Even though we were not rushed on most
decisions, there was not enough time or energy for the group to go over facilitation skills
once we were inside the building.  This lack of training caused some minor obstacles
during meetings, but on a whole enough people were trained or grasped the ideas of
consensus; the lack of training was not a large hindrance.
The protesters  had all of the traits to make consensus successful, now we just
needed to put consensus into action. We formalized our consensus process in the second
meeting when we instituted the “thumbs up, thumbs down” system to see if we reached
consensus.  Before the “thumbs up, thumbs down” system we would verbally verify if
consensus had been reached, as Butler and Rothstein suggested.  This method was not
working for us because it allowed consensus to be very unorganized.  At any time during
the consensus process someone could verbally see if consensus was reached—some
people did not seem to realize that consensus was being called for.  By implementing the
“thumbs up, thumbs down” system we made it necessary for people to make formal
proposals and acknowledge that consensus was being called.  Also, the “thumbs up,
thumbs down” system has everyone participate in it every time consensus is called—the
verbal system only involves people who are dissenting.  Since everyone is involved with
the “thumbs up, thumbs down” system, a distracted person would be noticed, and then
the group could help refocus him or her. With the verbal system, if for some reason a
person became distracted, one would assume that instead of being distracted she or he
agreed with the decision.  The visual aspect of the “thumbs up, thumbs down” system
also signifies the possibility of a decision being made, the verbal aspect only has oral
skills to work with, so there are less ways of reminding people that they have reached the
final stage of consensus.
Our formalized consensus process differed a bit from the system Butler and
Rothstein describe.  In our consensus process we did start with the first step of the
Formal Consensus process, but we blurred the following three levels much more than
Butler and Rothstein propose.  One reason for the blurring the three levels was a lack of
materials necessary to make the three levels separate.  Since we did not bring an easel
and large paper into Bendetson Hall and there was no large paper or chalkboards
available inside Bendetson, we had  no way to put up agendas or lists so everyone could
see them; therefore, we had to deal with each issue as they arose. However, most of
Butler’s and Rothstein’s rules did hold true for us:  consensus decisions could only be
changed by consensus, one person could only speak at a time, and blocks had to be based
on principles of the group.  We did choose our facilitator (we did not have any other
specified roles) through consensus, but we did it through a very informal verbalized
consensus process and not our “thumbs up, thumbs down” process.  We wanted to have
as many people as possible be facilitators in order to emphasize that there was no
hierarchy.  When we chose facilitators the group just looked to make sure that a new
person was facilitating for each meeting, but no other requisites.  Therefore, consensus
was reached virtually when someone new volunteered (or someone volunteered them) to
be the facilitator.  The fourth rule had no relevancy to our group since we did not have
any content decisions.  We did not follow the sixth rule because although we weren’t
under great time constraints, the group did not have the time nor energy to do
evaluations.  Our alterations to the Formal Consensus process were not great, and our
process had the benefits that Butler and Rothstein claimed a Formal Consensus process
would have.
The protesters found the consensus process that was developed to be a very
successful process, even though some members were worried about the feasibility of the
process.  All of our meetings and decisions benefited from the use of the consensus
process, and they also gauged our ability to hold to the tiers of Formal Consensus.
Consensus helped the group deal with very difficult situations in the very best ways
possible.  Participants in the consensus process definitely felt that their voices were heard
during all of the meetings.  During a couple of meetings consensus process allowed the
group to alter decisions to appease everyone and make the decisions more solid.  When
the idea that different negotiators should meet with Bruce Reitman arose, initially all but
the person proposing the idea were against this idea.  However, discussion of the issue
allowed the group to analyze the  power roles that were forming in the group; this
discussion would not have happened without someone bringing up the idea of switching
the facilitators.  In the end the facilitators were not switched, but the discussion of the
issue led to a heightened awareness of power roles yet again.  This discussion would have
never occurred with other decision-making structures.  When the group was deciding on
whether or not to make noise on Wednesday morning consensus once again led to
strengthen the group and make the best decision possible.  Once again everybody but one
person wanted to make noise, and once again this person’s views were respected and
accounted for in the decision.  Although many people seemed to feel that this discussion
took way too long, the discussion did let us analyze how we wanted to be viewed by the
Tufts community.  Once again, if we had used another structure, this conversation would
have been lost.  Also, by talking through the action with the dissenter, we were able to
communicate to her that she was having a role in the decision and was not being
silenced.  In the end we did decide to go through with the action and make noise, but her
viewpoint was definitely considered.  She also did a wonderful job of showing how to
sacrifice personal wants for the benefit of the group—this dedication to the group made
the consensus process very successful.  Our process also increased the amount of
creativity our group had.  During our discussion of whether or not we would leave after
the letter was issued to the Tufts’s community or after the president published his letter
in national media, we reached a deadlock: some people wanted to leave after the letter
was issued, while others wanted to get the president to publish the letter.  Neither side
wanted to cede to the other side; however, one side could have definitely outvoted the
other.  However, consensus process led to the decision that since the president would
make a press release, that his press release would be sent to the press.  If a vote had been
taken, this idea would have never come about.  This discussion however, also began to
show weaknesses that our decision process had.
