"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."

Welcome to Infoshop News
Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 07:33 PM CDT

Why did ISO hijack Berkley CA Schools Conference?

News ArchiveSubmitted by Chuck0:

by Carmenita November 12 2001, Mon, 3:18pm

Why did the ISO lie to us all and bring us up here this weekend, only to
push and build and ISO coalition. if I wanted to be in the ISO i would
have joined the organiziation.

Berkeley Conference Hijacked by the ISO



This weekend I attended the CSAW (California Schools Against War)
Conference held in Berkley. I go to school in Santa Barbara. I came to
this meeting thinking that I was going to work with other schools and
help in regard of making solid
plans to bring to our campus and help to plan. I was looking for ideas,
for suggestions, a bit of suggestion and also I wanted to know where
other students stood on the Anti-War stance.

What ended up happening was just this enormous and very upsetting event.
The conference started with a panel on Saturday morning. No other
students
from other schools spoke during this time, mainly people from Berkley.
Lunch was
served.Workshops were held and I viewed the workshops as the best thing
that came out of my traumatizing weekend. The next day on Sunday there
was a delegation meeting. The Berkeley group without asking any other
schools had decided to only allow 5 delegates from each school to be
involved in the voting and decision making process during this
conference. So 5 delegates from each school who basically named
themselves delegates were picked to make choices for their entire school
without even having a chance to speak with the other members from their
school. From the time the process of the delegation meeting started it
was doomed to fail. In NO WAY was there talk of process, all 190 people
were basically TOLD that we would have to be in a majority voting
process without it EVER being discussed. We were just told this was how
things were going to be, no discussion was even held about
this. Please remember that we have 45 schools present at this
conference, non of which were told that they had a choice between
consensus decision making process, majority voting, or other forms of
decision making. There was no access to a list server or phone
conference calls by schools, we were told that there were email list
servers, I know my schools and a few others who tried numerous times to
contact The Berkley Stop the War Coalition but our emails went
unanswered. Nothing about the process and the format of this conference
regarding how we were going to make decisions were known, and there were
many people there who were very young, and this was their first event
like this who expressed over and over they did not understand the
process and felt like they were shut down, glossed over or just plain
ignored.

Back to the conference, they asked the schools to put forth proposals
that we wanted to be voted on. There were 25 proposals in all and we had
from
10:00 AM – 4:00 PM to get through them all. The first proposal was to
establish a
coordinating committee. So basically we were asked to instead of having
5 delegates from each school which is already undemocratic, we were now
being asked to have only 1 delegate representing each school, forming
basically a body of government working within this coalition. How can
that even happen? how can we only have 1 representative from each school
communicating and bringing forth the entire schools anti-war
perspective? is this right? well we didn't think so, but that didn't
matter since we were the minority by votes and the first proposal that
started our meeting was passed. Time ticked on and all types of
proposals regarding Days of Action, consumer boycott after Thanksgiving,
March to DC, and various other “important” proposals were passed or
thrown aside… in the meantime people are raising their hand and being
told by the Facilitator/moderator that they don’t have time and they
can’t talk. Dialogue was being cut off, and discussions were told that
they could not go on because we didn’t have time. Over and over they
stopped taking stack and told people not to raise their hands, over and
over people stood up and asked for clarification, and asked to be heard
and they were shut down. A young man in the back stood up and said that
this process was undemocratic, and that people have even stopped voting,
because they did not understand what was going on, since everything was
being cut off and stopped. People were becoming frustrated and asking to
be heard, at this point the facilitator looked confused and sent
everyone to lunch. During lunch groups started to gather and the words
of confusion and being upset were in the air, groups were talking about
walk outs, and they were talking about confronting this the minute they
went back in.

Once we came back into he hall, hands went up and people wanted a
Process Point, wanted a stop to the voting so that certain things could
be said, this AGAIN was ignored, glossed over and the voting continued.
As this was going on I
watched a young lady with a few others sitting in rows behind her stand
up and walk out into the hall, about 15 minutest later they came back
and went towards the podium, and asked from a Process Point. An older
middle eastern man stood up and asked that the student groups please
please involve more middle eastern people and not ignore the things we
want to say, and to please reach out to the middle eastern groups in
regards to organizing against the war. One womin went up and asked that
there please be more discussion before we vote so that we can all know
what we are voting for, so that we can all know what information to take
back to our campus and present to the groups we were supposed to be
representing.

She also asked for a more democratic voting process, because she did not
feel
comfortable at all in the situation that was going on. After her another
young womin who was middle eastern spoke and basically pleaded with the
group to include more voice of the middle eastern people and to not
please leave them out, her voice was shaking as she was saying this, and
she said that many of her friends and comrades had felt very very
isolated from the white/academia community and felt like nobody was
listening to them. After her 2 people from the conference organizing
group stood up who were middle eastern and said that there are many
middle eastern groups that are not against the war and that’s why they
were not there.

The Facilitator said that he wanted to vote for us to either continue w/
the majority voting process or move towards a consensus decision making
process. A vote was actually taken for this, but nobody actually
explained what consensus or majority voting is, nobody said anything
about it, and again there were so many people there who had no idea what
consensus even was, so how was this a fair vote?

With a all this going on I watched as the two girls who made the process
point, two women of color I might add who had the guts to walk up in
front of a
huge group and ask for there to be a voice. They walked out of the
meeting, many people followed them, as the rest of the body continued
voting and deciding things. I was in shock basically, I have never in
the few years I have been trying to dedicate my life to organizing
around issues such as these have I seen such blatant disrespect and
undemocratic process unfold.

I ended up leaving the meeting, and outside in the hallway I heard from
the groups that had gathered that there was going to be holding a small
meeting
out on the steps of the Life Science Hall, they invited anyone who was
upset about the decision making process to come join them and voice
their concerns, since they were not being allowed to inside the meeting.

I decided to go to that meeting, and I counted 59 other people who felt
the way I did, and who also had major concerns. Women spoke about how
they the
entire was so sexist, and that they were cut off over and over when they
tried to bring up issues, people of color spoke out about how they did
not feel included in this process from day one, other schools talked
about why have both these California conferences, just happen to end up
in Berkley, why are they not rotating? People from the Queer community
talked about they felt like they did not have a space or voice to talk.
In general people talked about how they feared speaking up and did not
feel like they should, so they just bit their tongue and continued with
the process. The most interesting part was when about 5 people who were
actually part of the group from Berkley who organized this conference
came to our meeting
and told us that they had so many problems also regarding these issues,
and they had
never fixed them. A group of them continued speaking and told us that
they felt like the presence of ISO members and ISO regional coordinator
a man named Todd was what was the breaking point of this conference. New
information was revealed that the
facilitator name Snehal who has been cutting people off left and right
when they brought opposition views was an ISO member, more was revealed
when we found out the people making proposals and being put on head of
planning coordinating committees were all ISO people, that the people
who wanted to organize the march to DC were ISO members, the people in
charge of the next conference and coordinating committee were ISO
members, that the contact person from the Southern California Schools
Against War a man I think named BJ was an ISO member, and he was the
only contact the Southern California schools had been able to have with
Berkley because the Berkley folks would not return the emails of others
who were inquiring.

