thanks a lot for doing this. it's great to see people acting in the street in any capacity.
I would just like to say that I do take back a little about what I said in regard to Wikileaks, as this article was ill-timed by the fact that shortly after a string of riotous rebellions if not revolutions took place throughout the middle-east which can in-part be related to the spark of Tunisia which was partially influenced by revelations from Wikileaks. However, I do think we should aknowledge that legitimate work, conditions, and other factors were probably the main cause of these upheavils, Wikileaks being essentially the straw that broke the camel's back.
we're assuming Durango is way too far to ask y'all to come table, but if you can make it down to Wild Roots Feral Futures this June we definitely support radical folks doing distro as an act of solidarity & mutual aid in our own internal movement fund-raising. So if you can make it down with some distro stuff, that would be rad!
The Dirty Hands Collective is calling on radicals in Colorado and everywhere to go to the Durango Herald website and post comments supporting queer liberation and condemning military recruitment in our schools.
I wish I could have been there! Good Job!
I admire your values, commitment, and strong character. But your supposition is incorrect. Violence does work. For example, the situation you were protesting against was brought about through violence. War, colonialism, slavery, genocide, and expropriation of resources are all acts of extreme violence, and they have been the primary shapers of the world we live in and hope to change.
There are important roles in positive change that are not only non-violent, but gain best results under the charge of people with a commitment to non-violence. These roles are involved with creating and building the new institutions we will utilize when the current order is obliterated. They must be non-violent institutions, so they are best conceived by someone with a non-violent mindset. But the sociopaths who run the world are not going to give up what they have usurped without a fight. They are not like you. Nor are they like me.
...for posting this article and all the excellent pics. Sorry I missed this action.
I don't know of any countries where the U.S. has assured fair elections, though I can think of plenty where it has assured that someone favorable to the U.S. government and business interests will be elected.
This story posted twice. I have removed the duplication.
So, in the aftermath of spending too many late nights spent in front of my computer, firing off rounds with the LOIC, I neglected to think about looking here for comrades.
I was really disappointed that I couldn't find any plans for a march/rally in Denver on the Saturday day of solidarity with Wikileaks that happened a few weeks back.
Any upcoming plans?
"This isn't even worth the read."
Well I do wonder if you read it, as you seem to be making false conclusions. I wonder if you missed the point where I said, 'I do not mean to malign Wikileaks or the work that individuals in that organization do to fight for justice or subvert the system, but neither do I find their work to be the pinnacle of human endeavor."
I also think that you assumed that I was talking about strategy on a much longer-term, larger scale than I meant to.
"Wikileaks is doing what "radicals" have thus far failed miserably to do, especially those who blindly and indecisively call for actions they describe using a vocabulary of general terms that people can too easily interpret differently, and without foresight, skills or experience, which is fundamentally irresponsible."
Generally I agree with you on this point.
"Wikileaks is releasing cables, albeit a little recklessly, but that is for a good reason, and that reason is that the State Department wasn't entirely sure whether or not the leaks incriminate them to their own public and will scurry about, as they have, making a mockery of their own image, in order to try and cover their hides."
I don't personally find it reckless...
"The cables do include some rather alarming and incriminating things that, granted holier-than-thou 'radicals' didn't need in order to believe, but the rest of civilization - especially courts of law, as well as the realistic and professional media (excluding the U.S. "mainstream" that is entirely corporate perhaps) certainly is needed in order to make a case."
Ok, but my point is that it never would have been covered by the media in the first place if it wasn't already somewhat mild and if our society wasn't already so cynical... That's all I'm saying.
"Believing, or for that matter using beliefs as an excuse for reckless abandon and arrogant but militant self-indulgence portrayed as struggle (yet another bourgeois facade, although a different one), is much different and less relevant than making a case."
Alright, I don't exactly know what you're refering to, but I can make a good guess... And you might be right except that I disagree with your charchterization of it as "bourgeois" and the guilt-by-association fallacy that the whole concept of anti-bourgeois polemic is based upon. Again, the case is great, what wikileaks is doing is good, it's just not that important... it would be a drop in the bucket if not for the media.