There were two major problems that people had with the consensus system: it
took too long, and it was too intense.  Consensus decisions inevitably take a very long
time to make, and the discussion leading to the decision does tend to be very intense.
Being in meetings all the time finally started to get to us.  People were becoming
perturbed with conflict resolution; as we were talking about when we would leave the
building, people were tired of hearing people who wanted us to stay.  The meeting
process was beginning to take a physical toll on people.  Since there was only a few
people who wanted to stay to get the media release, people just wanted to silence them.
Emotional breakdown was beginning to occur.    Also, the conflict and dragging
discussions caused people to question the ability of consensus to work when there is a
serious disagreement.  However, these problems were only minor hindrances in our
process.  Even though problems with conflict resolution were arising, the people causing
the conflict adjusted the situation in order to diffuse the problem.  Even though problems
were arising with consensus, it was not falling apart; people’s respect for each other kept
the situation  from becoming a big issue for the group.  However, the view of the people
who conceded was silenced.
On a whole, though, our consensus process helped us achieve the goal of winning
our campaign, as well as having the fairest, most non-violent means possible.  Not only
can we look with satisfaction at the meeting process, but we can also be proud of it.
Other decision-making structures would have stifled our creativity, silenced minorities,
created hierarchies, and destroyed our unity. This sit-in is proof that a fair system can
work—and can work well.

Fig. 1

http://www.ic.org/pnp/ocac/


Chapter V:
Nonviolence

 The tactics of nonviolence, not only as a strategy, but also as a philosophy, is one
of the most effective strategies for social movements to effect change.  An oppressive
majority uses force in order to assert their power over the minority.  When the oppressed
minority confronts their oppressor, it would be ill-advised to fight them in a battle that is
uphill.  The oppressor is better at violence than the oppressed and so other tactics should
be used.  Another reason to favor nonviolence is that one does not want only to win the
campaign, but also to win the hearts of the oppressors.  To reform a drug addict and
getting the addict to go clean is more desirable than locking the addict in a jail cell.
 Nonviolence was the philosophy we used behind the glass doors of Bendetson.
What did this mean practically?  We used no drugs or alcohol.  We did not destroy or
otherwise harm any property.  We were mindful of others.  We did not use violent words
or actions.  There are a few instances that reflect our commitment to nonviolence that we
would like to illustrate.
I. Outside of Bendetson there were hearts strung from the trees and lamposts.  We
also had several banners hung.  An individial from the Tufts community took it upon
himself to tear down the TSAD hearts and banners that were in compliance with law and
university policy.  Obviously upset, a TSAD member approached the man.  She asked
him why he was tearing down our personal property.  “Because I hate dykes, niggers,
fags, and dykes, and this has gone too far,” replied the student.  He then went on to ask,
“You know how you can soften me up?  Have you and one of your dyke friends have sex
with me.”
 Words of hate directed towards a protesting group is not uncommon.  Our pledge
to nonviolence helped in the assembly of a reaction.  The TSAD member to which these
comments were directed at responded emotionally as she was verbally abused by this
ignorant man without instigation.  Other members in the group reported the incident to
TUPD officers and Chuck Lenero wrote a police report on the incident.  No retalitory
actions were taken by TSAD, as that would be contrary to the nonviolent philosophy.
Some of the members of TSAD wrote letters to the Dean of Students to help the case
against the individual and in support of our fellow TSAD student.  This was another
nonviolent reaction to the act of defamation.
II. Emily Good was posted at the bathroom on the main floor when a police officer
attempted to forcibly remove her from the facility.  She refused to move and did not
respond physically to the officer as he attempted to shove her out into the hallway.
Fellow TSAD members did not respond violently by force, nor vocally.  We instead sat
down in solidarity around the entrance to the bathroom.
III. Adam Carlis was detained in the foyer area after attending prospective customers
of the corportation by police.  They threatened him with arrest and asked him to leave.
Adam refused, not purely as an act of defiance, but because he was a part of a nonviolent
occupation and he was not going to leave until justice had been served.  With Adam’s
fate uncertain, his fellow TSAD protestors took notice and began to make it more
convienient for the police to allow Adam back in than it would be for them to continue to
detain him.  We did this by banging on the doors and shouting “Let him in!”  Startled, the
police allowed Adam back into the building within a few seconds.  The was a nonviolent
manner in which students were able to coerce the oppressive force to execute the will of
the people in a nonviolent manner.
 The spirit of nonviolence was upheld in our decision-making process, which was
consensus.  It was executed with the efforts to educate the workers in the building on our
issue upon entrance and distrobution of cookies to make them feel comfortable with us.
Whether they ate the cookies or not is irrelavant.  We issued a statement citing our pledge
of nonviolence which was distributed to administrators, police, and the press.  It is clear
that our movement was impregnated with nonviolence and the immense coercive force
behind her ensured our victory.


