Comments on the Berkeley Conference

Dear all,

I am Theresa. I go to school at UC Santa Barbara and was the delegate who stood before you, alongside Chantel of UC Irvine, to communicate the grievances behind the growing tensions of Sunday’s working session.

Carmenita noted that there were many young activists without much experience in attendance. I will admit that I am fairly new to political activity and explanation of process would have made a fundamental difference that day. T come to this as someone new and to see what I saw as un-democracy unraveling before my eyes was certainly disheartening yet our immediate attempts to rectify the situation on both coasts (no less!) is a very hopeful start. As a movement with a transient student population that is refreshed every quarter/semester/year, it should be our imperative to educate new activists and invite and involve them to become active members of a movement wherein all can share a sense of ownership.

“love” writes, “Did the ISO really hijack the CSAW conference? If so, let's say why and how, and what it means, and how we can work through it without letting splintering and infighting weaken what we are trying to do” (November 12 2001, Mon, 5:19pm).

As a newcomer, I am very concerned about tactics used by the ISO to recruit and gain control at various campuses. But since my actual knowledge of the ISO is limited, my post here will be centered around what went wrong and how we might be able to address these grievances. Yet, before I continue, we should be conscientious about how we frame dissent and critique. By framing them as “splintering and infighting” you have already revealed how you might approach the concerns and this is surely not a healthy starting point for discussion.

My general sentiments have been expressed by Carmenita (November 12 2001, Mon, 3:18pm) so I will respond to previous posts and clarify where necessary.

The following is a portion from Raj’s account (November 12 2001, Mon, 10:26pm):
“Here are some key points:
We DID vote on the process point, this was not ignored, but the majority voted to continue as we had been continuing.
Usually when discussion was curtailed, it was because somebody ‘called the question’, and the majority VOTED to call the question – the moderator did not curtail discussion without asking for a vote first.
The moderator only told people to stop speaking BECAUSE they were speaking outside the speaking order – so they were cut off in order to help the more soft-spoken people voice their concerns, as they were often times stuck at the back of the speakers list while the loud people kept talking. So her accusation that minorities couldn’t speak, coupled with her accusation that the moderator cut people off, are contradictory – if people speaking out of the speaking order had not been cut off, then less soft-spoken people would have been able to speak.
.
.
.
The other important proposals were not brought up because, once again, the majority VOTED that they would not in the interest of time.”

All this reaffirms my position that Sunday’s lack of success is due to a structural problem. The details you have given us here all point to how a more consensus decision-making process with ground rules and explanation beforehand might have addressed issues that impelled so many to walk out so early on. This way, more inexperienced activists are on board, all arguments are considered, and the delegation can make more fully-informed choices. (n.b.: The consensus decision-making model depends upon a representative body.)

You bring up ‘for and against’ speeches as a way of fixing the ‘calling the question’ “problem” (“3) People in the audience abused ‘calling the question’ to curtail discussion – but this was addressed by the moderator, when ‘for and against’ speeches were introduced”). First off, the format of ‘for and against’ speeches sets up a binary and presumes that there are no other arguments. Secondly, ‘for and against’ speeches privilege certain individuals as spokespeople for the rest of us who might just vaguely share the opinion.

“Had we spent the whole time talking about process points, I’m sure these 59 people would have been less disgruntled, but everyone else, all the people who EXPECT SOMETHING TO GET DONE out of CSAW (the majority of the CSAW non-delegate attendees in my opinion), would be pissed and would have never returned” (Raj’s account, November 12 2001, Mon, 10:26pm).

So I read your post and dutifully noted your use of [Caps] to stress something urgent. I feel your urgency yet I will not vote or act without first understanding the ramifications of my actions. In threatening that, according to you, the majority of CSAW attendees would leave had we not appeased them, you have made your decision about who is more important. In your blatant prioritization of needs, I ask only, will it be worth it to fight the good fight knowing you left behind so many others who wanted to be allies?

I mostly concur with Anne’s account of what happened but would add a further explanation of the points I had brought before the voting body. While the threat of ISO manipulation may be very valid concerns, I do not feel I am mistaken in bringing issues of sexism and racism to the fore. It was clear in that room Sunday that we privilege particular ways of communicating and what does this mean for the rest of us who do not adhere to this methodology? When women, people of color, or queer people speak, do we assign a different set of value to their ideas because method of communication can sometimes muddle the way we hear and understand? The environment Sunday was a hostile one that pushed many people away. I will stress again the importance of representation, need for outreach, and inclusion of communities most affected in the movement – who are we fighting for? In whose name are we organizing? What does it mean to try and uplift oppressed peoples anywhere and everywhere when they do not have a say in how their liberation will take shape? Liberation on whose terms?