"A case can lead to actual action, not merely protests and graffiti, and BS, but activity in terms of effectively challenging power, for example secretly arming and training a militia in the wilderness and then declaring actual war on the state and its institutions"
I don't see how wikileaks will lead to an armed revolution. Nor do I see any other example in recent history where "making a case" alone did so.
, ..."or more ethically but possibly less effectively taking someone to court and suing them. Most effectively in the sense of changing binding laws." alright...? Is wikileaks doing that either?
"Getting random civilians to believe something is only half of making a case, if that."
"Lots of people see atrocities in media that is not mainstream and all it compels them to do is send donations, sign petitions and maybe go to a protest once in awhile."
Interesting point, but it's hard to really back that up with facts. I'm of the opinion that all kinds of information sources are beneficial, especially if the information itself is.
"Now, getting back to what Wikileaks is doing that 'radicals' often and especially more recently miserably fail to do, they are compelling the State Dept. et. al. to incriminate themselves, and showing up the media to the extent that the media pundits commentate themselves into a hole, a ratings hole." You're right about the State Department, not about the media. The media could have potentially simply not reported on this story.
"It is the same old method 'radicals' used in the past, even Che Guevara provoked the regime in Cuba to expose its cruelty to its own people, which ruined Batista's image and made Che and Castro look like heroes."
Good. I don't know about any specifics but assuming for the sake of argument that youre right about the facts, I wonder how that info or "case" was presented - radical / independent press or corporate/private? I also wonder the degree to which the two situations are not comparable (role of unions and an underground to spread info, lack of media monopolies, other conditions). There certainly was pleanty of radical messaging and simple slogans spray painted everywhere too. But that wasn't all Che and Castro did, now was it..
"And you think Assange is using the threat of exposing truth to compel the lying and conniving governments to incriminate themselves in childish and pathetic attempts to save their reputations, which of course are reputations dependent on the masses' believing the lies that design them."
I don't exactly understand this sentence, could you please be more clear. But it seems like I agree with these facts.
"It is somewhat sad when people claiming to be the most 'radical' of radicals don't even notice that when it happens."
Well, I don't see why that's so sad, if an event is so global in scale that our power to do anything about it so relatively small that we don't bother to read the daily news, that really is not an indictment of our beliefs or actions even. However, I think that the reverse is true, and that too many people pay too much attention to the regular gossip of the global media.
"It isn't worth your time, much less the Wikileaks groups' time to have a pissing contest. "
You're right. I wasn't trying to. Re-read my post.
However, since you mentioned it, some people do view Wikileaks as a sexist, heirarchical organization and have started OpenLeaks, if you want to get involved in that debate. I certainly don't.
This isn't even worth the read. Wikileaks is doing what "radicals" have thus far
failed miserably to do, especially those who blindly and indecisively call for actions
they describe using a vocabulary of general terms that people can too easily interpret
differently, and without foresight, skills or experience, which is fundamentally irresponsible.
Wikileaks is releasing cables, albeit a little recklessly, but that is for a good reason,
and that reason is that the State Department wasn't entirely sure whether or not the leaks incriminate them to their own public and will scurry about, as they have, making a mockery of their own image, in order to try and cover their hides.
The cables do include some rather alarming and incriminating things that, granted holier-than-thou 'radicals' didn't
need in order to believe, but the rest of civilization - especially courts of law, as well as the realistic and professional
media (excluding the U.S. "mainstream" that is entirely corporate perhaps) certainly is needed in order to make a case.
Believing, or for that matter using beliefs as an excuse for reckless abandon and arrogant but militant self-indulgence portrayed as struggle (yet another bourgeois facade, although a different one), is much different and less relevant than making a case.
A case can lead to actual action, not merely protests and graffiti, and BS, but activity in terms of effectively challenging power, for example secretly arming and training a militia in the wilderness and then declaring actual war on the state and its institutions, or more ethically but possibly less effectively taking someone to court and suing them. Most effectively in the sense of changing binding laws. Getting random civilians to believe something is only half of making a case, if that. Lots of people see atrocities in media that is not mainstream and all it compels them to do is send donations, sign petitions and maybe go to a protest once in awhile.