Chapter VI:
Perceptions

 When we entered the building I was very nervous—we were all very nervous.  No
one was really sure what to expect, if we would be a success, and what people would
think—this was everyone’s first building occupancy.  After we had made the first bound
and established that we were going to stay in the building indefinitely, we then had to
worry about our perception.  Would people listen to our action?  Would we be attacked
for our radical activities?  No one was sure what would happen; we just hoped for the
best.
 Thanks to our media team, we came very close to receiving the best.  Hours after
we had entered the building media began to arrive.  Our morale shot up.  As reporter after
reporter began to show up, we kept on getting more and more excited.  The media team
had done a successful job of recruiting various local and national media—including The
Boston Globe, The Boston Herald, The Boston Phoenix, and The Chronicle for Higher
Education.  The more reporters and photographers that entered the building, the louder
we became; we knew the media was responding to our press packet.  People kept on
being dragged to the side, where it was a bit less noisy, to be interviewed.  Pictures kept
snapping.  Then the media started to dwindle; the administration had decided to keep
reporters and photographers out of the building.  Initially, this action caused our
excitement and morale to die down; then we realized that the administration was doing
this for fear of bad press.  The administration claimed that letting reporters into the
building during the sit-in would set a precedent that would mean that reporters could
enter any Tufts’s building in the name of reporting.  This argument seems very weak—it
seemed very much like an excuse. Various television stations showed up to report the
occupancy, as well.  The administration allowed protesters to exit the building and
re-enter, but they still would not allow any media into the building.
 Shortly after we awoke the next morning, we could see the fruits our actions in
the daily papers that covered the sit-in—especially The Boston Globe and The Boston
Herald.  The articles in the papers where very positive and definitely supported us, rather
than attack us.  It was a great morale boost to see the papers supporting our cause—it
also validated our cause and our actions taken thus far.  The media definitely helped us
stay positive about the sit-in, and without the media, we probably would have become
much more disillusioned with our actions.
 The media table also did a wonderful job of showing student support for us.  The
media table had made a couple hundred laminated, construction-paper hearts, which
people were to write a message on and hang up.  As the sit-in progressed, the number of
hearts on the academic quad kept on increasing; we knew there were students out there
who supported our actions.  The construction paper hearts did an excellent job of
communicating student support to us by making student support tangible.  Negative
responses from students was minimal, but did occur.  One reactionary student felt the
need to begin to rip down hearts and our banner, due to his anger with the sit-in.
Although it was demoralizing to see a student who did not agree with us, the media team
did an excellent job of making it look like that all of the students who walked by
Bendetson supported us.  The student support that we saw definitely validated our action
to us.  At night, a vigil was held, at which even more student support could be seen.  The
Cultural Coordinating Committee, a coalition of all culture groups on campus, held their
meeting outside of Bendetson—they were in solidarity with our action.  Seeing the
cultural community at Tufts in support of us also played a crucial role in keeping our
morale high and validating our actions.
 After our demands had been met, and we had exited the building, we realized that
outside and media support was not as good as it had seemed from the inside.  There were
definitely a number of students at this school who did not support our action.  Brian’s
Rumors Daily (www.rumorsdaily.com), a website which allows discussion through
anonymous posts, was full of comments attacking our actions and goals.  The media
lacked follow-up stories and did a bad job of reporting the fact that our demands had
been met.  However, while we were in the building media and student perception was
portrayed as very supportive, and this support helped give us the confidence necessary to
make the action successful.


Chapter VII:
Constituency and Group Dynamics

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world;
indeed it’s the only thing that ever has. ~Margaret Mead

 That is truly the greatness of social movements- that collectively, individuals do
make change. Social movements are literally dependent on “the power of the people,”
and considering constituency and group dynamics is therefore critical to movement
analysis. This evaluation will address the membership of Tufts Students Against
Discrimination (TSAD), the relationship between group constituency and the issue,
membership and participation outreach efforts, and the process of constructing the
membership of the “super-secret” TSAD group. These issues significantly shaped how
the TSAD and sit-in constituency developed. TSAD was never a homogenous group of
people- if there is such a thing- and individual identities critically affected how TSAD
operated, throughout the movement and within Bendetson. Movement analysis would be
incomplete without reflecting on the identities of TSAD members, and to truly appreciate
the direct action, it is critical to consider the group dynamics.
 The possible factors influencing group dynamics are numerous and complex, and
evaluating group dynamics is undeniably subjective. Therefore, not wanting my
perspective to be the singular or official analysis of our group, I have included the
“voices” of other people who were inside Bendetson. It is telling that not everyone in
Bendetson saw our group interactions as being affected in the same ways. Listening to
how different individuals perceived a shared experience was insightful and challenging.
Initially I had only intended on getting a few different opinions, admittedly to ease my
own guilt about being the subjective historian, but as I listened to the spectrum of
different perceptions I heard and how the responses themselves were indicative of the
diversity of the individuals, I ultimately spoke with almost every person who was with
me throughout the Bendetson occupation. It was interesting to consider how different
people responded to this topic, but I chose not to identify the speakers in any way. Giving
people’s names would have been totally inappropriate, and labeling or describing who
gave what insight would have been even more problematic. These anonymous voices are
challenging, and these conversations made me realize again that I shared this intense
experience with an amazing and remarkably thoughtful group of individuals.
