The Sit-in

During the sit-in

Today's exciting climax was the pinnacle and aim of several weeks' carefull planning. Peter Sutherland came to give a talk at LSE and we held a sit in to stop him giving it. We being a coalition of students including people from the Green Party, People and Planet, Respect, the Lib Dems, and many more, as well as just concerned students- actually I didn't know which groups if any most people were aligned with.

We didn't want to prevent him speaking because we didn't like what he had to say- there have been many speakers at LSE who have held opinions that the same group of people would also disagree with and as far as I'm aware no-one even considered trying to stop them speaking, as we do all believe in freedom of speech. No, our problem was that he'd been elected to Chair of LSE's Council. His talk was just a chance for us to protest while he was actually present at LSE.

The reason we're not happy with him being Chair of Council is really threefold- first his own personal environmental, social and human rights track record; second that of BP, of which he is chairman, and third the fact that we feel that another businessman on Council will have a worrying influence on LSE's direction- we're worried about the marketization of education.

Planning started in earnest a couple of weeks ago, with a meeting in LSE's Underground bar one Monday lunchtime. At this point we were discussing general things like what we wanted to get out of the action and what it should consist of. The organisation continued via emails sent between the whole group over the next two weeks- during which time we had to try to recruit as many people as possible while making sure LSE didn't hear about our intention as in that case they would put heavy security at the event and it would be very hard for us to be able to get on stage and carry it out- and there was also a meeting on Tuesday which went into more specific details, such as what should go on posters and what we should do if the police arrived or if Security tried to remove us. It was at this meeting that I ended up volunteering to do the leaflet for handing out to the audience- sort of. At the end of the meeting I asked what the tone of the leaflet would be, since I'd come across many leaflets given out at other people's events, for example one at the George Monbiot event, which were shouty and angry and used terms like 'the most bestial crime' and 'climate genocide', just because the writers were so passionate, but I believed leaflets like that just ended up alienating people- the audience would take one look and think 'Nutters'. So I was suggesting the leaflet should be more calm, rational, well argued, and talking as though it were on the reader's side. CMCC, who had been going to do the leaflet along with other things like posters, asked me whether I would do it, because, he said, I'd done a good job of the Climate Change Awareness Week leaflet. Between my inability to say no and the flattery*- needless to say I really appreciated the compliment-, my acceptance was inevitable. Though in any case when he suggested it I did get inspired by the challenge and from that point on would have found it very hard to give up if anyone had come along and said they could guarantee to do it both more easily and more effectively than me.

The leaflet was the reason for last night's all nighter. What took the most time was the research- even though CMCC emailed me a list of stuff that should go in it with sources, I found I needed to find out quite a bit more. I knew when I took it on that I would end up staying up all or most of the night, but I made the split-second decision that it was worth it- both for my personal lust for the challenge and in terms of the usefullness of the end product at the event and the importance of it being calm and engaging (could I trust anybody else not to be tempted into a bit of a rant?**). The wonderfull end product is here (though missing its text boxes and the other layout features I couldn't do on Blogger), and goes into more detail as to why BP is bad and about our protest than I can be bothered to go over all over again here.

Unfortunately the leaflet was too long and had to be cut down. I handed the task over to the others, and it ended up being taken on by AS who'd already volunteered to print out the finished thing, since I would be at a careers fair today untill the event, and in any case I really wasn't sure which were the most important bits to keep in and which could come out. It was quite painfull thinking that my cherished words were going to be cut, but I knew it had to be done- and at least the original version had been seen and apparently liked by the people on the mailing list. Sadly the ones to go included most of my favourite lines. Still it ended up being a double sided sheet of A4 instead of the originally envisaged A6. Some parts were also rewritten slightly.

There was a meeting today at 5 to plan the really fine details. We did some role play with some of us being protestors and practising going limp when attempts were made to remove us by the others acting as Security***, and we discussed what we wanted to do in various possible situations such as the police arriving, and who would stay in the audience to give out leaflets, who would be on the stage and whereabouts, and who out of that group would make an announcement about why we were carrying out the protest. Shortly before we planned to go down, someone already downstairs rang to report on the security situation. It didn't look good- policemen outside the theatre though we'd thought there wouldn't be any unless they were called later; a security guard blocking the steps to the stage on each side and the first row of seats blocked off. We discussed what we would do now- it looked like we wouldn't be able to get onto the stage, though we all decided we'd try anyway. I was pretty disappointed- I'd been looking forward to sitting on the stage. We went down to the Old Theatre, in pairs holding hands like we were back in primary school (it was so we didn't get separated).

