Seven Arrested in Peaceful Demonstration
A series of peaceful protests in the President´s Wing during the last week of September has left students wondering just what exactly are our rights to dissent. The Cat´s Tale, the student handbook on university policies, says that "lawful and peaceful demonstration as an expression of favor and dissent should be permitted and protected." However....
On Monday, September 23, 1991, at 11:30 am, roughly twenty members of Diversity University, the UVM community group for cultural diversity, brought a statement to President Davis. Their letter asked that John Kusakabe and John Weiner, two members of the Asian American Student Union and participants in the Watermyn Takeover last spring, be reinstated to the university. John and Josh both were active, vocal participants in the occupation and were expelled this summer after their cases were reviewed by an academic board. The two chose not to leave the President´s Wing to take their final exams and were denied incompletes by their professors. Monday´s protesters argue that since John and Josh were in the wing for political reasons, the academic board should have taken their situation into account. Students state that several others received failing grades and were only placed on academic probation. It would seem that John and Josh were singled out, seeing as they were so outspoken in the movement.
The AASU drafted the statement on John and Josh´s behalf and had it signed by numerous concerned students, all asking the questions, "Why were those two expelled?" The letter was read to the President, who said that he would have to get back to the students later with a response. The group then stated that they would perform a peaceful sit-in demonstration in the hallway of the wing and wait on his answer to their question. A half an hour later, President Davis came out of his office and said that John and Josh could appeal the board´s decision if they were dissatisfied. He said that the students were expelled for academic reasons and that he could not go into further details. The protesters were told by Davis that their presence in the wing was a disruption and that they would have to leave. The students remained in the wing, believing that they had the right to be there, as stated in the Cat´s Tale and everyone´s First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Davis returned to his office and called together Provost Dalmas Taylor, head of Student Affairs Rosalind Andreas, and UVM Security to decide that the demonstration was indeed disruptive to "business as usual." The students were asked to leave or else police force would have to be used. some people left, others remained; yet all were in agreement that they would not be arrested.
When UVM Security arrived with some Burlington police, Director of UVM police David Richard asked the group as a whole to leave. One student raised the question that if everyone is tried individually, then should they not be asked individually to leave the hallway. Richard proceeded to address each student in the wing, state the regulation of which students were in violation, and give each person the option of leaving or being arrested. Some students left silently, while others questioned why their rights were being violated. Students quoted the Cat´s Tale which allows for such demonstrations to occur. Although Andreas and Vice President of Student Affairs Pat Brown were present when the students asked questions concerning their right to dissent, no one responded. Richard simply repeated the question, "Will you leave now?"
One of the last students remaining in the wing was Karl Jagbandhansingh, a participant in last year´s occupation and vital member of the still remaining struggle. After Richard read his statement, Karl articulated that he would leave, that he did not want to be arrested, but that he wanted someone to address his issue. He wanted to know why student´s rights to dissent were being suppressed by the university. He said that he had a "moral obligation" to himself and to others to have his question answered. While other students had plenty of time to speak before leaving, the police did not give Karl the same opportunity. They proceeded to place Karl under arrest for unlawful trespass.
Once Karl was removed from the wing, police began to push people away from the hallway entrance. Students were shoved, and several were assaulted. As a result of the uproar, two students, Todd Johnson and Edie LaFontaine, were arrested for disorderly conduct. Todd was apprehended by the police several hours later downtown for actions which allegedly took place at Watermyn that day. During the commotion, Ishmael Ahmed and Paul Garder were arrested for impeding an officer. Stephanie Lind and Megan O´Rourke received the same charge for performing civil disobedience outside of Watermyn. Stephanie, like Todd, was also arrested after the fact.
On Thursday, September 26, at noon, students at DU prepared a written statement for Davis and returned to the wing. This letter addressed our right to peaceful demonstration on campus. Approximately forty students filed into the hallway quietly and immediately sat down to read or study. Davis again called security and announced to the students that their presence was disruptive. Still they remained. Students cited that in July, after the Watermyn Occupation, a sit-in was held in the President´s Wing, and no one was removed then. According to the Cat´s Tale and preceding cases, those students should have been allowed to remain on Monday.
Around 3:00 pm, Davis offered the students a chance to talk to him in Grace Coolidge Lounge at the top of Watermyn in order to get them out of the wing. They decided that it would be fair to meet without faculty and community representation, since the struggle involves the whole university. Instead of meeting with the President then, an open forum in which administrators, students, faculty, and community members would all take part was agreed on. Security did not come to arrest anyone, and the students willingly left at 4:30 as the offices were closing.
On Friday, September 27, the group wrote another statement, this time asking why students were arrested immediately on Monday, but not at all on Thursday. The reason for Monday´s protest dealt with the university´s racist policies, while Thursday´s was related to our right to protest. Both days demonstrated the hypocrisy of the administration.
This time Davis ordered security to remove the students. They arrived around 3:00 pm and asked each individual to leave. No one was arrested.
[UVM Overview] [1777-1933] [1984-1989] [1990-1994] [1995-1996] [1997-present] Racism Home Page