 To ultimately analyze group dynamics inside of Bendetson, it is necessary to
critically evaluate the development of movement constituency. Therefore, it is important
to begin by recognizing that the membership of TSAD was not permanent nor static.
TSAD developed as a group of students, officially unrecognized, coming together as
individuals in response to a common concern. This was the structure for participation
throughout the movement’s progression. Anyone could be part of TSAD and, just like
with any organization or movement, there were varying levels of commitment to the
cause and different reasons why people were involved. The initial emergence of TSAD
was a direct reaction to the TCUJ decision, and the initial membership of TSAD was
self-selected as students that wanted to be involved in actively responding to this
decision. TSAD was open to students with a diversity of perspectives about the situation,
and the issue was an issue that affected every Tufts student, but the diversity within the
group was ultimately diversity among like-minded individuals.
 When considering the students who became mobilized (and those who didn’t)
around the non-discrimination policy through TSAD, it is important to consider how this
constituency was affected by the issue and how the issue was perceived. The membership
of TSAD sheds some light on this relationship between who was involved and the
perception of the issue. From the beginning, there was a significant commitment to this
issue by individuals from the queer community and the activist community. This is
obviously not true for everyone; there were individuals in both communities that were
not involved in the campaign, and there were also some queer individuals and some
activists that resented the attention brought to this issue or were specifically opposed to
the direct action. But the majority of the movement constituency was drawn from these
two communities. Despite outreach efforts, and despite the inherent diversity in the
identities and beliefs of TSAD members, there was never adequate racial or ethnic
diversity in this movement. TSAD members-- queer, straight, white, and non-white--
have spoken about the affect of the non-discrimination policy issue being perceived as a
“queer issue.” Most TSAD members at some level acknowledge a correspondence
between the perception of the issue as “queer” and TSAD membership. Although the
issue was marketed as an issue of “discrimination,” this often became lost in the
complexity of the case. It is hard to imagine any other person besides someone with a
queer identity being discriminated against because of self-acceptance of their identity.
Although this loophole effectively and critically threatened the non-discrimination policy
at large, it was easy to believe that this loophole would never affect “me.” But
self-interest and fear of application to one’s own situation are hardly the only motivation
for mobilization, and I think the lack of endorsement for this issue by culture groups does
reflect prejudice or at least  distancing from issues perceived as “queer.”
 This assessment is hardly an end-- TSAD did not do outreach to culture groups
and did not consider the diversity of its membership simply to have “token minorities”
locked in the building with us. As one TSAD member explained, we did and continue to
do coalition-building because there is a connection between “our causes,” and we need to
celebrate and use this connection to support each other. This is an active and reciprocal
process. We can’t just do outreach to culture groups when we need their support; but
rather we need to extend our solidarity to their causes so that we can expect some
alliance on our issues. I feel proud and confident in stating that the individual members
involved with the TSAD movement are very personally committed to goals of social
justice and take personal responsibility for the on-going process of coalition-building.
Therefore, for this action, visible membership diversity was desired because it could have
symbolized that the issue was an issue of discrimination and that the movement and the
action had more broad-based relevance and support. Race affected the dynamics of our
group and of our movement not despite, but because the group of people in the building
included only one non-white. This is a disappointing reality, but I am proud of the
ongoing efforts of my peers to do coalitioning with other groups, especially culture
groups, not only for the benefits of greater support, but because we need to unite in order
to effect progressive change. There were examples of support as a result of our cultural
outreach: the Pan-African Alliance sent out an email in support of the rally on the library
roof, and various leaders of culture groups and Culture Coordinating Committee showed
support for TSAD by attending the rally. The Culture Coordinating Committee also held
its meeting Tuesday night right outside of Bendetson Hall. This action was powerful in
its influence on group morale, but also showed that the foundation for intercultural
coaliting is there. Race was not ignored by TSAD, but as part of a greater social justice
movement, more coalitioning needs to be done.
 Perception of the issue and racial dynamics exemplify how the membership of
TSAD and movement constituency developed as it did because of a host of
considerations, but the construction of the “super-secret” group was a much more
deliberate process, and this is fundamental to analysis of the sit-in group dynamics. The
suggestion of various types of radical direct actions, including a building take-over were
suggested early on at TSAD meetings, and it wasn’t too long before the behind the scenes
discussions and planning for an action organized into separate “super-secret” TSAD
meetings. Deciding who to tell and who to invite to these secret meetings was left to
individual discretion, and there was a conscious filtering of those who were “down.” I
didn’t actually think very much about this recruitment process, because by the time I was
involved, the people I would have approached were already also involved. Other people
were much more actively involved in “selecting” the inside group membership. One
TSAD member talked to me about their choice of who to approach about being involved
with the direct action. Not only did this TSAD member consider who would be “down”
with the action, but they also took into account how different individuals would affect
our group dynamics. This person told me that they knew someone who was dedicated to
the issue and who might have been interested in being inside Bendetson, but this TSAD
member chose not to approach this potential “inside” person and did not want them
inside. I know the person this TSAD member was specifically referring to, and I
empathize with their reservations about not wanting this person on the inside, but this
example challenges the arguably exclusive nature of our action.