We were all pretty close together as we rushed through the side doors (which would bring us out near the stage). Apparently some of the stewards (LSE students employed part time) tried to stop the front people physically, which we hadn't expected since they are told not to do that- but those at the front say that it was probably an instinctive reaction to the large crowd heading towards them. We got through the doors ok, as one of the security people waiting nearby called 'It's burning!' or something- it seemed they hadn't been expecting us after all. Someone- it may have been Peter Sutherland- said 'What's all this?'

As we came into the Old Theatre, I saw that we were going to be able to get onto the stage after all- the front people were already climbing up- and I felt so happy. We all sat down- I'm not sure how many of us there were, somewhere between 10 and 30 I think****- and CMCC gave a speech explaining what we were doing. The plan was that after he finished that, we should be silent and not react to anything the audience might say. They actually listened to it quietly, which was quite a shock after our simulation in the meeting beforehand, where some of us very effectively drowned him out calling for him to leave the stage in the role of supporters of Sutherland. And the leaflet was handed out (though not all the people who were going to go in as part of the audience and do that were allowed in by security)- and people actually seemed to be reading it, and not in an obviously 'I disagree with every word' way.

Protester's eye view of poster (ie from behind through the paper, in mirror image)
The complete slogan was 'LSE not £$E', only with a Euro sign

Pretty soon, a man from LSE Events came to talk to us. Surprisingly, instead of starting with asking us to leave, he was pretty much from the beginning making us the offer that we could stay on stage for half an hour if we promised to leave after that point and let the lecture proceed. They let us have a few minutes to discuss our decision and we all went for rejecting it and staying on stage. The Students Union Treasurer was acting as a negotiator reporting the position of each side to the other- essential as otherwise they would have had to talk to a leader, and it was important that we didn't have a leader, and not everybody would have been able to hear what was going on or have a say. He wasn't negotiating because he was a Sabbatical Officer- he was part of our group, and conducting the role plays at the meeting and helping us plan, but somebody had to be the negotiator and he was happy to do it.

It didn't really feel awkward being there, for me anyway- not that I thought it would. We'd been planning and imagining the event for so long that I think somehow in my mind it had become an event that had always been intended to be a demonstration, and nothing else, and to which Peter Sutherland had obligingly agreed to come along to be demonstrated at- it took quite an effort to shift my viewpoint and remember that the audience, staff, and Sutherland had all been anticipating a lecture and that this was strange and unscheduled for them. I was holding one of the big posters for a while, untill some of the people in front of me took it- I was quite glad of that as my arms were aching.

The audience got rather unhappy about us after a while, saying things like 'You've made your point, now let us get on with the lecture'. There seemed to be the idea at the beginning among some, at least, of the audience that we just wanted to have a dialogue with him and have him answer some questions, because they thought we were protesting about BP's record, rather than about his appointment to Chair of Council, and indirectly about BP's record. This led to many calls that we were too stupid to see that we were endangering our own cause, after we refused the third***** offer: Sutherland would spend 15 minutes answering our questions before the lecture if we all got off the stage and promised not to come back. We refused this not because we didn't want him to answer questions but because after he'd done so he'd still be the new Chair of Council, so that it didn't go nearly far enough to meeting what we wanted, but there was a danger that it would be seen that the protest had achieved its aim, and the appointment issue, which was the whole point of the protest (as I say, if it wasn't for that we'd have let him speak), would be ignored and forgotten- Sutherland would probably try to portray the question time as having met all that we were asking for.

The other issue was free speech- the audience, or the most vocal parts of it, didn't understand that we weren't protesting his speaking but were using his talk as a chance to protest his appointment. To be fair, things were confused a little by one of our grievances being that he refused to speak to the Beaver on the grounds that the questions were too aggressive, and we claimed that he was thus avoiding debate- so people were saying that we had been offered one now, so should be happy. There was also a fair amount of abuse- we were likened to communists, fascists, Nazis, sexually frustrated teenagers, and, in a comment that particularly amused us when we were discussing it later, North Koreans (I mean, couldn't whoever said that see the irony? If this was North Korea we would probably have been removed to undergo unfortunate consequences long before that point), and told that our parents would/ should be ashamed. We were pretty good about not responding, but not perfect- for example when we decided that people really weren't getting the point about us protesting the appointment, and that we should have someone just state that, the person who did so wasn't able to keep repeating it many times as the audience continued to argue, and was tempted by the presence of the microphone into answering back on one or two other points. But I'm getting ahead of things a little.