Personally I know we have all heard things about this group, but I don’t
belong to any affiliation, I consider myself a socialist actually, I
have never felt the need to call them out or point these issues out
about them up until now because this
was such a blatant undemocratic tactic that was used by them. I have
very
personal politics Im able to distinguish a time and a place to bring
those personal
political structural ideas forth. This conference entirely failed to do
that. Beneath a cloud of secrets, non-transparency, non-communication,
and blockade of involvement this conference was held as an ISO platform
related event disguised as an open Coalition of Schools organizing
against the war in Afghanistan. The entire platform and structure that
was designed and reinforced by forming these special committees and
assigning one delegate from each school. The entire fact that no
communist, or anarchist views or speakers were allowed to join, be
present or speak on the panel, the very idea that the people organizing
this thought that people were too stupid to be able to make a choice
between consensus and majority vote, so they made that decision for
them, they did not think that these group of students who are good
enough to outreach, organize and build a movement. But they are not good
enough to be given the choice of which democratic process they want to
use in
making decisions. Im very sad that I even have to write this long essay,
but the fact remains we are fighting a system right now, we are fighting
against a war. The US is using so many issues regarding Afghanistan to
justify their actions in bombing and killing the people in that region,
they are lying to us, they are hiding things from us, they think we are
too stupid to figure it out and make a wise decision ourselves. This is
the same thing that happened this weekend as I watched it unfold. I hate
this bickering and name calling between groups as much as the next
person, but Im able to realize that we need to do this, we need to be
able to see when this type of racist, sexist domination is being done.
When we are being told lies, and having a front group being coordinated
but behind the mask there is a
political party, and a political agenda. I never not once before this
weekend have I
attacked the ISO or had even one bad thing to say about them, but this
blatant cover up, this blatant lies and secrecy have no place in our
movement, they have no place in our lives. This group has proven to be
wonderful politician, but please try to remember it was the politicians
who have brought us all to this place, it was their lies and decent that
have become all of our problems. Enough is enough, stop the bull shit,
if the ISO wanted a Anti War School Coalition, they should have called
it the ISO Anti War School Coalition, at least I would respect them for
being honest in doing that, stop the bull shit, you can only lie and try
to trick people for so long. The “masses” as the ISO calls them are NOT
stupid.

Share
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Ask
  • Kirtsy
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • SlashDot
  • Reddit
  • MySpace
  • Fark
  • Del.icio.us
  • Blogmarks
  • Yahoo Buzz
Why did ISO hijack Berkley CA Schools Conference? | 22 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
comment by Adam from San Jose
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2001 @ 05:18 AM CST
Are there any students out there from other areas, who went to the other regional anti-war conferences (DePual U Chicago, Boston U)?

What happened at those conferences?
comment by Adam from San Jose
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2001 @ 05:37 AM CST
I was also attending the conference and saw all this, I\'m just kicking myself in the head for not calling out what I knew what was happenign sooner.

I\'ve already emailed this opinion piece to a national student list server, so people all over will know. When we had the process committee meeting on the steps, we decided to create a list server, so hopefully this comes out.

My thoughts on the meeting is that the delegates system isn\'t entirly bad, the problem is that the system can\'t be democratic if you dump all 200-300 people unprepared into a room. I think most people expected to come up with some plan of action at the conference. But, with no smaller discusions before hand, or knowledge before hand of what is going to happen, only the people who come in advance with a proposal (ie ISO) get any chance of real input. When people voted, half didn\'t understand what they were voting for or were just plain confused. Then on top of that when people would make proposal and add thoughts, the ISO member chairing the meeting would not consider it as a proposal and instead treat it like a random comment (thus forgotten) and then just call for the vote on the proposal unamended.

If seem equally sectarian to raise a ruckus and challenge this insidious shit, but if not now then when? If people think voices of women and people of color are not being heard now, if people think the first meeting was undemocratic, it will only get worse down the line. Political parties and the various agendas they always undemocraticly push only destroy the movement, just like SDS in the 60\'s. We need a student movement independent of all political and vangardist parties.
comment by sp
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2001 @ 12:46 PM CST
I attended the Northeast Campus Anti-War Coalition conference with a few other individuals of like mind. We knew (from our excellent intelligence operations) that the ISO was submitting a proposal to form a \"steering committee\" in NECAWC, and that they were coordinating their efforts nationwide.

Before I arrived at the conference, the ISO had pushed through a proposal to change the conference from consensus decision making to majority rule. This was done only with the assurance that the issues upon which the votes were close would be further discussed until fully resolved.

When the conference was going over the points of unity, a group of us submitted a point that the NECAWC would be \"a nonpartisan, nonhierarchical coalition.\" This was voted down by a good-sized margin.

Of the 3 chairs that were facilitating the meetings, 2 were ISO members. I think that this added to the fact that the discussion about this point of unity and about what \"nonhierarchical\" means was totally insufficient. In addition to this, the process was not discussed sufficiently, and there was a good deal of interrupting and cutting-off on the part of the ISO facilitator. It was very difficult for people with dissenting views to be called on, and the person most frequently cut off happened to be the only facilitator that was not in the ISO, and the only facilitator that was female.

Therefore, during a break, a group of us got together and formed a statement that we demanded to read to the conference because we didn\'t feel comfortable working in a coalition that was hierarchical and partisan. The statement is as follows:

>>>We would like everyone to recognize that many individuals have been walking out during this process, and are obviously feeling disempowered. We do not think that there was sufficient discussion on the proposed point of unity. This clearly goes against what the individuals supporting majority rules were saying about having full discussion before votes. We think that the people most vehemently opposed to the nonhierarchical/nonpartisan amendment were party members, and we think that the message they are sending in voting against this is that they want to have authority over this coalition. We do not want to be in a coalition where people have power over others. We do not trust this decision making process to be democratic in the future. We do not believe that this coalition will be effective or democratic if it is not nonhierarchical. In addition, we believe that if we want to be fighting against the war, then we must organize in ways that reflect a departure from the power structures of war.
If we are not offered assurances against hierarchy and against individuals having power over others, we will leave. We invite all who agree to come.<<<

We then submitted a proposal for immediate discussion that read:

>>>This coalition is nonpartisan and nonhierarchical, being made up of working groups that discuss and plan proposals that are brought back to the general assembly for decision making.<<<

After much confusion, it was voted that we immediately address these grievances, and we began discussion. This discussion played out much as the one before it had, with the ISO people dominating the conference and us waiting to be called on. It was eventually brought to a vote, and the results were:

For: 43 Against: 46 Abstain: 9

After this, half of the conference degenerated into spontaneous discussion groups, and the issue was dropped, despite the former assurances of full discussion. We believe that this proposal would have passed if disenchanted individuals had not walked out in the earlier part of the conference.
Once this was done, the conference voted on a few actions such as the national conference and the march on DC. It ended in a very confusing manner, with many things left unsaid and undone. A theme that ran throughout the entire day was that of a lack of time, which effectively stifled discussion.

