The UCL biosphere was once again knocked out of equilibrium on 21 March by the third incarnation of UCL Occupation. At 2pm, around 40 students and activ- ists swarmed across the quad to capture the UCL Registry complex in a planned siege. The protesters rapidly shifted into occupation mode, eject- ing staff and forming commit- tees, sub groups and meetings.
Following an original or- der to leave on the Monday, a final ultimatum was laid down by the management one day later insisting that if the en- tire occupation had not left by 5pm on 22 March, then anyone identifiable by CCTV would face disciplinary ac- tion from the College - up to and including expulsion.
The rapid and stern re- sponse seems to have divided strategy within the posse, espe- cially amongst those approach- ing the end of their degree courses. There were scenes of former occupiers begging their comrades to leave as se- curity staff ghosted around the South Junction shortly after the expiration of the deadline.
At this stage there is uncertainty as to what repercussions will hit the group (UCL manage- ment refused to comment on punitive measures) but it is clear that a tougher line is be- ing taken against this occupa- tion in comparison to the last two. UCL Press Office has confirmed that management is looking to initiate court proceedings against the oc- cupation as soon as possible.
The occupiers hope that their actions will contribute to the overall political discourse, attracting attention to the UCU lecturers’ strikes taking place on 22 and 24 March. By voicing dissent now, they believe that they are helping build the storm that will wash over Whitehall on the 26 March, another day of action for the National Cam- paign Against Fees and Cuts.
Inconvenience to students
However the timing and location of the disruption has been called into question. Sev- eral comments have appeared on the UCL Occupation blog from people claiming to be ad- ministrative staff who see the action as an inconvenience to students and Registry work- ers that will have little bear- ing on management decisions.
UCL Registry - rather than being a pawn in Malcolm Grant’s world domination agenda - exists to provide ser- vices to students. These include short notice access to emer- gency funds to bridge the gap between student loan instal- ments, finalising exam time- tables and printing academic transcripts. Since the occupa- tion began all these activities have been brought to a halt. Registry has issued a statement confirming that its seven offices are closed until further notice.
Some of the occupiers seemed unsure exactly what the Registry actually does, with ‘General Administration’ be- ing a typical response; UCLU Education and Campaigns Of- ficer Michael Chessum was reluctant to give an answer. When asked what the ambition of this occupation was, one prominent activist mused, ‘I don’t think anyone knows yet, I’m sure we want something.’
Massive angry backlash
No demands were actu- ally issued until after the oc- cupation had been asked to leave; at that point a state- ment calling on UCL not to implement tuition fee increas- es and to lobby against cuts was used to justify the siege.
The occupation has sparked anger from some uni- versity and Union staff. Mandy Smith, UCLU Democracy and Engagement Officer com- mented that ‘picking the final week of term… doesn’t make any sense to me. As ever, rather than engaging [with] students they are setting themselves up for a massive angry backlash.’
While no one was will- ing to speak for the occupa- tion as a whole, it is clear that its aim is expressly not to en- gage with students but rather to cause disruption and spread a message of solidarity. In these latter two goals, activ- ists have certainly succeeded.
There were mixed feelings over Trotsky Inc’s first attempt at campus revolution (see The Cheese Grater issue 27) but at least there was a clear and de- finable battle: the upcoming Parliamentary vote on tuition fees. Causing far more disrup- tion with far less support, all for a rather indistinct target, implies that the activist core may be becoming aware of its marginalisation. Following a fall in numbers from around two hundred in the occupation of the Jeremy Bentham Room to around fifty involved occu- pying the Old Refectory and Registry, it seems that many have chosen to express their discontent by other means.
The first occupation at- tracted journalists, comedi- ans and musicians. The third has cast light on the unionist core that, although present throughout the movement, in- creasingly seems to be all that remains. The Old Refectory occupation in February lacked the smiles, the cupcakes, the timeline, the dancing, the natu- ral light and, most importantly, the Febreze, all of which were seen in the JBR Occupation.
The importance of the right to non-violent action through civil disobedience cannot be underestimated, but protest has to be popu- lar to be effective. Depend- ing on one’s viewpoint, the Registry Occupation could either be a solid statement of solidarity with the university unions or a disruption that distracts from the wider issue and drags students who wish to stand by their lecturers into the management’s line of fire.