Now, getting back to what Wikileaks is doing that 'radicals' often and especially more recently miserably fail to do, they are compelling the State Dept. et. al. to incriminate themselves, and showing up the media to the extent that the media pundits commentate themselves into a hole, a ratings hole. It is the same old method 'radicals' used in the past, even Che Guevara provoked the regime in Cuba to expose its cruelty to its own people, which ruined Batista's image and made Che and Castro look like heroes. They arguably could never have taken Cuba were it not for that. Assange is using the threat of exposing truth to compel the lying and conniving governments to incriminate themselves in childish and pathetic attempts to save their reputations, which of course are reputations dependent on the masses' believing the lies that design them. It is somewhat sad when people claiming to be the most 'radical' of radicals don't even notice that when it happens.
It isn't worth your time, much less the Wikileaks groups' time to
have a pissing contest.
Here is the unfortunately truth. When college becomes free who will clean your toilets? Who will pick up your garbage? Who is going to choose one of these professions (which are just as necessary as doctors and lawyers) when they can say they have a degree in biochemistry or whatever they choose. So it will then come down to whomever can hack it in higher education. Or do you propose that we should do away with a grading system as well? And when this happens who will pay the professors that are teaching these students? Not the government, please don't say the government. The truth is that the money has to come from somewhere to pay for the elecricity, the building expansions, the professor's paycheck, etc. Anarchism is no different than Communism in that it hinges on the idea that human-kind is inherantly good. We are not. We will take advantage of anyone and everyone to better ourselves. Anarchism is Utopian and unrealistic. This is the ugly truth.
So what exactly, if given the chance, would an Anarchist do to change things? From what I understand an Anarchist believes in no government. Who then will bring justice to those who continue to do evil? Who will decide what steps to take? Here is a quote from Erik Fortman who writes "Anarchism=Freedom.
"Anarchists are not against structure; they are against hierarchical structure. The pyramid exists in anarchy. Conversely, the base rules, chooses its family and community leaders, and on up to the top."
But how is that different from Democracy? The bottom choosing the leaders from the bottom up? I really would like to know.
Dave you have my apologies. I myself only recieved a text a half hour befor the rally started saying the strike had ended and so I did not fault people for not knowing it. I spoke to at least four people who where unaware that it was over.
I was standing some distance back when you gave your talk and so was unable to hear the first two thirds of it. I obviously missed the important parts and again I am sorry. It's not that I was not listening it is that I and I am sure others simple could not hear.
At any rate it was a good rally. My sincere apologies for missing that you said that.
I stated multiple times that the strike was over. In fact, in the reminders for the demonstration that were sent out yesterday, they clearly said "the strike might be over, but the struggle continues".
The entire point of the speech I gave was about the threats that prisoners have made, NOW THAT THE STRIKE IS OVER, to carry out violent rebellion against the prisons...
And everyone I know in the crowd knew it was over...
I don't know where this misunderstanding came from, but makes me feel that you didn't listen to a word I or anyone else said last night...
Come on people, did we expect anything different from a board of regents that has a history like this one has? After all they where on the leading edge in supporting McCarthy in the 50's and zealously purged the UC system of communist.
It is hard to imagine a more right wing and anti freedom group as the UC regents who also seem to hate intellectuals and education when it leads to questioning the blind patriotic vitriol that so many of the regents seem to spew out. These people represent the plutocrats that have destroyed the middle class and their goal is not real education but rather the manufacture of good worker bees for the ruling elite.
It would bode well if people would read what some of these regents have said and where they come from. I urge all of you to check them out.
You apperceive what, if I'm a racist for not absent to accompany a medievil adoration that thinks annihilation innocent women and accouchement is OK, that thinks throwing acerbic in the face of girls just because they wish to go to academy is religiously sanctioned, that glorifies the ache and crime of humans who accept differently...well OK you got me. I accept it, I abhorrence the haters."