I think that, all in all, we showed the authoritarians that it won\'t be that easy to co-opt this movement. In my opinion, there is enough potential for there to be two different and separate national Anti-War coalitions. One for the authoritarian socialists and the liberals, and one for the progressives and the anarchists. I think there are enough of us to counter this authoritarian domination of the anti war movement.

Furthermore, I think that the most effective way of organizing against the war is to fight against the institutions that are the cause of war, capitalism and the state. Personally, the national coalition that I would like to throw my energy into would be one that doesn\'t just consist of anti-war marches and teach-ins, but involves direct action against the state and capital.

I would like to hear from peopole that went to the other regional conferences on this.
comment by Chuck0
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2001 @ 05:17 PM CST
It seems like the small protest against CNN in Atlanta was pretty effective. It resulted in several arrests and lots of good pictures came out of it. What\'s more, some news outlet wrote a short piece about the protest, which Drudge Report linked to yesterday. This link from Drudge created alot of exposure for the protest, since so many people were visiting his website yesterday to get news about the plane crash.
comment by Students
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2001 @ 06:39 PM CST
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:45:55 EST
From: SIUHIN@aol.com
Subject: About last weekend\'s UC Berkeley, CA USA student antiwar conference

Hi everybody:

This is Lee Siu Hin from ActionLA and PeaceNoWar.net from Los Angeles--put
this way--I didn\'t go to UCB antiwar conference last weekend because for the
past few weeks I knew the UCB antiwar coalition and the conference had been
completely hijacked by ISO, the meeting will be sucks and I don\'t want to
waste my time to come.

Few weeks ago, I had talked to some UCB students, they told me the UCB
antiwar steering committee had been completely controlled by either: ISO UCB
student chapters, left turn, Palestine coalition, or friends of above, no
independent voices can be exist, and no official decisions can be made
without steering committee approval (For example: few weeks ago, when a group
of student start a student antiwar newspaper, the ISO SC members didn\'t show
too much interests, but when the newspaper concept was very successful, ISO
SC members suddenly demand a control, created a newspaper \'work group\', put
some of their people who never work on the paper before, and require each
article must be pre-approved before publishing).

after I talked to several organizers across the country, their goal is clear,
try to use current student antiwar activism to control student activism
across the country. Like, IAC, which they want to control mainstream left
nationwide antiwar activism (they did a great job to destroy LA antiwar
movements), like a franchise, ISO want to focus on campus wide antiwar
movements. It also cannot underestimates that ISO involvement on San
Francisco Global Exchange\'s antiwar campaigns and promote themselves to be
THE Bay area\'s labor spokesperson--keep in mind, many of them (I personally
known) just two months ago before S11, they were busy want to control
California-wide anti-sweatshop, immigrant rights and labor campaigns, right
after S11, they switch their tasks!

As a former LA DAN member (completely destroy due to ongoing stupid internal
struggle) and long several major antiglobalization and antiwar activist,
struggle between political parties and selfish personal dynamics are so
intense that sometimes I want to give up activism work. For the past few
years, many socialists, Maoists, Troskists, Communists, anarchists\'
personall/political dynamics had destroyed many
community/immigrant/anti-globalization movements. Again, the same negative
political/personal energy come-in to this antiwar movement, and I am really
worry this student antiwar coalition will not have enough credibility to
service for too long.

Lee Siu Hin
ActionLA/PeaceNoWar.net
4167 S. Normandie Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA 91030
Tel: (323)389-4593
e-mail: ActionLA@ActionLA.org
-----
Berkely Anti-War Conference, I was there and yes the ISO did Hijacke it
by JA November 13 2001, Tue, 1:54am

> >> This is an email from a very well respected friend who is a highly
>> intelligent, articulate person who was there all weekend at the
>> ISO/Berkely Anti-War conference. She said it was evident that the ISO
>> played a complete control role in all of this, and it made people go nuts

Hi all,
I just got back from the CSAW conference in Berkeley. It was one of the
most awful organizing experiences in my life, and I wasn\'t the only one.
I know this is long, but if you are interested in organizing on campuses,
please read this. Something really fucked up is happening in anti-war
groups all over the country and we as anarchists and sane, nice people need
to figure out how to deal with this.

(Please note that what I am saying, \"never\" & \"always\", really means \"almost
never\" and \"almost always\" - I\'m sure there are exceptions, but I don\'t know
of them. I am speaking from the position of having talked to probably a
hundred different people from all types of political persuasions and levels
of experience, as well as my own observations.)

Saturday was all workshops. I don\'t think even one of them were mainly
about or involving \"revolution\". Not one was about a specific political
analysis of the war, or the anti-war movement. There were panels/workshops
on the history of the Middle East, environmental impact of the war, how to
make newsletters, etc., but very little that was \"political\". Despite the
revolutionary politics of many of members of the Berkeley anti-war group
(anarchists, communists, and others), none of that was represented in the
workshops. In many workshops, whenever a person would raise a point about
revolutionary analysis (i.e. that capitalism causes wars and that\'s what we
need to fight), the panel or workshop leader would cut them off. Apparently
this kind of stuff smacked too much of party-politics, even if people saying
these things were anarchists or unaffiliated. There were probably a few
exeptions to this, but I talked to people who attended almost every workshop
and they all said the same thing.

Later, I found out the reason for the narrow range of workshops and weird
behavior of the workshop leaders. Students from the Berkeley group said the
speakers were organized by a very small group of people, mostly ISO. These
people did not take suggestions fron non-ISO people (I know anarchists and
communists who tried to suggest and conduct workshops and were blown off and
ignored). The Berkeley organzers said their schedule planning was not open
to anyone, and no one outside of the tiny group knew what was going on. Two
people proposed a workshop on the Hart-Rudman report (the US gov\'t master
plan for Homeland Defense) a couple of weeks ago, and constantly reminded
the organizers to put it on the schedule. In the end, it was not put on the
schedule, not coincidentally because that workshop would have been the only
one with leaders from a \"rival\" party. I realize that many political parties
use workshops and panels to say really horrificly long speeches about
Trotsky or Mao, disguising the speech as a question. I didn\'t hear of any
of that going on. One example I know of was a woman from PLP (a rival of
the ISO) tried to simply say \"I don\'t agree that people who don\'t go to
college are too stupid to learn about imperialism, and we need to organize
based on knowing that all people are capable of understanding,\" and the
workshop leader cut her off in mid-sentence, saying we \"didn\'t have time for
arguments\". The workshop was on \"talking to the unconvinced\", a workshop on
tactics!

