Back in April, I brought you the saga of a free-speech battle over the screening of sexual material at the University of Maryland. Now that story has another chapter.

This spring, the producers of a big budget porn flick were drumming up publicity by offering their film free for campus screenings, and the student programming board at UM announced plans to take them up on their offer. When word got out, conservatives in the state legislature gave the PR campaign a huge boost by threatening to cut the university’s budget if the movie was shown, and administrators banned the film from campus.

At that point a local campus group called the Student Power Party defied the ban and screened the film on campus … sort of. (They showed the first half hour of the movie, then got bored, turned it off, and talked about freedom of expression for a while.) The legislature backed down from their threat to cut funding to the university immediately, but directed UM’s regents to come up with a policy regulating “the displaying or screening of obscene films and materials” on campus. They gave them a deadline of December 1.

Which is this Tuesday.

As late as last month, the regents were widely expected to comply with the legislature’s order, even going so far as to write up a draft policy, but two weeks ago they announced that they would not be adopting it.

No other state university system in the nation regulates the display of sexually explicit material on campus, and any effort to do so would be certain to face strong constitutional challenges. The regents also concluded that adopting such a policy would “place undue financial and administrative burdens on the system’s campuses,” according to the Baltimore Sun.

It remains unclear whether legislators will punish UM for their defiance, as they had threatened to do, but at least a few are likely to try — State Senator Andy Harris, who was the engine behind the policy in the spring, is running for Congress.

Sunday Update | I have rewritten this post to reflect new information received this evening.

Ten days ago, fifty-one UC Davis students and one professor were arrested in the course of an occupation of Mrak Hall, the Davis administration building. Five days ago, students took over Mrak Hall again, demanding that criminal prosecution of those 52 be abandoned. On Friday afternoon, it looked like they had almost gotten their wish.

The UC Davis administration negotiated an end to the second takeover on Tuesday, agreeing — among other things — to urge the Yolo County DA to set aside all charges against those demonstrators. On Friday it was widely reported that the DA had agreed not to bring charges against 51 of them.

But that’s not quite what happened.

The charges against the “Mrak 51” haven’t been dropped, they’ve just been set aside, and they can be brought forward again at any time during the coming year. As the DA said in a news release, he hopes “that future student demonstrations will comply with the law and eliminate the need for the district attorney’s involvement.” If students act up again, in other words, last week’s threats of prosecution can be revived.

Meanwhile, charges are going forward against Bree Holmes, a student who was accused of assaulting a police officer during the demonstration. Holmes is said to have been slammed up against a police cruiser while being arrested, and the Davis administration has agreed to conduct a review of the circumstances of her arrest.

Supporters of the Mrak Hall activists will be holding a rally on the UC Davis quad on Monday, November 30 at 2 pm.

Posting will be light from now until Sunday, as I’m taking the opportunity presented by these next few slow news days to get some cool new site features up and running. But I’ll be here all weekend, and I’ve got some writing and links in the works, so don’t go far.

If there’s something going on that I should know about, either now or planned for next week, please feel free to leave a mention of it in comments to this post.

Last night students at UC Davis went back to Mrak Hall, where 52 people were arrested last Thursday, and launched the week’s eighth UC building occupation.

This takeover was shorter than several of its predecessors, but dramatic — it was the first in this wave of occupations to end with a written commitment by the administration to honor a set of protest demands.

The students began the occupation with a lengthy list of demands, but negotiated a suspension of the occupation on the basis of five: the university committed to conducting a review of one previous campus arrest, to urging the district attorney to “strongly consider … not filing charges” against the 52 Thursday arrestees, to dropping any disciplinary action against those students, to pursuing “further discussion” about co-op housing on campus based on “a mutual desire to promote sustainable, affordable cooperative living facilities,” and to holding “further discussions on all other demands with a representative group, as early as Monday, November 30.”

There’s nothing earth-shattering here, of course, but it’s still significant in at least three ways.

First, it gives students throughout the UC system a precedent for negotiated settlement of an occupation. There has been some resistance to that approach from both sides in the last week — from students who conducted “demandless” occupations, and from administrators who refused to enter into dialogue. Last night’s agreement affirms that negotiation is a live option in this series of actions.

Second, it provides a template for such negotiations. The Davis administration’s biggest concession was its agreement to forego disciplinary action against the Thursday demonstrators (and, implicitly, against last night’s demonstrators as well). That concession sets up amnesty as an achievable demand in future occupations.