I can't remember whether it was before or after the offer of fifteen minutes' question time, but after we'd been there some time, and had refused the first offer, Sutherland came on stage and tried to give his talk. We were surrounding the lectern so he had to stand back from it but he was managing perfectly ok- and as someone said later, that was the low point. I really thought he'd give the whole talk with us still sitting there- being visual, ok, but not succeeding in our aim of stopping him speaking. But then someone suggested we should stand up. I didn't see what good that would do, and worried that it would make us easier to remove, but we all stood up in unison and it actually stopped him speaking- because he was now completely masked from the audience. This was quite possibly the high point.

Then someone had another bright idea: that we should offer to leave the stage and allow the lecture to continue if he and the School would agree to hold a binding student referendum on his appointment. They refused that one- but interestingly though our refusal of their two offers was mentioned again by the LSE Events guy and others after that point (the Events guy had been addressing the audience from time to time to tell them the situation), they didn't mention that LSE and Sutherland had refused our offer- we had to tell them that. Even so I got the impression that though he had to do his job the Events guy was not against us.

There was a self-proclaimed environmentalist who kept on saying in very very angry terms that we were defeating our purpose and harming his to boot as we weren't allowing a dialogue but were preventing the chance to ask Sutherland questions at the end, which he wanted to do, about BP. He also said that by protesting we were making it almost certain that next time Sutherland would speak at a venue which protesters would not be able to get into- if I followed correctly he was urging us not to protest so that we would be able to keep the possibility of protesting which seems rather tortuous logic. I didn't know it at the time, but some of the others said at the end that he was from the Campaign for Rural England (he must have said it himself but I and quite a few others missed it)- only I misheard and thought they said Campaign for Rural Ignorance, which I knew didn't sound right.

In the end, after we'd been there almost an hour, the decision was made to move the event to another venue. We'd already decided in the planning session that if that happened it would be a victory for us- which is just as well because although I can see it when I think about it, I would have thought it was a defeat if we hadn't discussed it. We stayed on the stage till all the audience had left then had a debriefing session, still in the Old Theatre.

People leaving for the new venue

I was surprised that it had lasted so long- I thought, maybe because we'd discussed the worst case situations in the planning sessions, that when we'd refused to leave after being asked they'd get Security to drag us out and if that failed call the police, and that the whole thing would be over in twenty minutes or so with us giving in because we didn't want to be arrested. So, compared to that, really it went amazingly well. True, the audience reaction was not great for us- though there was a bit of sympathy from some people, including some slow clappers when Sutherland left the stage after we stood up, who were probably for us, most people wanted us to leave and the lecture to start, applauding the Events guy's statements that he'd asked us to leave and so on, and at one point when an audience member asked for a show of hands, almost unanimously voting that they wanted the lecture to start. But then it was always to be expected that there would be a lot of business people there- particularly as larger numbers of the seats downstairs were reserved than those who'd been there a few years could remember ever having seen before; and probably most of the audience didn't feel as strongly as its most vocal parts. I personally didn't find the audience reaction too offputting because I was able to imagine what the coverage in the Beaver is likely to be like, even without convincing that audience- as the editor was taking part in the sit in and many who write for it took large roles in organising this, there is almost guranteed to be a large amount of positive coverage, even if there is also some negative.

After the debriefing, we went to the Three Tuns- the policemen only left when we did, and the editor of the Beaver borrowed my camera to get a picture of them- where the Treasurer bought everyone a drink with his own money which I thought was a touching gesture but too generous! Everyone was pleased with how well it went, and discussing what had happened. I think everyone was riding high on the after effects of the victory and the adrenaline for quite a while afterwards- emails have been going back and forth since I got back to halls at about nine and are still coming now, at 1- though admittedly some of it's important stuff that's got to be done like a press release (which is being sent to all the national newspapers in the UK and Ireland as well as local papers, business papers and even US papers- though of course that's not to say it'll get printed).

So now we see whether Sutherland will step down/ be asked to resign by LSE (almost certainly not, at this point). Meanwhile, the campaign continues!

If you'd like to sign the petition, it's here, incidentally:
http://www.petitiononline.com/lsesuth/petition.html

*though that's a misleading word as it was genuinely meant (as far as I'm aware)

**That's not an indication of the kind of person everyone else is, it's an indication of my inability to trust anybody to do a job as well as me once I've got it all worked out- though in the very many cases where I haven't got a clue I am more than happy to believe that other people could do it better

***Actually that was really fun. I'm not sure why...

****I later looked at photos taken by Beaver photographers and counted 16 people on the stage, though including those handing out leaflets etc it was probably about 20.

***** The second offer, which I don't seem to be able to place in the main body anywhere without disrupting the narrative, was to guarantee us '1, 2, or 3' questions in the Q & A session at the end, provided we left the stage and let the lecture go ahead. As someone pointed out (I think it was CMCC, but others made the same point), we could probably have got that without any protest anyway.