They're Occupying the Crap Out of That Post

When I entered the Student Union at NKU, as I often do, many different groups and goings on all fought a brilliant battle for my attention. There was the Cancer Awareness Table, kudos to those who volunteered to man that one, The Common Ground Table, hosting a raffle to raise money for I know not what, the Military, among many many others. I sat down to enjoy my book before I ate my lunch and I noticed a woman who was attempting to give out some kind of packets to the students entering and exiting the building. Most people brushed pass quickly and didn't even give the woman a first look, let alone a second one. I decided to go over and see what exactly she was handing out, that was so abhorrent to my fellow students.

To my surprise I was given a wee little bumper sticker, as well as a paper, explaining the connection perhaps?



"We are the 99%" proclaimed the sticker in big bold letters.

I know for a fact by Occupier standards that I would qualify as part of the 99%. I, however, protest that my status as a "99% er" is being used to serve someone's "cause", "mission", "agenda", whatever you call it, especially in the light of my disagreement with the movement in general.


The paper handout I was given, besides an invitation to join the 3:00 P.M. occupy movement, which I did briefly make an appearance at in order to get some information and ask questions,  made four key points:

1. more and more American students are choosing to forego their college education because they can no longer afford it.
2. Tuition costs keep rising.
3. financial aid continues to be cut or reduced in most state and federal budget proposals
4. Quality of Education continues to plunge

Some of the points actually hold some weight. Let's take it point by point.

 - "more and more American students are choosing to forego college education because they can no longer afford it"

Congrats Americans! I think its good that American students are no longer foolish enough to borrow money that they know they can't pay back. I think its disastrously wrong, however to assume that its impossible to get a hold of some funds in order to go to college. 

I would say its an irrelevant point concerning this 1% issue though. 

 -"tuition cost keep rising" 

This is undeniably true. 

When I asked the woman representing the Occupy movement, she seemed about as upset as I was about this issue. I personally am responsible for paying for my own college education, so of course tuition cost is an issue. 

"Tuition has gone up over 600%," said she. 

This seems valid enough, considering that I've discussed the huge difference in cost of college just between when my parents attended NKU, and the current going rate I must now pay. 

"Where's the money going?" asked I.

Her claim was that its the higher ups, such as the president, being paid too much. 

Alright, how 'bout some facts then?

None were present to verify this claim, making it impossible to make an educated opinion concerning this issue. 

But another claim was given, a red-herring of sorts, and perhaps an underlying theme, as it were. 

The gist was that our teachers aren't being paid enough, nor do they have enough benefits at our public institutions, especially our universities and colleges. 

Again, the question of what does this have to do with the 1% crossed my mind. This didn't seem like the program professed at all at the beginning of the "Occupy Movement". 

The last point, and most important to me as a student, was:

"the quality of education continues to plunge."

Academics should come first, in my mind, so quality is an ideal that a university should strive to make a reality. 

That the 1% are to blame? How so?

The spokesperson's connection was that the teachers just go to whoever pays them the highest.

I'm not sure what that has anything to do with quality, or more importantly since you occupiers claim it as your slogan, the 1%. 

Its evident from many statistics that more spending has no effect on higher quality. The results of an institution essentially at the beck and call of its teacher's unions is as follows:

Besides the four points of dissent mentioned in the handout there was within the article a section labeled, "Pledge of Non-Violence"

A caption artistically positioned above a picture of a man who has become the stereotype of all that is peace, Gandhi. 

Their statement,

"We reject violence, including property destruction."

But why you may ask? Read on...

"because we recognize that it undermines popular support and discourages the broadest possible  participation among the 99%."

They're peaceful then only because they want support? Not because its THE LAW? (Hello 1st Amendment:  the right to peacefully assemble).

So they're not peaceful because violence isn't the answer to solve the many issues pinpointed by the movement?

As before mentioned, I did decideto stop by and talk with the Occupiers of NKU. The woman I spoke with was nothing but kind, and full of information to give me. I did expect a bigger turnout though. Standing about the entrance of the Student Union were no more than 5 people. My thoughts as I walked up, "they're occupying the crap out of that pole over there." 

They gave me another paper. In fact, they gave me an entire pile so that I could disperse them among my friends. 

The first part, opens with a poem written by a pastor who had been imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp. 

This is applicable, why? Is this a warning that if I don't support this movement it will come back to haunt me? Are you equating the Occupy movement to standing up to the Nazi's? 

This poem was followed by an article by Nicholas D. Kristof, from the New York Times, read article here.

Very good point Mr. Kristof, and your point is quite revolutionary(note sarcasm). I'm against crony capitalism as much as the next person, but redistribution of the wealth, in any manner shouldn't be the answer. Pointing out crony capitalism isn't a novel idea, as much as you protesters pretend it is. 

I was against the movement from the beginning, but I had no idea that the occupiers were so very concerned with my education before. Perhaps it was just that media sensationalism distorting  views on all fronts, or perhaps, when they decided to come to college campuses, they decided to make it sound more appealing to college students:

                      Flip side of their points: ....lower tuition....more financial aid....more quality....

Sounds great, right? 

I must admit, I'm getting rather mixed signals from the Occupy Campus movements, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Are these the real points and issues they are asking our nation to address, or are these issues just shading some other agenda? I'm not sure the Occupiers know, so at least we're in the same boat.

To quote Steven Crowder, "I don't know, I just don't know." 

Peace Out,

-But only cause I want your support!