 This is a very dynamic situation where we controlled the dissemination of
information about the sit-in, and by these means, had control over the membership of the
“super-secret” group. We desperately needed numbers inside the building, so it is
challenging to admit that we were selective. From point zero, we were selective because
the only potential recruits were people we knew. Beyond that, selection was more
subjective, and I think it was admirably self-reflective of the TSAD member who made
the connection between our group dynamics inside the building and how we created that
constituency. The individual who my fellow TSAD member deliberately did not invite to
be a part of the action is a very dedicated activist, but this person is also actively and
vocally self-centered. This is not a good personality to have as part of a group that needs
to hear all voices and needs to decide by consensus. I think this example brings up an
interesting twist to the conversation about constituency and the effects of constituency on
the movement. Every TSAD member I spoke with was enthusiastic about the overall
dynamics of the group inside of Bendetson, but we have to be critical about our
self-reflection. Yes, it was remarkable how well we performed as a group, how we
utilized consensus, how we listened to everyone’s voice...but we still had arguably
problematic aspects of our group dynamics, and how might this have been compounded
if the group membership had been different?
 The choice of the action was itself imbedded in issues about constituency. TSAD
members recall when the idea of a building take-over was first being talked about
(though no one is totally sure who first made the suggestion!). This proposal and
subsequent conversations and planning about direct action strategy alienated some people
from being involved with the movement. This obligated compromise. As one TSAD
member stated, the idea for a building take-over was “definitely proposed by an activist,”
and the suggestion made many people nervous. Some people wanted a less radical action
for issues of their own comfort or to lessen fears about potential repercussions. Other
people wanted a compromise because they feared alienating the greater Tufts
community, which is also an issue of constituency. The reality was that the action
couldn’t be “excessively radical” because there wouldn’t be enough people willing to
participate. Another TSAD member felt that it was a struggle from the very beginning
between the “all-out crazy radicals” and those who wanted to be more conservative. The
compromise was natural, though, and, it was not only a compromise between individuals,
but also a compromise of goals and necessity- being assertive enough to effect change,
and also being moderate enough to sustain the constituency necessary to go through with
the action. Some people said that they look back and are amazed by the succession of
events that led us to this course of action. They emphasized that the direct action was not
something they would have ever considered being part of had it stood alone, but they
supported the sit-in as a culmination of movement efforts.
 Given the group of individuals that was ultimately committed to the direct action,
the dynamics of this group were critical to the movement. The individuals inside
Bendetson were an amazing group of people who associated with diverse identities and
ideologies. There was a significant diversity in the backgrounds of the TSAD inside
membership. One way of looking at this was that there were “activists” and then there
were people who would only be willing to be this committed and participate in this
extreme of an action, for this specific issue. These dynamics were effective in balancing
each other out. According to one TSAD member we needed both the “people who were
willing to cave” and the “fuck, no!” activists. Those who were more motivated to leave
Bendetson, pushed the group to consider what negotiations and demands or concessions
would expedite us leaving the building. And without the activists, such actions as a rally
or a building sit-in might never have occured. The point is that every individual was
critical to this action, this successful action, and that is why it is important to consider the
group dynamics.
 Leadership dynamics within this movement, and specifically during this action,
were intriguing because we didn’t have “leaders.” In keeping with our consensus
decision-making technique and our pledge of solidarity and non-violence, there were no
official leaders for our group. The reality is, though, that you don’t need “leaders” to
have leadership dynamics, and we had leadership dynamics....I had written this paragraph
introduction before I had gotten input from other TSAD members about “leadership
dynamics.” These dynamics seemed obviously apparent to me, though, and not simply as
leadership dynamics, but as “gendered leadership dynamics.” Actually this paragraph
was going to be about leadership, and the next paragraph was going to invoke leadership
and gender dynamics. And then I talked to a male TSAD member about what I had
written thus far in my part of the paper. He teasingly assumed that I had already filled
five pages with analysis of gender dynamics. And I replied, “no gender...yet.” He asked
what I had written about, then, and I told him that I was starting to discuss leadership. His
response was that we didn’t have leaders, and my response was to doubt myself and my
analysis. I am angry that my initial response was to doubt myself rather than to challenge
him, especially since it was important that I hear about what he thought about
“leadership” and gender dynamics and important that he hear what I have to say. I wish I
hadn’t needed to hear from other women to feel justified, but other women’s perspectives
did just that- they validated me. It is a challenge for all of us to look critically at how
gender does affect relationships, interactions, decision-making, the performance of
leadership, etc. without making gender the only thing to consider. It is an even greater
challenge to not just point out how and when gender is oppressive, but to be constructive
about this analysis.
 This introduction does not imply that perspectives about leadership or gender
dynamics were homogenous along gender lines, and the most interesting thing about
asking people to talk to me about group dynamics was the variety of answers I received.