Again, you're basing the angle of an absolute citizenry (the fastest growing adoration in the world) off of a few individuals who accept been added or beneath ostracised from their own religious group. I grew up in the UAE, a country that's appropriate next to Saudi Arabia. I knew lots of believers of Islam and even now in the states I still do. Of all of the humans I've met, none of them even got abutting to accepting accord appear or assertive in the accomplishments of Bin Laden and the assorted added humans you've mentioned. For the a lot of part, followers of Islam are a amiable group, abounding of them abutting Pacifism as Pathology. I animate you to attending at the 5 pillars of Islam, the 5 founding statements that ascertain a lot of the base for Islamic ethics.
"On the added hand, your bloggers accept little believability and I can't advice but admiration if there is a advanced straek of Jew hatered active in this community. I haven't apparent abundant in the way of criticism of Hamas here. Why not? Their declared ambition is the abolition of Israel. Is that OK with you? Is it OK they body hundreds of afar of tunnels for their accoutrements and bombs and leaders but not a individual bomb apartment for their people? Is it OK to shoot hundreds of their adolescent Arabs artlessly because they accord to addition political party? Is it OK they use schools and awful busy civilann areas to shoot their accoutrements and missiles alive any respose from Israel will aftereffect in noncombatant casualties?"
I don't anticipate anybody actuality has said that they abhorrence Jewish humans or that they would like to see them all dead or annihilation of that order. Denouncing Israeli attacks on Gaza do not automatically beggarly abutment for Hamas, but that's your logic. It's simple to accuse an absolute citizenry of humans (Islam) based on the accomplishments of a few (Bin Laden). What's abundant added difficult, mature, and reasonable is to attending at the motivations of said baddest individuals and acquisition some way to chronicle to them. Imagine that you, your family, and your absolute ethnicity had been active about for bags of years. One day, something happened that dead off a lot of of your ancestors and relatives. Sounds like the Holocaust doesn't it? Also sounds like activity for those active in Palestine. testinside The Jewish people, afterwards the Holocaust, appropriately acclaimed that they should accept their own safe-haven to anticipate something like that from accident again. I don't accept any botheration with that. They best Israel because it was accustomed to them by somebody abroad and for its religious significance. Instead of amalgam with the association they confused into, they austere the hell out of it until everybody left. And they're still accomplishing it.
Hey, what can I say. I am what I eat? After all, I've lived on a steady diet of hateful talk from the Religion of Peace (I don't want to say anything that might be hurtful to any minorities) who have been telling the world that if they don't convert they'll be killed. The talk's not new, it's been going on since the seventh century. You know what, if I'm a racist for not wanting to join a medievil religion that thinks butchering innocent women and children is OK, that thinks throwing acid in the face of girls just because they want to go to school is religiously sanctioned, that glorifies the torture and defilement of people who believe differently...well OK you got me. I admit it, I hate the haters.
On the other hand, your bloggers have little credibility and I can't help but wonder if there is a wide straek of Jew hatered running in this community. I haven't seen much in the way of criticism of Hamas here. Why not? Their stated goal is the destruction of Israel. Is that OK with you? Is it OK they build hundreds of miles of tunnels for their guns and bombs and leaders but not a single bomb shelter for their people? Is it OK to shoot hundreds of their fellow Arabs simply because they belong to another political party? Is it OK they use schools and highly populated civilann areas to shoot their guns and missiles knowing any respose from Israel will result in civilian casualties?
I feel bad about the women and children in the crossfire (except the ones who've been on the news talking about how they want to become martyrs) I really do. But elections have test inside consequences and in war things get broken. The people of Gaza elected Hamas who started a war with Israel (because they want to destroy Israel right?) What we see today should come as no surprise but I am baffled by your community's decision to come down squarely on the side of the Barbarians.
I do think this is an exceptional cause, and we must need to wake up for this reality in our country. I think free college tuition must be a right in America. It shocked me to know one of these days that they have free university even in places like Brazil and Cuba.. So the question is what is wrong with our system? Specially after the that our economy passed through, I think it is time to look to the future and start to make a change, and make this happen in America!