Anyway, the workshops that did take place were OK, but politically
elementary. A lot of people at the conference were disappointed that deeper
political discussion was not allowed, and that the workshop topics in
general were very \"apolitical\", something which seemed pretty silly
considering the people who were attending. Another fact to note was that
many schools had at least one or two ISO members in their delegation.

Five delegates from every school would be allowed to vote and speak at the
meeting the following day. These delegates registered Saturday night, and
all proposals to be discussed and voted upon were due by 7pm Saturday. This
was so we would have a set list to get through and an infinity of new
proposals wouldn\'t bog us down on Sunday. On Saturday night as we were
signing in and submitting our proposals, we were told \"One delegate from
every school needs to go to the agenda-setting meeting tonight\". At my
school, we had two ISO people, a PLP guy, me, and an unaffiliated
anti-authoritarian. I was standing there thinking \"Oh god, the ISO has
probably already signed themselves up as the one delegate and is going to go
set a fucked up agenda\". Oddly to me, the ISO allowed the PLP guy to go in
there. The agenda was set in this meeting, but there was no discussion of
how decisions would be made the next day.

Sunday morning began with Snehal, an ISO member declaring himself the
facilitator for the day. (We were given no choice on this.) The meeting
began using Parlimentary Procedure, with all speakers being allowed two
minutes to talk. Parlimentary procedure was not explained to the attendees,
so many people had NO idea what was going on or how they could participate.
Usually, questions from the audience about changing the procedure or asking
what was going on were dismissed with Snehal saying \"we don\'t have time for
that\".

We started to go through the agenda. When we got to the proposals, the
moderator began to allow new proposals to be put forth. This frustrated
many of the delegates, because we began to see that new proposals would not
allow us to have time for the proposals we brought from out schools or local
coalitions of many schools. Whenever a proposal was put forward, the
moderator clearly had a side. He would allow people on his side to speak
for their two minutes, but dissent was cut off with \"we don\'t have time for
this\". If dissent was allowed, somehow an ISO member would speak soon
afterward against whatever dissent was raised. Snehal called proposals very
quickly he and ISO members in the audience would use Roberts Rules of Order
to quickly push through proposals, leaving the audience in confusion and
unhappy with whatever had just happened. An anarchist woman I know
constantly raised her hand and was put on the list of speakers, but out of
five times during the day, she was not called on. I heard the same from
other anarchists, women especially.

After a couple of hours, the hero of the day, Kyle, stood up and said that
this was very undemocratic and we need to change the process. He got a lot
of emphatic applause but the moderator ignored him. Tensions started to run
very high as the delegates realized they weren\'t alone in getting frustrated
and pissed off about how things were going. We broke for lunch, and after
we returned, more people challenged the process. I missed out on an hour of
the conference at this point, but I heard that Michael Novick proposed that
we not have time limits on agenda items because quality was better than
speed. This got shot down. I don\'t really know the rest of what happened
during this hour. When I got back, people were still challenging the
process. Unfortunately, they mostly didn\'t understand that it was the ISO
controlling everything and blamed the problems on sexism and racism of the
moderator and other delegates. This got nowhere, except with the promise
that \"women and minorities would have priority in the speaking order\". Soon
after this, the moderator decided \"we didn\'t have time\" for the remainder of
the proposals - the proposals were the whole reason we were there at all.
We had only gotten through six proposals, three of which had not been on the
list from the previous night. There were about 20 remaining, which is a
lot, but certainly possible. Another HUGE problem was a list of proposals
or an agenda had not been given to any of the delgates, so no one knew what
was on the table for the day. The only proposals discussed were about
specific \"days of action\", and a national conference with vague goals and
only ONE delegate allowed to ATTEND from each school. (An ISO member later
said privately that one of the ISO\'s three main goals was to create a
national conference and try to dominate the delegation from it.)

The Southern California Schools Against War had a great proposal that we
\"oppose war research and recruitment on campus and challenge racism in our
curriculum and campus practices\". This was a proposal which about twenty
schools from SoCal agreed upon. I overheard the ISO the day before telling
people \"they wouldn\'t vote for it because it was too vague, because it
didn\'t have specific day of action\". This made me furious - they were
saying opposing our school\'s racism and warmongering should be limited to a
certain day! This proposal was not raised ever by the moderator.

At this point, probably a third of the people walked out in frustration.

Most of these people didn\'t see any reason to be there, if making plans was
no longer allowed. Many took off, but about fifty people gathered in the
hallway and started talking. We met outside and had a discussion about what
was going on and how frustrated we were. When people mentioned that the ISO
were the people who organized, moderated, and dominated the discussions
during this whole conference, people got PISSED. Most of them had just
thought that this was a convergence of random jerks, but when people
realized that certain individuals were members of the ISO, they realized how
screwed up and controlled everything was. Two guys from Berkeley said
something like \"the Berkeley group worked really hard on this so please
don\'t give us a hard time\". They were ISO, but didn\'t say it!!! Another
ISO member sat there silently taking notes. Not once did anyone from the
ISO say who they were during this discussion.

We made a plan to go back into the conference as a group and voice what had
happened. By this point, most people had left and there were only about 100
left in the audience. The organizers said this was because people had to
leave, but I think people would have stayed if it were worthwhile. We got
up as a group and stood at the front of the room.

Our main points were:
- the decision-making process in the conference was not agreed upon by the
attendees, nor explained to us at any point
- the decision-making process before the conference was completely hidden
from view - no one, including many Berkeley activists, had any idea what was
being planned or had any input, even when they tried to participate.
- the ISO dominated many school delegations, dominated the speakers,
dominated the planning, and completely controlled the moderation.
- opposing views were almost always cut off \"because we didn\'t have time\"
(At this point, an ISO woman named Leticia stood up and said \"we don\'t have
time for this, people want to go home. We can discuss this later! It\'s too
late to bring this up anyway.\" Later? When would that be? It was the very
last hour of the very last day of the conference! When she make this
comment, a few people got furious and the rest tried not to laugh
hysterically.)
- speakers were often interrupted by ISO members
- an agenda for proposals was not public and information in general was
tightly controlled by a few people, mostly ISO, who made little effor to get
outside input or even let other people know what was going on.
During our little presentation, we allowed the audience to speak in the way
that we had wanted to be treated. Questions were taken in order, there were
no time limits on speeches, etc. ISO members were the only people who spoke
defensively about the organization of the conference members. Other
delegates offered some good points, one saying that the decision-making
process isn\'t accidental, but political.

