759 Signatures*

*the number of signatures above is not a live update, we will update at least once everyday the total number of persons who have signed the petition

Who we are and our petition can still be found in the About tab. We have made our Blog page the default page of this site in order to update the growing number of signatories on our progress in negotiating with both Occupy Harvard and the administration. Please keep the signatures coming!

For questions and comments specifically addressed to Free Harvard please email johnlo@college.harvard.edu

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Monday, November 28, 2011: Policy Update

Developments within the Security Policy Working Group are restarting after a lull due to the Thanksgiving Holiday. We hope to develop a reasonable policy to propose to both the General Assembly and administration.

Free Harvard would again like to reiterate that this petition is purely non-partisan and strategic in nature. Signatories include a large majority of those who support Occupy Harvard and would like to see greater momentum in the movement through larger engagements with the student body, including addressing the common denominator: gate restrictions.

Monday, November 21, 2011: Security Policy Working Group Established

First, Free Harvard would like to applaud the recent steps taken by the administration to increase the number of gates opened to ease student movement in and out of the Yard. However this recent development does not fully address the concerns of our constituents, including Cambridge residents and tour guides, and the dynamic of the Yard interconnected with its surrounding community. Free Harvard would like the urge further steps from both Occupy Harvard and the administration be taken to return to the status quo, in regards to the security situation. Ultimately opening more gates while still restricting them does little to functionally change the situation.

Furthermore, Free Harvard also applauds the creation of a Security Policy Working Group by the Occupy Harvard General Assembly to discuss and draft a resolution on what Occupy Harvard believes are appropriate security measures to A) protect campers and B) prevent expansion of the camp with non-Harvard affliated members. Occupy Harvard's dedication in taking the appropriate steps to address the gate closures that affect the entire community is welcomed as a beginning outreach to the Harvard student body and those who participate within and without the University.

Free Harvard believes the current dialogue with Occupy Harvard and the administration is progressing positively towards constructive means to end the gate restrictions.

Free Harvard also believes the establishment of a Security Policy Working Group is a direct symbol to Harvard students, faculty, and participants that their inconveniences have not gone unnoticed and unaddressed. Ultimately the Occupy Harvard movement rests on the foundations of the student body and Harvard community.

Free Harvard hopes for greater outreach from Occupy Harvard and once again applauds their progress regarding ending gate restrictions in a constructive, non-polarized manner.

Sunday, November 20, 2011: Occupy Harvard, it's your turn

Free Harvard has established an ongoing dialogue with the administration regarding the issue of gate closures. From our discussions the following have been established:

• 1. There is acknowledged gridlock and non-existant dialogue between Occupy Harvard and the administration.
• 2. The security apparatus is ultimately unsustainable; overtime, long shifts, emotional effects, resources are an ongoing concern. However the University sees the current security apparatus as necessary to A. protect the campers and B. prevent the current camp from expanding with members not affliated with Harvard and will continue to do so until both A and B no longer become a concern.
• 3. The most appropriate action required from Occupy Harvard to begin a dialogue relating only to gate security, without seperate pre-conditions, is for them to draft a resolution regarding what they believe are appropriate security measures to A. protect the campers and B. prevent the camp from expanding with members not affliated with Harvard University.


As a result of these negotiations the following addendum will be added to the Free Harvard Petition:

" We ask Occupy Harvard to draft a resolution on what they believe are appropriate security measures to A. protect the campers and B. prevent the camp from expanding with members not affliated with Harvard University. The appropriate solutions provided by Occupy Harvard do not require relocation or a gradual removal of the campsite, unless Occupy Harvard sees it in their interests to do so."

The below represents solely the opinions of John Lo ' 15 and does not necessarily reflect the views of Free Harvard:

" The current progress on reconstructing the current security situation is now ultimately dependent on whether or not Occupy Harvard will draft a resolution on what they see are appropriate security measures. The ball is in their court. Claims that the administration is not willing to interact with Occupy Harvard are now unfounded seeing they are willing to reconsider the security situation through dialogue with Free Harvard.

Furthermore after attending Occupy Harvard's General Assemblies I am of the opinion, while it may be incorrect, that two factions have formed within Occupy Harvard. The first faction composed of members who have participated in the camp longer and realized the camp itself has lost its functional value, while using substantial resources that could be otherwise used to promote greater community engagement. The second faction composed of relatively newer members who want to continue the camp who may be of the opinion that greater community engagement is uneccessary due to the presence of the information table [which I have argued previously is only a passive, not active form of engagement].