Third, it opens up ongoing negotiations on local campus issues. A single university’s administrators have no direct power to roll back fees or reform the UC board of regents — such demands are aimed at off campus targets, and winning full victories on them is not a project for a single day. But local concessions can be won in a single action, and ongoing negotiations are a mechanism for refining and sharpening such demands to the point that more substantive victories become more likely.

In the NYU and New School occupations of 2008-09, those universities’ administrations shifted away from negotiation and toward punitive legal action as the students’ campaigns developed. The resolution of yesterday’s Mrak Hall occupation is the strongest evidence yet that the University of California is now moving in the opposite direction.

Update | Here is the UC Davis administration’s official statement on the occupation. Note that it describes the takeover as beginning with a study-in at eight o’clock yesterday morning, that it says that 150 demonstrators were present in Mrak at the end of the night, and that it strikes a conciliatory, respectful tone throughout. Note also that it binds the university to a new commitment beyond the five agreed to last night — the presence of Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi at a meeting with students next Monday.

Second Update | Commenter Cynthia D. notes that the Monday student meeting with the chancellor is actually a long-planned, regularly scheduled event. She also has a perspective on the administration’s behavior during the occupation that’s worth reading, so click through and read it.

Third Update | The Yolo County District Attorney announced on Friday that charges against 51 of the 52 Mrak Hall demonstrators have been dropped, with the only exception being the student charged with assault and resisting arrest. This is obviously a further victory for the second occupation.

Fourth Update | The third update above, based on a report from a local news station’s website, is inaccurate. Charges against the Mrak 51 have not been dropped, they’ve just been set aside, and they can be re-instated at any time in the next year.

The occupiers of UCSC’s Kerr Hall were barely out of the building Sunday morning when the Santa Cruz administration launched a line of attack that’ll be familiar to observers of last year’s NYU and New School occupations: they said the students trashed the place.

On Sunday, a university spokesman claimed that the occupiers had done thousands of dollars in damage, and those costs, he said, would require the university to divert money “from budgets already strained by budget cuts.”

On Monday, administrators upped the ante. The students had done more than fifty thousand dollars of damage to the building, they said, not including labor costs for cleanup. They posted photos of the mess on the university’s website, and said that some items appeared to have been stolen.

On Tuesday activist Brian Malone posted an open letter in response to the administration’s claims. He said that most of the photos showed “little more than some leftover food and a bunch of paper products in need of recycling,” and that the rest — an overturned refrigerator, some teleconference equipment dumped on the floor, a broken table — would be easily easily fixed or replaced.

Now, I don’t doubt that UCSC is exaggerating its damage estimates. They have no reason to lowball their figures, and every reason to inflate them. As to whether the telecom equipment was “ripped out,” as UCSC claims, or “disconnected,” as Malone suggests, I can’t say either way. The occupiers apparently did use furniture and equipment as material for their barricades, so I expect there was some damage done there.

But I’m not interested in second-guessing strategies or tactics. That’s a big question, and it’s a question for another post. What I do want to offer is one small, simple piece of advice.

If you’re in a long-term occupation, clean up after yourself.

Malone says that tidying up the garbage the Kerr Hall occupiers left behind “would take a small crew no more than one or two hours.” But there were seventy students in that building for three days, and they knew that the cops could bust in at any time. There’s no reason why they couldn’t have been cleaning things up as they went.

A couple of weeks ago, I spoke to one of the students who occupied the school of the humanities and fine arts at the University of Zagreb for thirty-five days this spring. He said that the students in that occupation prided themselves on keeping the place sparkling — they swept and mopped every morning, broken equipment was repaired, replaced, or put in storage, and every occupier was expected to clean up his or her messes as he or she created them. Their occupation was based on the premise that this was the students’ university, he said,  and they wanted to show the media and the community that they cared for that university enough to keep it clean, organized, and in working order.

Any time you’re occupying university space, you’re at risk of being evicted or arrested on a moment’s notice. If you’re dumped out and you’ve left the place a mess, you can expect that the administration will carefully photograph every tipped-over Solo cup and crumpled bread wrapper, and post the photos on the net. That’s their job, and that’s what they’re going to do. You can choose to give them that ammunition, or you can choose not to.

Choose not to.

About This Blog

n7772graysmall
StudentActivism.net is the work of Angus Johnston, a historian and advocate of American student organizing.

To contact Angus, click here. For more about him, check out AngusJohnston.com.