Anyway, people left the conference feeling much better since we had that
ad-hoc meeting to discuss what went wrong. However, out of 400 or so
people, I would guess that at least 300 of the people were very unhappy with
what happened. A lot of our campus anti-war groups are controlled by the
ISO, and we are still struggling with how we can make the groups grow and
flourish when the leadership is very tight and has a very narrow agenda.

Many of our campus groups are run in the same way the conference was run,
with a tight control of information and the excuse of \"we don\'t have time
for this\" when people would like to discuss alternate proposals.

There are dozens more little examples of my wild accusations to back up what
I\'m saying, but I don\'t feel like writing ten more pages. Please understand
that throughout this whole conference, we tried to discuss the ISO\'s
*actions*, not their politics. Other \'sectarian\' groups were in attendance,
but they did not cause these problems: it was not a knee-jerk reaction to
the fact that they are a trotskyist party. One thing about their politics:
this weekend, I heard ISO members repeat many times that \"people who aren\'t
college educated can\'t understand...\" and I think this has a lot to do with
why they dominate on college campuses, why their decision-making is hidden,
and why everything is so sneaky in general - they think we\'re all idiots.

The main point of all this is that clearly the ISO is vying for a dominant
position of campus anti-war groups across the country (they held identical
conferences in Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta this weekend). Their tactics
include using Roberts Rules of Order to manipulate meetings, assuming
leadership roles in campus groups, and not disseminating information to
non-ISO members of groups. (There are LOTS of examples on many campuses
where it is known they had information on agendas, events, etc and did not
share this with the larger group.) Another sad fact is they almost *never*
say they are ISO when doing all these things, which particularly misleads
new people in groups.

Across the state, college groups are having splits right now to make sure
the ISO doesn\'t take control of the anti-war movement. I don\'t know if this
is a good tactic - I\'m not sure what else we can do at this point,
especially when we are not allowed to speak during campus meetings. I\'m
inclined to say we should simply bring in lots of honest people to the
meetings and challenge the ISO based on their undemocratic practices, but
this clearly didn\'t work during the conference.

If anyone has any ideas about what to do, I would much appreciate it, and I
will pass it along to other frustrated people. I know some people on this
list went through similar bullshit in SDS - I would really like to hear
their perspectives in particular.

-Anne
comment by boston anarchist
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 13 2001 @ 06:53 PM CST
Unfortunately, many student anarchists could not attend the Northeast Campus Anti-War Coalition meetings because they were scheduled for the same time as the anarchist anti-war teach-in organized by BAAM (Boston Anarchists Against Militarism) accross town, as well as a national eco-feminist conference. Who knows, maybe they planned it that way on purpose (I would not put it against them!).
comment by Adam
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2001 @ 12:45 AM CST
Wow! hearing all this shit is really something that makes you both so mad at what is happening, but inspired that all these folks know what is up. Many of the folks who attended the meeting out on the steps (AKA the \"process committee\")agreed that this was something big (over 500 attended), and that the anti-war movement was important.

This movement is too important to let the ISO take it over. To be honest, as far as there hold on power goes, in the West Coast, it is a lose grip. If everybody from the Berkeley Coalition found these things out, ISO would have to do some serious damage control and I think they would lose out. Some campus groups will inevitably quit the coaltion, but having so many student groups working together like this is something that has not been seen since SDS. Without a controling group like the ISO it would be extremely powerful. Let\'s not let ISO fuck it up!! if we work hard to spread the word and these emails around and make contact with other campuses, many will be pissed, and we can vote down and hopefully vote out the ISO from the coalition.
comment by tick tock
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2001 @ 02:02 AM CST
I attended the Boston conference and did play a role in organizing it. The Boston Campus Anti-War Coalition (BCAWC) operates as a consensual democracy (and we\'ve never had to move to a vote). The conference was planned by a working group and I think it was all done rather democratically.
After reading about the ISO\'s involvement and co-opting of the California conference, I began to wonder if the ISO played a greater role in our conference. Three of the six or seven major planners for the conference were ISO members. Apparently, the ISO met in Boston on Friday night to discuss how to push through their agenda on Sunday. I wasn\'t there so I can\'t be 100% sure of that.
On Saturday, the ISO called a lunchtime meeting to discuss Sunday\'s decision-making process. BCAWC had been in contact with groups around the region in the previous weeks and consensus to majority decision making process seemed to be the most accepted. The specific structure of the Sunday meeting was disseminated widely before the conference weekend and during the Saturday. On Saturday, the ISO called a lunchtime meetnig to talk about the decision making process -- and because it wasn\'t widely publicized, only two pro-consensus people showed up. Apparently, the ISO\'s verbal attacks were so vehement that they left crying.
At some point between Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning, new facillitators were chosen (1 ISO member/1 person from Student Peace Action Network). On Sunday we voted (using simple majority) on a decision making process. Simple majority won -- 60 to 45 (approx.) with the promise that ample time would be allowed for discussion. This proved to be quite untrue, as there was little time allowed for discussion of the points of unity. An amendment to the points of unity was proposed, stating \"we\'re non-hierarchical, decentralized and non-partisan\" but that was voted down 55-43 (approx.). Because of the marginalization of the dissenters and the clear domination of the ISO facillitator, a \"grievance\" was aired by someone from Northeastern Univ. He called for an immediate resolution, separate from the points of unity, again stating we\'re \"non-hierarchical, non-partisan and decentralized.\" This time, it lost 46-43. At this point, many people got up and left, others gathered in the back to discuss counter-tactics.
On the agenda was the creation of coordinating committees, the first project: a national conference.

I don\'t even know what got passed and voted on after the close resolution vote.
But I do know that it is very clear now that the ISO went into these conferences with the intention of creating a national elected body to steer the student anti-war movement.

One of the \"higher-ups\" in the ISO hierarchy here in Boston was sitting in the back on his cell phone throughout the entire conference --- I wonder who he was talking to.

I definitely think this was planned. That\'s what I find the most disturbing. I\'m not particularly fond of party politics or even working with sectarian groups but because of the urgency of the war I chose to drop my guard and work with them. Now I feel betrayed and lied to.

I do feel a new sense of unity with those who value direct democracy and who want to work together without having a hierarchy. I will NOT be part of a coalition that elects people. Fortunately, there\'s a large group of committed individuals who feel similarly.
comment by Chuck0
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2001 @ 10:56 AM CST

The ISO guy talking on his cell phone was probably communicating with other ISO people at other conferences. Did these student conferences take place on the same day?