Occupy Harvard simply has to stop being an exclusive organization. I believe the second faction will only raise contention and alientate the majority of the Harvard community through assumptions that 'ending global oppression' is more important than gaining local support and momentum. I also believe the second faction is less willing to participate in the constructive dialogue Free Harvard has established with the administration, yet I am always willing to be proved wrong.

A choice now lies with Occupy Harvard: larger support and more momentum or a strict, possibly stubborn, adherence to the ideals established by their movement.

If Occupy Harvard is to survive the winter, it needs to show it is willing to engage with the Harvard community on the most basic level, first through progressing negotiations regarding the current common denominator: gate restrictions."



Friday, November 18, 2011: Tragedy of the Bourgeois: Disconnect from the 99%


The below represents solely the opinions of John Lo ' 15 and does not necessarily reflect the views of Free Harvard

"Today I attended the IOP student discussion regarding Occupy Harvard with a discussion board composed of leaders of the Occupy Harvard movement, Crimson editors, and IOP leadership. I commented on how the current political situation presented to the general student body has become dichotomized into two and only two bipolar groups: those who support Occupy Harvard and those who do not. Why could there not be a third party focused on compromise? I also addressed how it could possibly be constructive to trivialize the inconveniences experienced by members within and without of the Harvard community while trying, at the same time, to engage them in discourse regarding the Occupy Harvard movement.

The notion was largely shut down by those on the board who cited the availability of the information desk and gate closures themselves as spurring discussion, and the ionic nature of having an encampment at the Yard. I would argue first, the information desk is largely a passive, not an engaging, mode of disseminating the purpose of Occupy Harvard. Statistically I would argue, a large portion of those who actually visit the table already have a pre-established notion of the Occupy movement or are non-active supporters of the Occupy movement. This makes for rather exclusive fact and begs the question how can Occupy Harvard actually believe they can simply set up an information table and expect students they ridicule as having "insignificant concerns in taking an extra 30 seconds to walk to CVS" come learn more about their movement, and then go further in blaming uninformed students as simply not taking the time and effort to learn? This is by no means constructive engagement, especially to a larger community who does not a) know about the real substantial goals set forth by Occupy Harvard or b) simply do not care. To assume all those who do not know, will and should automatically come to ask for information is ignorant. Where are all the people handing out flyers? I've received more flyers regarding UC elections than from Occupy Harvard.

Second, gate closures HAVE spurred discussion regarding issues of Occupy Harvard and social activism BUT not in the same thread the members of the IOP discussion board believe. Coupled with a lack of engaging information, the discussion is not the ideal philosophical debate regarding the legitimate grounds of social activism that the board envisions, but rather amounts to: gates closed =thanks Occupy Harvard and the administration, you both suck. Furthermore, gate closure as a means to promote discussion has outlived its half-life, there is more animosity now than there ever has been before regarding the greater discourse on social activism in general. Quite frankly, people no longer want to be a realized "social experiment. "

Third, the argument regarding the presence of the physical camp in front of the John Harvard statue as the root of the movement is being less and less realized each day. The Occupy Harvard movement and discourse regarding social activism in general has passed it media frenzy phase and entered a phase where both need student participation in order to be sustainable. Again, being the front page of the People's Daily in China does not win the hearts and minds of the students at Harvard. This idea of the campground at the center of the Yard as a sacrosanct, inflexible notion has also outlived its purpose especially when it is growing more apparent each day that it is the people and their interactions with other people that define a movement, not tents. Occupy Harvard should work more on engaging with members of our community rather than just defending the location of their tents.

This is why Free Harvard argues gate restrictions must be addressed first and foremost before there can be any sustained dialogue that is able to incorporate a larger student body into the current discourse. The common denominator of gate restrictions must first be addressed in order to engage the student body. Just as you can't get a baby to even acknowledge your presence without first giving him/her a lollipop, the same applies regarding this issue of the gates. Gate closures are no longer effective in spurring more constructive discussion as the IOP discussion board claims and the campsite itself is no longer a usable icon, since what good is there for an icon that only attracts foreign news networks but cannot attract students? Why can't Occupy Harvard reach a compromise and move the tents themselves outside the gates but still retain their famously engaging information table and general assemblies in the Yard?