Colleen you should do a little reading. The mortgage crisis was cased be the government failing to regulate securities and investment banks and is a direct result of the repeal of Glass Spiegel and other long standing laws.
Health care is a part of why the economy is bad but not for the reasons you wrongly think. Our health care in America is very poor we rank 37 in overall health in the world and 35th in infant health because of it. We pay more then any country in the developed world for this outcome which puts small business at a competitive disadvantage.
The coast of education is also a direct result of conservative and librarian policies that have hurt America. Librarian economic principles (I'm guessing you are one from your short post) are just one more flavor of fascism of the economic type.
From what the news tells me the recession has been over for months! The truth is it's very much not. I'm seeing very respectable people not being able to find a job for the life of them. My brother for example has a good education, and experience to back it up. The problem is most people will tell him he is over qualified, or they just don't have the room for new employees. For instance he finally got fed up and applied for a roofing postition, they still wouldn't hire. It probably doesn't help that we have people working under the table for cheap being paid in cash either. As they say,"It's a hard knock life, for us".
I've seen many professors in Colorado get thrown out for their political 1st amendment speech and activities over the last few years. (There are many other examples from around the country as well, like David Graber). Usually they only target faculty without tenure (with the notable exception of Ward Churchill, whose appeal will soon be decided) because it's much more easy. I assume that Dr. Evans did not have full tenure (or else there would be a faculty review before termination). I went to school in Boulder and usually they'd pressure faculty to resign first, like Lowe of the INVEST program, but one notable case similar to Dr. Evans is that of Adrienne Anderson. Anderson was a major thorn in the side to CU Boulder's two biggest contributors, Lockheed Martin and Coors. Students protested for reinstatement but unfortunately were unsuccessful. On the other hand, Jim Walsh, a labor historian at CU Denver was threatened with termination recently and students there organized in support, and whether or not that had any effect, that is an exact understand of causation is unknown to me, but either way Walsh managed to keep his job.
But the article speaks to larger issues of student activism. It seems that Fort Lewis might not be used to protests critical of the administration. The Admin is playing the same game that every administrator plays, although perhaps not very well in this case, with the Kent State reference, which is actually quite off, historically and morally. The people who were shot weren't even part of the protest, they were just walking by. I think the people in this campaign are pretty savvy and much of this might seem rudimentary, but allow me to indulge in some advice without condescension or offense.
One campaign at CU Boulder less than 5 years ago where a genuine threat of a sit-in brought the administration to the table and demands won (however, it was for something much less difficult for the admin to swallow than reinstatement of a professor). Also, that sit-in had the support of the city community, most especially much older activists who might make the university look good when they peperspray and arrest geriatrics in wheel chairs and such (people sympathize with that more than college students).
But on the other hand you can look at the recent sit-ins in California and how ineffectual they were (although they were mostly young and middle aged participants, not much older allies), and how the university did prosecute the students.
But back to my point about the Admin game plan, they have several strategies and rebuttals that they use. It is important to have a savvy media campaign and also a savvy talking point list to effectively rebut the criticism, as the media will often take sides with the Admin or give them the last word. This is a well-developed Administration Public-Relations hand-book (metaphorically speaking) These are by no means exhaustive :
The 1st Admin strategy is to ignore, and not give any impetus to the cause by recognizing it, especially in the media. This is only done so-long as the university/college does not feel like it has anything to risk in its public image because the activists are too disorganized, small, etc. to be taken seriously by anyone important.
The 2nd strategy is to infantilize the students with ad hominem attacks (a fallacy of logic). It comes from a cultural tradition of "in loco parentis" where Universities and schools used to act like they were your parents, and exercised some of the same rights, after all back then adulthood wasn't until 21, as 21 was the age to vote and also to be drafted before Vietnam (see the documentary Berkley in the 60s, a MUST for any student activist). They treat you as childlike in the sense of inability to really have a well-formed judgment or to make your own opinions, essentially less than fully human. This is patently false, both biologically and legally. These attacks can be as blatant as calling students spoiled kids, and irrational, or as subtle as making references to youth, emotionality, etc.