Students should not underestimate how coordinated and national in scope this ISO \"intervention\" is in the student anti-war movement. If the current form of their campaign follows what they\'ve done recently, you\'ll find them pushing for national conferences and national leadership councils. Just ask older student activists what the ISO did in the student anti-sweatshop movement.

Why does the ISO focus so much on student activism? The answer is quite simple. They can be compared to a religious cult, which constantly needs new members to replace the ones that got wise to the ISO organization. They prey on young activists who are looking for a political group that is organized enough that they can join. They soon discover that the ISO is mostly about selling newspapers, organizing recruiting events, and occasionally supporting bigger demonstrations and actions. In some branches, they encounter ISO leaders who actually intervene in the personal lives of new recruits. Former ISO members report incidents where they were humiliated in an ISO meeting for having the wrong boyfriend/girlfriend, or for having the wrong bumperstickers on their car. Naturally, most people get wise to this bullshit and leave the organization. This is why the ISO has to constantly recruit novice activists.

comment by sp
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2001 @ 02:43 PM CST
The ISO guy in the back of the Boston Conference that was creepily pacing back and forth was Jeff Bailey. He is the paid full-time Boston area ISO organizer. He was talking with his counterparts at the other conferences.

I propose we begin organizing a separate anti-war network, the basis of which would be a non-hierarchical structure, etc. I don\'t think that we need to fear that the ISO will co-opt the entire anti-war movement. I just don\'t think its possible. Yes, I think they\'ll manage to gain control over some of it, but there\'s enough of us who know not to trust or work with them.

Let\'s get in touch with the dissenting people in our areas and out-organize the ISO.
comment by kelizia
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2001 @ 02:55 PM CST
I was a member of the Conference Planning Committee for the Boston Conference. I wrote the original proposal for consensual democracy, and I helped facilitate hours of small group meetings that created that proposal. I can assure everyone that the conference was planned in the most democratic way possible. We made it a point to have the Boston Conference on the same weekend as the Berkley one, because we thought it would be a nice gesture of solidarity, and because we hoped to network nationally, we didn\'t mean to do it on the same weekend as BAAM, it just happened that way, and there was talk in the beginning about trying to coordinate together, but there just wasn\'t enough time. The conference planning committee started about 4 weeks in advance, with about 4 people. The next week, we had 6 people, the next week 8, etc. We all worked really hard, and we didn\'t even start thinking about the Sunday conference until a week or two beforehand, because we were finding a location, fundraising, finding speakers, organizing workshops, etc. I think we need to take pride in the Saturday education part, and recognize if about 6 people can organize a 3 panels and 27 workshops in a period of less than a month, then, there\'s no stopping this movement. The passion and dedication that brought everyone there brings me to tears, and gives me hope that we can overcome the negative aspects that have always plagued the left. There were several members of the ISO in the committee, and whether or not they had intentions to \"trick\" us is yet to be determined, but we need to give them a chance to explain themselves. Because BCAWC operates by consensus, and there is a broad range of ISO and non-ISO students, there\'s no way any ISO covert plan could get rushed through. Consensus is a time-consuming process, but it assures that no minority could get shut out of a decision, and it fosters compromise. As a member of the conference committee, I became aware that there was an opposition to the consensus model Saturday morning. So I consulted with other members of the committee and WE called the meeting during lunch. I was one of the 3 representatives for consensus there. And indeed it was a feeding frenzy that resulted in all three of us being brought to tears at one point or another. There was a complete lack of respect, and no effort on the part of the those who wanted majority rule to compromise. All these things are true. As result BCAWC (Boston Campus Anti-War Coalition), is definitely going to come together as a group and evaluate what happened and decide how we go on from there. I know that I have learned many important lessons as an individual. For starters, a group who can\'t even decide how to decide, cannot form a decision-making body. As the conference committee, there\'s no way we could have anticipated how difficult this issue would become. We did the best with the knowledgewe had, and now we know better. There\'s no reason why everyone at the conference can\'t come together for other things, but we now know that that particular group cannot form a decision-making body. Now we know that we weren\'t ready to form a regional coalition. Perhaps we can form a regional network. I met a lot of really wonderful activists from all over the region who I definitely plan on coordinating with in the future, and I know many other people who feel the same way. This weekend was very traumatic. But it wasn\'t a complete failure. And I really think we need to look at what happened CONSTRUCTIVELY, and decipher how we can use what we learned to do it better next time. For all of us here in Boston, it was our first shot at this, and we came in with the best intentions. If I could do it again, there are A LOT of things I would change, I want to allow the ISO members of our coalition to explain themselves, because they do have a lot of explaining to do, and there are a lot of people who feel very personally hurt by them. Then the coalition as a whole will have to decide where we go from here. But wherever that it is, it must be forward, because we have to remember the goal. Most of all, FUCK THIS WAR. The establishment wants to see us fighting amongst ourselves, they want to see us bogged down in process and politics. Let\'s decide what we can agree on, and what we can agree to disagree on, then let\'s keep moving forward. We\'re in it for the long haul, let\'s support each other and work in UNITY. Who needs a regional decision-making body anyway? Let\'s fight this war, not each other.
comment by chris
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2001 @ 04:18 PM CST
This is a call to action for a NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION AGAINST THE WAR on NOVEMBER 23,2001
There is a need to begin to respond to this war on a multi-facetted level. This email comes to you in the hope that it inspires you to get together with your local groups or associates and formulate an action plan. This Day of Action hopes to inspire autonomous groups to rally and act on the SAME day around the issues that matter to them in this war.
We all know this a complex issue. We know there needs to be a response. We all have specific issues we are concerned with regarding this war... let\'s use November 23 as a day to speak out individually on each of these issues.
We hope that this email address can be used as a clearinghouse to keep everyone in touch and to be sure that national media knows the scope of this day of action.
We have less than a week and a half, putting an action together is NOT impossible. Organize, forward this email to all your contacts and be sure to email back letting this address know if you are going to do an action and perhaps an idea of what it might be.
This is an autonomous day of action, do what you want. It is also on the same day as Buy Nothing Day. You can make your action to be a non-consumer or you can take it to another level.
DO WHAT YOU WANT TO VOCALIZE YOUR CONCERNS--- this email is going out to numerous groups and individuals, please forward it so that others can participate.
What has been billed as a National Day of Action will likely become international in scope. Please get involved. We need to put forth a unified voice of opposition that links in it all of the various issues surrounding the war.
****REPLY ASAP*****FORWARD THIS EMAIL****
comment by Mandie
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2001 @ 06:37 PM CST
I just wanted to clear something up; the Northeast Regional conference and the Boston Anarchist Against Militarism were planned at the same time by pure accident and miscommunication between Boston Campus Anti-War Coalition (BCAWC) and BAAM. One week, BCAWC consented to having a conference in conjunction with the rest of the country, which happened to be the same week BAAM was not represented at the meeting. It was not until the next Sunday that we realized the mistake, it was too late to change either date. Many activists who attended the BCAWC northeast conference made time on Saturday to attend the BAAM conference. Some BAAM representatives did make it to the Sunday delegates meeting where the shit hit the fan, so to speak.