Another Occupy supporter also voiced his concern about the general exclusivity of the Occupy Harvard movement and the lack of information, yet was similarly struck down as being incorrect due to the presence of once again the famously engaging information table. And yet the movement is just as the supporter voiced exclusive, especially General Assemblies composed of 100 Occupy Harvard supporters scare off anyone with a differing opinion. As the Occupy supporter himself claimed that he was discouraged many times from voicing a concern that would possibly "hurt the movement."

Ultimately I believe the leaders from the two sides that control the current discourse regarding Occupy Harvard are so far detached from realistic observations on the ground that this undoubtedly exclusive IOP discussion group has emulated the very disconnected United States Congress Occupy members are so frustrated by. The student body is not, as one member of the IOP discussion board rationalized, as unwilling to support the Occupy Harvard movement because it does not demonstrate the same sorts of progressive reconstruction of expectations regarding politics and economics that the larger Occupy movement demonstrates, but rather because they either a) did not know what that board member just said or b) is simply not the reason for why they do not support Occupy Harvard. I found it amazing how the issue of student involvement was debated and rationalized at such an intellectual level of philosophical deconstruction that was totally irrelevant and totally past practical considerations. The discussion board exclusively viewed and assumed everyone in our community could already run and ignored anyone who could not. Realistically 99% of everyone community just learned to walk.

In regards to those who claimed during the meeting that the very opportunity to participate in the IOP student discussion demonstrated the promotion of information and engagement, I would like to ask how 50 people from 6,000 undergraduates demonstrates an effective promotion of engagement with the student body. The very IOP discussion represented less than the 1% in our community.

Engage students more effectively rather than debating about us from afar like some policy paper analyzing Libya by first resolving the common denominator: gate closures.

Free Harvard."



Thursday, November 17, 2011: Awaiting reply


A sustainable dialogue can only be established if both Occupy Harvard and the administration are contacted. Occupy Harvard is holding a General Assembly outside in the Yard, which I will drop by to suggest the Free Harvard petition as a reasonable compromise ultimately subject to further negotiation. I would encourage supporters who are not looking for a moral victory, but rather a practical resolution to the gate closures to come out and voice your concerns to Occupy Harvard in a constructive manner.

Furthermore Free Harvard has recently contacted referred members of the administration whom we have been advised to reach out to. We are still awaiting their reply for setting up an intial dialogue.

A solution only works if the concerns of both parties are mediated and resolved through compromise in a constructive fashion. It is our opinion that Free Harvard serves as effective mediator and third party to an ongoing discourse that should be focused on pratical solutions instead of political opinions.



Wednesday, November 16, 2011: In Reponse to the Crimson


I would first like to take the time to thank the Crimson and its staff writers on shedding light on the Free Harvard movement. However I believe some notions of Free Harvard are miscontrued by the Crimson.

First, Free Harvard is not a movement solely directed towards the Occupy Movement as the article made it seem. Free Harvard is also directed to the administration.My reasons for creating this petition stemmed mainly from the fact that there are only two sides in the current discourse that should involve our entire community, the administration and the protesters. Whether it be due to the fact that our current voting system operates on a first-past-the-post system, there are dichotomous tendencies to any discourse in this country. Why can't there be a third voice of those who are willing to bridge and compromise the concerns of both administration and the protesters? Democractic discourse isn't and shouldn't be limited to just two parties.

Secondly, the petition does not exist simply to address the minor inconvenience to students. To assume this petition is only meant for students who have to flash an ID is vapid and meaningless. The current gate restrictions have had a very real effect to Cambridge residents who depend on the Yard for their daily commute, student tour guides who have been indefinitely unemployed, students waiting in line at gates during rush hour, Extension School students who take class in the Yard who must go through an arduous process of confirming their identity, and many others greater than the student body. To ignore the unexposed concerns of those within AND without Harvard would play into the stereotype of exclusion and elitism Harvard Univeristy is wrongly portrayed as.

Finally, I would like to ask Korn how the movement would "diminish in effectiveness" if only the the camp itself moved to the Science Center while the active portions of the Occupy Harvard movement could still hold General Assemblies, information sessions, etc in a newly freed Yard? Its not the physical tents that uphold the movement, its the people.

Furthermore, I am quite confused by the mixed messages sent by Occupy Harvard's stance on civil disobediance. Korn says the point of civil disobediance is to cause disruption, while the Occupy Harvard site itself has consistently stated that it is against any form of inconvenience the gate closures have had on students.

It is understandable that space on the Crimson is limited and singular quotes must be selected, but this article largely portrays Free Harvard as a group of "whiny kids" and ignores my comprehensive two page response explaining the movement.