Raj (djentrpy [at] uclink4.berkeley.edu) writes, “As far as 59 people walking out, let me clarify: most of those 59 people did not walk out, but joined up AFTER the meeting during the committee breakouts to discuss the process point, as many, including myself, were interested in seeing how the system could be improved” (November 13 2001, Tue, 5:14pm)

Regardless of the criticism you may have of our dissent, the bottom line is that we stayed until the very end when there were only a handful of people left, and we – given last priority for report-backs – passed along our suggestions. All this to keep a movement that is just starting to take shape but has wound on life support a chance to live.

Raj continues, “It's people like you guys that really scare people away from the whole 'activist scene', with your endless categorizing and slamming down on every event that you didn't get your way in. You alienate most of the people involved with this ridiculous talk of two movements: one anarchy the other socialist. NEWSFLASH: MOST MEMBERS OF THE MOVEMENT ARE NEITHER ONE!!! I can't believe some of you, who weren't even at the conference, are calling it a 'fiasco.' You're putting blind faith in Carmentia's words, words that are more biased than CNNs broadcasts of the war.”

I do not appreciate feeble attempts to minimize and invalidate our concerns about process. I have been accused of causing disunity in a movement that is struggling to organize and save lives. Why is it that I must subjugate my concerns and let others decide things in my name? Why should I allow anyone to minimize my role in the decision-making process? I will continue my work in the anti-war movement; the only question that remains is, will we be able to work together? How much do you value me as an equal?

Overall, the post lends itself a very hostile tone. The mood in that lecture hall on Sunday was no different. If you could encapsulate the tension and hostility directed toward people who wanted to be critical of the process on Sunday and turn it into an Internet post, it would look exactly like this. Then we might wonder how it is that people came to feel so completely disempowered and alienated that they could walk away in protest.

Snehal reminds us that “it took almost 5 years of the U.S. war in Viet Nam before the first big anti-war protests started in 1965. I think the West Coast Conference helped play an important role in laying the basis for a serious, nation-wide movement” (November 13 2001, Tue, 7:56pm). We should also remind ourselves that in the interest of a certain “serious, nation-wide movement” in 1965, the interests, concerns, and critiques of particular groups were categorically pre-empted. Issues that caused internal rifts in the movement were put on the backburner and people who tried to assert themselves were accused to trying to break up the movement. Sound familiar? We are indeed on very familiar territory. (n.b.: One of the things that came out of the anti-war movement of the 1960s was the women’s movement. Women whose concerns had been pre-empted organized to address their cries of sexism that had previously gone unaddressed.) There is much to be learned from this movement as well as the Civil Rights movement.

We are at a very fragile juncture in which we can either fully address these critical issues that threaten to split the movement or decide these things don’t amount to anything when there is a greater cause at hand, that these concerns are unimportant and ought to be shelved – in the interest of fighting a war. Then, what sort of movement and community would we be building? Simply put, then are we not just replicating the societal ills we are organizing against?

Snehal continues, “Now, were there some short-comings? Sure. We (CSAW) only scheduled one day (Sunday) for decision making; we learned that we need to give this more time. Any suggestions about how to do this in a two day conference are welcome. With over 180 delegates, it is not possible to have everyone speak to every question they would like to speak to (for instance, if every delegate simply spoke once for two minutes that would be 6 hours!). Necessarily, some people didn't get to speak as much as they wanted to, and some people spoke too much. We could have better explained the voting procedures that were agreed on at the preliminary CSAW conference of 20 schools on September 29th, that would have helped clarify the process. Also, after the meeting on Saturday night, when reps from every campus met to discuss the agenda, it was clear that there were way too many proposals to deal with in one day. We didn't come up with a good solution, so many good ideas got tabled.”

From the meeting that took place Saturday night, it looks as though we had a very ambitious agenda to pursue in the working session. Secondly, September 29 might have been a problematic date because communities all across the country had planned actions to educate and protest in solidarity with one another. Those of us in Santa Barbara held a rally to condemn the hate crimes and racial profiling that have occurred in our community. Had we 1) known about the meeting and 2) not been so busy with our own event, we would have gladly been in attendance.

“Of over 180 delegates, I think 16 or 17 were members of the ISO (actually two of them weren't there on Sunday, so let's say 15 could vote). Out of 36 work shops, three had ISO members speak at them (unfortunately, in one of them the other speaker went so over time, that the ISO speaker - me - had only about 5 minutes). None of the speakers at the morning or evening panels were ISO members. ISO members voted with the near unanimous majority on some proposals (National Conference, Coordinating Committee, endorse International Solidarity with Palestine Day, continuing with majority voting as opposed to opening up a debate on process, etc) and voted in the minority on others (Feb 7th day of action, numerous procedural votes) and voted on different sides of the questions at other times (March on DC, for example). In other words, the ISO votes didn't determine a single decision of the conference” (Snehal, November 13 2001, Tue, 7:56pm).