My point is, though, that listening to responses from both male and female sit-in
participants validated some of my claims about leadership and gender playing a role in
the movement and the action, even though we didn’t have leaders and though we made
some conscious efforts to mitigate the influences of both. I think the fact that there were
some leadership dynamics was justified by the fact that when I asked people to speak to
the issue of leadership dynamics, almost everyone had something to say. There was such
a diversity of responses, and each of them so insightful that it would be impossible to
make many generalizations. Therefore, for the topics of leadership and gender dynamics,
which I perceive as being interrelated in significant ways, I will present many of the
voices of TSAD.
 Leadership must be talked about in the context of movement analysis because it is
not only considerable whether or not a movement or an action is “successful,” but it is
also necessary for the movement and action to function in a way that reflects the final
objective and member values. When I asked sit-in participants about leadership in the
action and in the building, every female I talked to referred to specific, named group
leaders. From this generalization, emerged very different ways of looking at how
leadership was performed and how this affected our action. One TSAD member
immediately acknowledged who the leaders were inside of Bendetson, but said that it
was OK that they were the obvious leaders because they were actively concerned about
being “leaders;” therefore they were modest about this role, which made everyone more
comfortable. This interpretation of the leaders notably included that the female
leadership was more concerned than the male leadership about having the role of
“leader.” Another female sit-in member also made reference to a gender distinction
between the leaders’ comfort levels with their leadership roles. She said that the male
leader “took the position of leadership...or people thrust him into it,” and she emphasized
that the female leader made such constant efforts not to be perceived as a leader. I found
this analysis to be especially interesting because she gave this evaluation of the situation
without mentioning gender. When I asked her if she thought gender affected the different
responses to leadership, she said that “typical gender roles” may have affected why the
female was more uncomfortable with her leadership than the male. She also made an
interesting note that, even with the specific example of male leadership, it was the male
TSAD members inside of Bendetson that were most vocally challenging leadership. This
is a curious addition to examining the gendered nature of leadership.
 There were suggestions that leadership was very different before and during our
time in Bendetson. It may be that leadership was more necessary or appropriate before
entering the sit-in, simply in order to “get shit done.” This analysis, especially within the
context of gender analysis, makes sense to me. Leadership in this form builds from
wanting to do things, than being expected to do everything. In my opinion this is
considerable to a discourse of activist leadership. I can empathize with this justification
for leadership, a similar justification to the idea that leaders are simply those who were
most committed to and active for the cause, and, though I think this is very relevant, I
think we must also consider the perpetuation of gendered leadership, and how leadership
is addressed.
 Leadership was discussed inside of Bendetson. Some people felt like this was
adequate- that by discussing leadership and making it visible, it was OK. Other
individuals did not feel like a conversation about leadership was adequate. One TSAD
member linked this to realities about time; we really weren’t in the building for that long,
and by the time leadership was discussed, it had already been established and there
wasn’t much motivation to make change. This TSAD member referred only to a male as
the “self-appointed leader,” and though I empathized with her frustration, I wondered
why it wasn’t vocalized when we were in the building and it could have been more
immediately constructive.
 The consideration of leadership as gendered was not simple. I believe that several
of the female reflections on leadership are indicative that leadership was problematically
gendered. But not all females felt that way. One female TSAD member acknowledged
the leaders, recognized that there was a gender balance, and said that the situation would
have only been problematic if “two straight, white males” represented the entire group.
She also pointed out that the negotiating team for the meeting with President DiBiaggio
also had a conscious gender balance of three females and three males. I think this was a
significant decision and it was important for us to be responsive to gender representation,
but if you look at the numbers inside of Bendetson, there were five males and eleven
females...I don’t know that we can be satisfied that numbers indicate or guarantee “real”
equal representation. Another female’s response about leadership talked about it as being
“about and beyond gender.” She spoke about how, in the specific context of Bendetson
dynamics, male leadership “took up a lot of space,” and that was why it was so important
to have a strong female presence to balance this out. The male leadership did make
efforts to “step back,” but she saw this as different than the way the female leadership
consciously performed her role as leader. In these leadership dynamics, the female was a
different type of leader than the male, and this was both “about and beyond gender.” The
dynamics of our leadership were arguably influenced by how gender is socially
performed, but these dynamics were also about the dynamics of individuals, so
personality is also significant.
 Leadership was also perceived as being significant, but genderless. Such analysis
was typically how male membership evaluated the dynamics of leadership, and I don’t
think these different analysis (gendered and not gendered) have to be mutually exclusive.
One male TSAD member saw leadership performed through group dependence on
certain individuals. This was specifically an issue of leadership before the sit-in. If a few
significant people were missing at meetings, namely male leaders, TSAD seemed to lack
clear direction. Similarly, all TSAD members could explain the movement or the issues,
but certain individuals still seemed to be “the sources of information.” According to
another male individual, leadership progressed throughout the movement, so that there
was a more distinct hierarchy in the movement before we entered the building, where it
was then more democratic and egalitarian. Other TSAD members answered my questions
about leadership by acknowledging that some individuals were definitely the most vocal
and visible spokespeople for the cause- on campus and in the media. One TSAD member
specifically defined the “inside” leadership as “vocal power,” where the leaders were
those who spoke more and louder than everyone else. A female TSAD member who
didn’t see gender as making a difference inside of Bendetson, pointed out that it was
always the males who led the chants. Then is gender irrelevant? True that males may
have a greater physical capacity for making noise, but when noise becomes associated
with leadership, both in terms of leading chants and also who speaks the loudest and the
most, we can’t ignore the multiple ways that males are socialized to lead.