Tuesday, November 15, 2011 Part 3: Establishing a Dialogue


A basic dialogue had been established today with certain members present at the Occupy Harvard movement. The general consensus was that Occupy Harvard would be willing to consider relocation to the yard in front of the Science Center if there is some established agreement with the administration that by relocating all the gates in the Yard would be reopened and unrestricted.

Plans to establish a dialogue with the administration are in motion...stay tuned...



Tuesday, November 15, 2011 Part 2: Artwork Changes and Addendums


We have recieved concerns from signatories that our intial site and petition artwork is slightly extreme by including the word "suffer." We agree that this may be viewed as contentious and will change the artwork to better reflect our goals of transcending political differences in order resolve the common gate issue.

UPDATE:

Since Free Harvard's goal is to propose a compromise agreeable to all parties involved, concern has also been brought up that we only allude to how we hope the administration responds to the relocation of the Occupy Harvard camp in our petition. In order to end any vague connotations on what we hope the administration demonstrates, Free Harvard will be adding the following addendum:

"We hope that once Occupy Harvard chooses by its own accord to relocate their camp to an area outside of the gated perimeter, the University will respond by relieving the established security apparatus that currently restricts gate access and allow unhindered movement of students, faculty, and participants within and without the Harvard community."



Tuesday, November 15, 2011: 500 Signatures


The Free Harvard petition has recently passed our initial benchmark for 500 signatures. Please keep up the support and signatures!

We feel with 500 signatures we have reached a threshold that allows us to begin a constructive dialogue with Occupy Harvard from a legitimate third-party position. I must reiterate, we are not demanding anything, but rather petitioning that our solution will benefit all parties involved (the administration, Occupy Harvard, us, etc). We are planning for an intial meeting to take place soon and will keep everyone updated on our progress.

Transcending different political emotions to petition for an effective resolution to our common situation...keep it up everyone!



Monday, November 14, 2011 Part 3: Connecting with the community


The recent Occupy Oakland protest has been broken up by police. Free Harvard is not a political movement, but this meticulously written article by Joan Walsh describes the final days of the camp. Walsh, an Occupy supporter, argues that "The shameful problems of our larger society will capsize this movement if it attempts to solve them on its own, rather than channeling energy into changing a political structure that creates and ignores these human tragedies." Ultimately any success of the Occupy Harvard movement depends on their ability to connect and channel energy to the larger Harvard community, not, as Walsh argues, continuing operating by their own accord.

Free Harvard argues that if Occupy Harvard compromises with their surrounding community and relocates their camp outside the Yard it will demonstrate they are, more importantly, in solidarity with the Harvard community, its interests, and concerns. Occupy Harvard cannot change the school on their own, without the support of those who live, work, and breathe around them. The Free Harvard petition gives Occupy Harvard the opportunity to demonstrate that they are invested in the interests of those around them, not just solely their own.



Monday, November 14, 2011 Part 2: Survey


We just set up a survey from that lets Free Harvard better know who you are and how you are being affected by the current situation. We eventually hope from these surveys we can expand our current identity to incorporate others who are being affected by the gate closures/ presence of Occupy Harvard that have gone unnoticed. The constituents making up Free Harvard have expanded significantly from just residents in the Yard, to extension school students who do not have IDs, to tour guides who are indefinitely laid off, to Cambridge residents since this site was first established. Make your voice heard so we can know who you are!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Personal Reflection:

Free Harvard is not a political movement. It is a pratical movement aimed at ending gate restrictions by which we argue can be lifted if Occupy Harvard relocates their camp to an area outside the gated perimeter. Free Harvard welcomes any and all members from diverse backgrounds and opinions united in resolving a practical issue through practical means.

This is how democracy should work: the participation of diverse consituents who have transcended differences in order to resolve a common situation.



Monday, November 14, 2011: Y U No like button?


The question as to why this site does not have a facebook like button has been asked many times and I would like to take the time to address this matter. The Free Harvard petition revolves around multiple issues supported by people with multiple backgrounds and from diverse situations. To simplify their greivances to a simple "like" is somewhat diminishing and references George Orwell's prediction that the "whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought...every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten." Entire quote here. This petition is not and should not be politically simplified into an "us versus them" or whether you "like" us or not. Rather this petition seeks to define a reasonable compromise with Occupy Harvard that will serve all interests involved whether it is regarding the freshman who has indefinitely lost his or her tour job or regarding the Cambridge resident who relies on walking through the Yard as part of their daily commute.