I also wanted to say that as a conference organizer, it was extremely frustrating to see people who were relatively new to activism get turned off by the manner in which the ISO treated the delegates meeting and those who supported consensus. I\'m sorry to say that we, as a movement, have probably lost many of them. It\'s sickening to report that the ISO seems to be making follow-up calls to those who it recognizes as new activists who stand in support of consensus, and they are trying to sway them. They\'ve even admitted to having a closed meeting the Friday before the conference, at one of the other organizer\'s homes. It seems more and more like this was a carefully strategized and well-put together campaign to co-opt the movement. Though, I still need to hear the
comment by Chuck0
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2001 @ 09:12 PM CST
Hey, kelizia, thanks for sharing your information and thoughts on how your conference was organized. The work of an organizer is difficult and often goes unappreciated. But it sounds like you had a pretty good conference.

Yeah, why is there a need for a regional decision-making body? The ISO sees a need for that, because it plays into their goal of being players in a national network. I would make it clear to them that if they want to stay involved, that they should have a supporting role. Are any of them non-students? I would ban non-students from any student-oriented organization. That\'s an easy was to get rid of outsiders who want to recruit from your ranks. This won\'t solve the problem, because they have student members who will do their dirty work for them.

It would make sense to make it clear to people that your group operates on consensus. If they don\'t like that, they can go form another group. If any of you have been following the threads on Indymedia about how the ISO is acting, it should be obvious that they get rid of consensus so that a system develops that is conducive to hierarchy. Their hierarchy.
comment by Mohammad J. Alam [Me]
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2001 @ 01:52 PM CST
Hey guys,

First of all, I want to remind everyone that we are principally in agreement on the points of unity in this struggle. There is a war going on and a small matter of genocide being perpetrated as well, which need to be addressed above and beyond bickering.

I\'m a CMI supporter and PTUDC advocate [www.ptudc.org].

I\'m also an ISO member who was in Boston and I want to explain what is going on here, as well as dispell quite a few myths that have accumulated.

It really amazes me that people can say all these things and consider themselves as honest. Let\'s start with ISO \"domination\", \"hijacking\", and \"undemocratic\" maneuvering.

Fact: The ISO had 16 delegates at the conference. Sixteen out of 109. How can we have dominated anything?

Fact: All members were chosen/elected from their campuses. How could we have co-opted that?

Fact: As \"sp\" clearly showed earlier, anarchists went in the meeting with a pre-conceived line about SPLITTING the movement to form an anti-capitalist direct action sect.

So how can you slam the ISO when you yourselves were actively plotting--with the threat of splitting the coalition--your own tactics? You used coercive methods by threatening to split and by not recognizing two things:

1. 2/3 of the people there voted FOR simple majority and AGAINST consensus. This consensus issue is really an absurdity--just because 5 whole people decided to use it for their personal little meetings, doesn\'t mean the whole regional coalition should use it when it meets en masse. It\'s unpractical, subject to sabotage by provocateurs, and it was defeated by 2 to 1.

2. 2/3 of the people also voted AGAINST the proposal the anarchists wanted included, as a point of unity. The only reason it was close next time, then, was simply because when the anarchists raised it in their grievance, they did so with the threat of secession.

Others are claiming ISO organized this meeting, and set up that meeting. In reality, the lunch thing was a product of work between the vast majority of people from New York/CT who mostly operate on majority vote. It\'s ridiculous to claim the ISO pulled out some fangs and made the consensus people cry--what is clear is that mutual hostilities must have been exchanged. If you look at the simple majority bill proposed, it was proposed by an ISO and independent person, and it was stated with the utmost respect for the organizers. The Shakespearean melodramatics you are introducing into the political equation do not do justice to the truth, man.

Then there are rumors about the Friday night meeting. First of all, a coalition...consists of ORGANIZATIONS as well as people. Simply because some people parade around as non-affiliated, doesn\'t mean that can\'t be non-aligned sectarians! Secondly, I was at a Friday meeting, and I can say it DEFINITELY was not some pre-organized conspiracy on the consensus issue.

Why? Well, because first of all it wasn\'t a representative ISO meeting. In other words, it was just certain ISO sections meeting that night. At least half the others were just en route to the conference. Secondly, this is exactly how we decided we disliked consensus: a few dozen of us were sitting there, and someone mentioned that the core organizers wanted to use the consensus method. I asked what that was...and I was blown away!

All of us just reflexively couldn\'t BELIEVE anyone would employ that kind of method in a large-scale meeting given that the purpose of a political body is to implement and execute specific objectives.

And yet more fictitious rumors have to be addressed here. The above paragraph logically dispells another myth that the ISO itself organized the whole shebang. How would that be the case if the core organizers were people who were angry that the MAJORITY decided to use consensus at the conference? Someone stated, in addition, that 2/3 of the facilitators were ISO. Actually, there were 2 people convening the thing, and the third guy--an ISO member--was not involved in the facilitating process, as far as I can remember.

Frankly, this is a McCarthyist campaign. Characters like \"Chuck0\", like to pretend that the ISO is a monolithic Stalinist organization threatening political date rape on the entire world, is coming. The \"authoritarian socialists\"--the spectre of the ISO! So how are we authoritarian again...because we have more activists than any other group--oh no that must mean we brainwash them!

Give me a break, guys. Since all of the facts I\'ve stated here and delineated in the points are grounded in concrete reality, and since virtually all anti-ISO slander is based on dismissing and ignoring these crucial facts with form the crux of the truth, they cannot and must not be taken seriously.

This whole red-baiting campaign revolves around the same illusions the Nazis and the Republicans held--the Communist forces are amassing all over the place! One word: COINTEL.

In conclusion guys, let\'s get serious. I\'ve been a leftist since I was 13, and parts of various organizations at various times. The ties that bind here are ultimate political objections. Introducing various dramatized and false hearsay into what must be addressed as a political issue serves no purpose but to obfuscate the issue.

I\'ll be happy to answer any questions or rebuttals about Boston specifically, assuming they concern at least one of the core facts I mentioned. I will not allow myself to be sucked in, however, by slander, stories, and sarcasm about this or that group.