 There were differing views about how gender affected the performance of
leadership, but beyond leadership, gender arguably impacted the group dynamics of the
movement and sit-in. I say “arguably” with reluctance and only because I feel that it is
important to feature the diverse voices of the group. It is so obvious to me that gender
was relevant, and I feel validated that the majority of females share my opinion. But I
will start with the dissenting view. There were various perspectives on how significant
gender was to identity dynamics, but few sit-in participants out-right denied the
legitimacy of gender as a force inside of the movement. One female voice was previously
mentioned as not thinking gender was very important, but also pointing out that the
chants were always led by males. She also reflected on whether or not there were any gay
males inside of the building, and as neither of us knew, we didn’t speculate; but we did
challenge how this might have or did affect the group. If male, straight, and almost
entirely white was the constituency of the most vocal of all the voices, this is
problematic. Rather interestingly, one male TSAD member just had nothing to say either
about leadership or gender dynamics, even when specifically asked about these two
components in the context of requesting his input of group dynamics. The last voice
generally discredited the application of identity as a factor. While I agree with this
individual that differences of opinion were also very relevant, I can not understand how
he could, from his privileged position as a straight white male and given the context of
our action, deny that identity was significant. This statement may appear judgmental, but
the goal is not to criticize, but rather to critically analyze so as to be ultimately
constructive.
 I believe gender and identity were very relevant to our movement and our action,
and I think that recognizing gender dynamics is an important first step, but not a
sufficient end, to challenging the injustice of gender inequity. Sometimes I wonder if
women are programmed to passively accept their persistent and institutionalized gender
subordination, or if women see and understand how gender works to oppress them but
just don’t speak out about it loud enough or persistently enough, or just don’t expect
enough that gender oppression and inequity can change. Looking at gender in activism, I
think it is less an issue of women developing a feminist consciousness-- because I feel
legitimized by talking to female TSAD members that many of them also recognized
gender inequities-- than a challenge about when and how to be constructive about the
unacceptable realities of gender inequity. It is as if gender is never and always the issue
that needs to be addressed. We have solidarity behind activist causes, and the issues and
the action are so demanding that it seems as if there isn’t time, or it’s never the
appropriate time, to explicitly address gender dynamics. This is how I often feel-- as if it
is selfish to even notice gender inequalities, let alone vocalize opposition to them, when
everyone is unified to be effective for a specific cause. The cause is rarely if ever
specifically about gender, so that means that gender, if considered at all, is always
perceived as secondary to the issue at hand. But if we don’t consider gender as part of the
process, can we ever be truly successful? If even one female group member consciously
stops going to meetings for a time because they are “sick of just hearing the guys talk,”
the performance of gender is definitely problematic and needs to be challenged.
 The difficulty for TSAD and other examples of progressive movements is that
issues of internal inequalities or problematic dynamics are not adequately addressed in
the present tense. This is a challenge to the group: to be focused about their purpose
while also being responsive to identity and group dynamics. I am frustrated that gender
isn’t more often discussed while it is most apparently problematic, not because I want the
focus to always be about gender or because I want not detract from the issue at hand, but
because I never want to feel like I am a female “help-mate” to activism that is socialized
as exclusively masculine. One TSAD member said that we needed females inside to
make sure that there was female representation and for such specific examples as female
members challenging music that was lyrically offensive to women, but she also said that
“we shouldn’t have to do that.” I agree. How can women be leaders and equal to men in a
movement, if women have the additional burden of being the “gender watchdogs.” This
needs to be a shared responsibility, not just so that it is more vocally addressed and
everyone is more aware, but because affecting change about gender oppressions and
unequal gender expectations can only be accomplished when all genders and everyone
involved are actively committed to this goal. Therefore, an analysis of group dynamics
should not be in retrospect, but rather it needs to be an active part of the movement, so
that action participants can feel good about the process and even better about the
conclusion, knowing that the group was committed to its ideals throughout the
movement.