This is an interesting attempt to make transparent the details of ISO’s involvement in the conference in the wake of accusations of non-transparency. For me, and I won’t speak for anyone else, the mistrust has already taken root. I felt used this weekend for big turnout and possible inclusion in the formation of something of a United West Coast Front of Schools Against the War. Frankly, we are not united. And there won’t be a West Coast Front if a group of us continue to push forward in the face of dissention and concerns over representation and power imbalance and manipulation. Is it not in the interest of a strong movement that we make sure we do not alienate people and instead take measures to include people in the process? What sort of movement is it when a small group of people can claim to be fighting for all peoples?

“Third, I did facilitate the Sunday session, along with several other members of the Berkeley Stop the War Coalition (not ISO members) who helped run the speakers' list and keep time. For anyone who has done it before, it is a hard job (one that I don't particularly relish) and we definitely need to get more people who feel comfortable doing it for the future, but the reality is, I was asked to do it by the Berkeley Stop the War conference planning committee and I tried my best to do a good job. The notion that I prioritized ISO speakers to "hijack" the debate is factually untrue. Did I make mistakes? Of course, do I deserve to be accused of manipulation, etc.? I believe those charges are unfair” (Snehal, November 13 2001, Tue, 7:56pm).

While we appreciate efforts by the Berkeley Stop the War Coalition to organize this conference, it is also our duty to be critical of the process. I want to make clear that my critique has never been and is not at this time personal. My grievances concern structural shortcomings, lack of representation, and power imbalance.

Snehal, I am deeply sorry about how you have been treated because of the way you look, what you wear, and how you choose to engage politically. You know better than I the increasingly hostile climate in this country. When we organize, this is why representation is so important. The inclusion of people most affected as well as groups who have been traditionally marginalized will 1) help to inform us about the ramifications of our actions and 2) address issues that privilege (white, college-educated, etc) might overlook.

Kim’s writes (November 13 2001, Tue, 9:52pm), “When I approached the moderator, he replied that he felt his job was to move things along "as quickly as possible" and that is a direct quote. In my experience both as a moderator and as a member of a voting board, the job of the moderator is to observe the rules of order and ensure a fair voting process.”

I was also told the same thing. One thing that would have helped matters is a moderator who could be fair and conscientious of process. We needed desperately that Sunday a moderator who would allow due process and time for thorough discussion.

Snehal, as I told you then, I will say again here: I will not vote simply to vote. We should not for the sake of voting to pass proposals that would turn into actions that would in turn create in us the false sense that we are indeed working toward something real because our restlessness demands we do something and forget the ramifications of manhandling process. Who gets left behind? What have we swept under the carpet, put on the back burners, tried to wish away? What have we ignored because we have pretended doesn’t exist? What are you willing to sacrifice for false unity? What price will you pay for a piece of justice that reeks of oppression?

Bill Neal writes, “The main problem with this meeting was that too many proposals were submitted, and an entirely unrealistic agenda was set for the following day. IT IS THAT WHICH CREATED THE RUSHED ATMOSPHERE, CONFUSING SOME, AND CREATING A HURRIED TONE FROM THE ORGANIZERS” (November 14 2001, Wed, 1:56am).

The problem of an unrealistic agenda might have been addressed if we could bring it before the delegation for discussion before formal decision-making commenced.

Bill continues: “It was possible, if difficult, to speak. There are many instances where the chair of the decision making session did his best to include as many people as possible and respond to suggestions as they came up.”

Were you one of the “as many people as possible” that the facilitator called on to participate? I certainly was not. I am not alone in pointing out that I first tried to comply with a process that I have been forced to work within: I raised by delegate card, was noted on the stack, and waited patiently for my turn. I did this three times. Because my turn never came, I had to call it for what it was and demand a process point.

“He pointed out that some people were manipulating the process and argued against it, he opened the floor for a vote on process, moved to prioritize female speakers of color, etc.”

As far as I am concerned, this was a crumb thrown at us women of color (as it was to request a facilitator to help with report-backs when the ordering of committee report-backs was already set and she was essentially asked to read from a notebook). But if your cookie looks like a democratic-voting process that turned out to be grossly undemocratic, I guess that’s that way it’s gonna crumble.

The post by “Sp” regarding the Northeast Campus Anti-War Coalition conference (November 13 2001, Tue, 3:17pm) relays an eerie replication of what went wrong in Berkeley in the same weekend. Yet the fact that efforts to undermine a truly fair process were exposed by people were courageous enough to speak up gives me hope. Thank you again for sharing this report with us. My hope is to address this juncture fully and adequately. If we can’t do so, let the rest of us work together to create a space where we can share power and say in the decision-making process.