Towards liberation,
M. Alam
comment by rascal
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2001 @ 06:42 PM CST
Why don\'t you people just face the facts: most you so called \"anarchists\" are just wild-eyed, screeching fanatics who couldn\'t organize a @#$% bake sale, much less anything like an antiwar movement. You piss and moan about the ISO because they know how to get shit together and you don\'t, period.
comment by xRedVeggiex
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 21 2001 @ 12:02 AM CST
It is difficult to try and not let this degenerate into childish squabbling, so let me get that part of what I have to say out of the way first:

I think the ISO sucks. I\'ll be quite up-front about it. They are not revolutionary, and they should make no pretenses about it. They are more no a revolutionary organization than the CPUSA or the Green Party/Nader. They (the leadership) are a manipulative, short-sighted, impotent organization of opportunist, bourgeois intellectuals, with no faith in the working class; they desire to dictate the terms of the revolution (laughable, when one considers how unrevoltionary and reformist they are) to the working class, whether they want them or not, and steal any personal autonomy and self-motivation away from the workers. Their paper is superficial and typical of left-liberal Mother Jones/New Republic style reporting, and the fact that they so discourage giving out free issues is deplorable and downright stupid from a growth perspective. Even as an eco-anarchist, I have been active with PLP for a few years, and Challenge only has a suggested donation price, and has the balls to delve into real economic motivations and issues behind the way other than the superficial shit the media says the war is about, that ISO then refutes as oppose to subverting. Even RCP\'s Revolutionary Worker and Red Flag are miles ahead of Socialist Worker. As for hijacking conferences, I think the facts speak for themselves.

Now regarding my personal experiences with the ISO and the anti-war movement, let me just say that Ashley, the Vermont ISO leader, told people NOT to go to the G20/IMF/WB/Anti-War protests in Ottawa. And that is BULLSHIT.

What everything comes down to is this: The ISers are alienating the any real revolutionaries and progressives from the anti-war movement a its most important stage, and this is at least deplorable, and at worst unforgivable. People are dying, and maybe they forget that in their neverending quest to win over affluent bourgeois liberal collegeates who can\'t yet think outside the domain of authoritarian politics. This war is real, and they are using it in a very opportunistic way. A strong message must be sent that this is not okay. This war must be stopped, and it kills me that the ISers would fuck things up this badly. Once again, I think a lot of the rank and file members are honest and want change, but I think they are being misled by their leadership.

This is not a game, and not a political contest, and if the ISO wants to waste its time on reformist politics and all sorts of other bullshit like hijacking anti-war coalitions, then the people of Afgahnistan (and Iraq, soon enough) are pretty fucked.

We have to find a way around this. I don\'t think it would be wise to split into two separate coalitions, but we have to be able to operate in a democratic, nonhierarchical way. I agree completely that no one person should have power over another in this. That should be part of the type of mentality that we are fighting against. But authoritarian socialists see this as a matter of second-rate importance, and quite naturally. it is just how they are bred to think. but we have to find a way past it.
comment by Aaron Kreider
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2001 @ 01:46 AM CST
I think it is a mistake to make too much of the debate over whether to use majority rules or consensus. I would favor consensus, but the reality is that many student activists (and for instance 95% or more of the activists at my school, Notre Dame) do not know how to use it, and it would fail given the time pressures, not knowing who each-other are, and due to a lack of practice. So 2/3 or even 3/4 majority is much more reasonable. Our coalition uses 2/3.

On the other hand, fighting for a nonhierarchical organization stands a better chance.

I\'m also not sure how useful a national network is. Our coalition didn\'t send anyone to Chicago (though I almost went), and so far has done most of our actions and events on our own timeline. (Though a well organized conference, perhaps one that didn\'t try and create anything official would be nice - as would resources like leaflets, and hearing about what other schools are doing.)

Finally, our coalition is probably impossible to takeover. It\'s pretty moderate (or realistic, depending on your point of view), for instance as i\'m having difficulty convincing them that we should focus on our 300 person ROTC program (largest in the US), or CIA recruitment on campus. I think the only way they could end up working for a national network which was dominated by any one group (especially any group that was socialist/anarchist) is by not realizing it.

BTW - does this mean that ISO has abandoned the student/youth anti-sweatshop movement? I was at the last national United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) conference (aug 2001) and it seems that ISO was largely dormant, especially considering the conference was in Chicago. Unfortunately, we still had the PLP(progressive labor party) ...

I still think that a simple solution to dealing with groups like ISO (etc) is the principle of disclosure. If someone is running for a leadership/facillitator (etc) spot, they should disclose what groups and movements they have been active in and perhaps try and give an approximatation of their ideology. This would help for instance in the recent elections to USAS\'s coordinating committee where you had no idea what ideology people stood for, and thus voting was largely useless (also almost all of the races were noncompetitive too).
comment by Hymeto
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2002 @ 10:45 AM CST
Carmenita fumes about how the conference at Berkeley was handled. A good lesson should be learned here. This is really what Anarchism is all about--CONTROL BY THE STRONGEST --Get your heads on straight people. If you want to accomplish something-for better, or worse--you need some kind of governing body which everyone understands and supports. NOT ANARCHISM.
comment by i love it
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2002 @ 08:04 PM CST
when people with names like \"sp\" shout out the full names of local activists.

Always a pleasure.
comment by A
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 08 2002 @ 12:52 PM CST
There is another anti-war student conference on national scale is being planned in chicago for Feb 1-2.
I would invite everyone to show up. Some people are determined to make sure that all the voices are heard. Please mark the date and keep a look out for more announcements on the chicago indymedia website. or here.
We are asking for a wide participation to make sure that all views are represented.
comment by sydney
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2003 @ 06:38 AM CST
Regarding your comment: \"As one delegate said, \'I would hate to be an Afghani citizen right now who\'s depending on us.\'\"

Although people are talking out against US imperialism, its continued insistence on making war and then setting up \"temporary\" governments within so-called \"third world\" countries, it\'s important to not promulgate such missionary, paternalistic, and perhaps even white supremacist thinking by assuming that people who are being killed by US bombs and the like are in any way \"dependent\" on the people involved in the North American anti-war movement. It\'s incredibly self-assuming and supercilious to make such a statement, and equally important that people\'s agency be recognized. In this spirit, I think it\'s important to trouble the idea of what it means to be an \"ally\" and to question what it means to \"advocate\" *with* or *for* the people and political issues that are being debated.

when this agency is not recognized, then there is the setting up of \"Democratic\" leaders within countries which were presumably formerly \"backwards.\" these orientalist, white supremacist assumptions need to be challenged, brought out, examined, and talked about. if people on the peninsula of korea had been listened to and heard, the DMV would never have existed, to name an example.

yes, there are connections between local, community-based and international activism, but those connections are fraught with many complexities and need to be recognized as such.