 The ideologies of individuals also affected how group dynamics affected the
process of the sit-in. The diversity of ideas and perspectives was critical because it kept
us in check. We had to make decisions by consensus, and that meant everyone had to be
convinced that what we were going to do was the best choice. People had different
comfort levels, and people had different ideas about the impact of our actions. Deciding
on strategy was incredibly challenging. After a night inside of Bendetson, we had to
determine how to regulate our own behavior. The choice was whether or not to make
noise- LOUD noise. We had talked extensively about strategic issues before entering the
building, and the initial intent was to totally disrupt work and to prevent
business-as-usual during our occupation. Issues were reevaluated from our current
position, and people were generally concerned with how our activity before negotiations
would impact the negotiation process and the administrators’ attitudes towards us. This
specific consensus-making process warrants consideration because we literally spent
three hours talking about whether or not we were going to make noise, and these three
hours were testament to how individual ideology impacts the group’s decision-making
and actions. We talked about our position towards the administration, the value or
detriment of being disruptive, whether or not our disruption would be perceived as
disrespect, the perception of us by the outside when we made noise or when we were
quiet, and a host of other considerations. This meeting exemplified differences between
ideologies, backgrounds, “radicals” and the more conservative membershaip, “activists”
and activists for this cause....more importantly than pointing out our differences, this
group conversation was testament to how respectful we were of every individual and that
we valued the input from every individual. This was true people power.


Chapter VIII:
Morale

 Group morale also affected the movement and the action. The responses I
received when I asked TSAD members about morale- their morale inside of Bendetson
and their perspective of group morale- were overwhelmingly positive. Some people
suggested that it was our group solidarity that made our group morale so positive, and
without this unity and community, they could not have dealt as well with the stressful
emotions and personal demands that were part of our action.
 Despite the general message of high group morale, many TSAD members
described morale as something that “fluctuated.” The references to low points in group
morale most often corresponded to specific times and where we were in the negotiating
process. Someone thought morale was low Tuesday night because our strategy was
unclear and then a faculty member from the outside suggested a compromise. This was
disheartening to some TSAD members considering all that we were sacrificing and how
reasonable we perceived our demands to be. Other people pointed out low points in our
constant meetings when people were just so exhausted and emotionally drained. We
knew that our consensus decision-making was essential for the very purpose of keeping
everyone involved and keeping morale high, but it was an exhausting and sometimes
frustrating process. There were times in our meetings where the individuals in the group
were “not on the same page,” and our disagreements both challenged morale and
strengthened our solidarity. By making all sides thoroughly defend why they felt the way
they did, the consensus process made everyone more aware of where other people were
coming from and made compromise easier.
 Even examples of low points in group morale often accompanied references to
the positive impact of our group solidarity. When different individuals were having
second thoughts or getting frustrated or scared or overwhelmed, looking around at the
group and knowing that we were all in it together was a source of strength. TSAD
members felt really positive about how caring and respectful our group was to one
another, and that not only was this a nice thing, but it also increased the effectiveness of
our action. One individual recalled being stressed about the action in the context of other
concerns and stresses about stuff in her life outside of Bendetson. She said that it was
powerful to see how many people really cared about how she was feeling and that we
weren’t just physically in this together, but also personally and emotionally. In her
opinion, the movement identity and morale was “intense solidarity, but also very
personal.”
 Morale was influenced by our situation and activity. One TSAD member spoke of
our power to make noise as a tool for morale. When we made loud noise we were doing
something arguably both peaceful and aggressive, and it was something we did as an act
of solidarity, to disrupt the business-as-usual of the building, to bring attention to the
building, and to have fun! Someone also specifically credited the media for keeping our
morale up. Knowing that we had interest and support from the outside was empowering
and also gave us the responsibility of staying strong and staying focused. This was also
the effect of having such active outside support for the sit-in. Looking outside and seeing
friends, allies, faculty, and staff was empowering and let each of us know that group
solidarity extended beyond the walls of Bendetson. Doing this direct action, we knew
that we would have both support and criticism from the campus. It was important,
though, that when we were inside we had visible and vocal reinforcement from the
outside-- the impact of our outside membership was critical both to our group morale and
to the success of the action.
 Our group morale was a reflection of the difficulty and strength of our movement
and our membership. It was not always easy, in the efforts leading up to the direct action
or inside of Bendetson. But as a movement of grassroots student action, we got our
strength and our inspiration from each other. Individual morale created group morale,
and this impacted our tactics and also our dedication to being a consensus movement
where every voice was heard, respected, and had an impact.


Chapter IX:
Victory!

 We won!  When we left Bendetson Hall at 7:30 on Wednesday November 29,
2000 we carried with us a letter from the president that contained the words “the
non-discrimination policy is understood to include self-acceptance of identity.”  What at
one time was declared impossible had been actualized.
 The process was not without its bumps.  In the end; however, thanks to the
consensus decision making process, strong group solidarity, copious planning, large
amounts of support from students, faculty, and the media, as well as a concerted effort to
minimize leadership hierarchy, we were victorious.
 We went beyond establishing friendships and created bonds of respect,
admiration, trust, and openness that, without question, turned into love.
 In the end, we learned a great deal.  We learned about strategic planning and mass
mobilization.  We discovered how to work with the consensus process and keys to
effective stress management.  We built foundations for strong friendships.  In retrospect,
many of us have been able to better understand and challenge our positions of privilege
with respect to equality of gender and sexual orientation.  But, maybe most importantly,
we empowered ourselves to effect change within our own community.  We took the
power from the elites and put it back into the hands of the people where it belongs.  This
exercise in non-violent direct action has taught us that we, as a group, can be powerful,
when individuals can become powerless.