The 3rd strategy is to appease the students, making gestures of openness without surrendering any ground. Open door policies are one tactic, another is the announcement of forming special committees to discuss the subject and "deal with" the subject, but the committees are usually not delegated any real power, instead they are just advisory. Students from the activist organization try to get on the committees, usually with only one representative or two, the rest are chosen by the admin or faculty, and maybe one by the student government. Committees are used to waste the students' time and attention, and to distract them. The main strategy is to sap the momentum of the issue so that students lose all of their support. They can drag on for years. Even when they do make sensible recommendations, the good recommendations are almost always ignored by the Administration. Sometimes the 3rd strategy is skipped if the demands of the students are very radical, because to even appear to partially agree to the legitimacy of radical demands makes the college lose face to its conservative controllers and donors.
The 4th strategy is often concomitant to some of the others, but usually not, unless they are already losing the media battle or at least you are already getting some press. This is to have a formal PR/Media campaign against the student group. The Admin takes a big risk by doing this, attracting more attention to the activists. However, if done well, it can completely discredit them. Usually the admin will get more articles, longer articles, more prominent articles, and the last word in every article. One reason for this is because for the journalists, the admin is a much more newsworthy source and story than student activists. The paper also usually has an editor-in-chief who is conservative or agrees with the admin (look at the consolidation of the media if you don't believe me). Sometimes reporters can be very liberal, but the editor controls everything, and even uses liberal reporters to gain access to weaknesses and problems in the students' groups.
The 1st tactic is the Red Hearing tactic (also a fallacy of logic). The newspaper writes a story about you, but to be "objective" they have to contact the admin for an opinion. This will usually be the last word. They don't just quote the admin in response to your accusations/demands/questions. Usually, they'll also print something else that the admin says, and not go back to you to respond to the new accusation from the Admin. So say you say that Tina Evans was fired for her politics, the article will state your opinion, then ask for a comment by the Admin to rebuff it, but the Armin’s PR person will comment about something else, say that Tina Evans doesn't want to fight her termination. Whether or not its' true, its probably irrelevant to the question of why she was fired. Secondly, you are not given the ability to respond to the new accusation, so the newspaper is not really being objective (but hey, objective journalism is like the tooth fairy). I saw Red Herring being employed in one article on the FLC paper.
The 2nd tactic is a pure media bias tactic, but the newspaper will just either give the Admin more space or state the best arguments from the admin, that are usually sophisticated, while your quotes will be vague and distorted. Often the paper will write an introductory comment or closing comment in every article taking the Admin's understanding of the facts (such as in Churchill, The Colorado Daily always wrote at the beginning or end, "Professor Churchill was fired for academic misconduct" which in fact was the whole question, and although nobody disputes the fact that he was terminated, the question was always why. A jury of his peers found that he was fired for 1st amendment free speech, not academic misconduct - see wardchuchill.net)
The final strategy (5) is to criminalize the students. If the Admin is doing this then you know you've done something right! This strategy can take the form of ad hominem attacks (name calling) in the media, threats, surveillance, sanction, or even arrest/prosecution (not necessarily for anything more than downloading music, jaywalking, or other bulshit charges). At this point the Admin has given up on trying to destroy your group from the inside, and can only isolate it or smash it. Sometimes you can fight these attacks in the media, or legally (a great resources, although libertarian and therefore kind of right-wing, but none-the-less principled is TheFIRE.org, foundation for individual rights in education. They've routinely helped students who faced sanctions from University officials. ) Otherwise, you need to make sure that by this stage you have your own media and that you keep your members and allies very well informed of your intentions and the facts so they are not scared off. Having a very tight-knit movement is the key, and constantly pressing back against the attacks with outrage, if only in print.
Anyhow, to fight these strategies there are several strategies for activists:
1. Now, the FLC media might be slightly more friendly than my experience. Nevertheless, I recommend develop talking points and sticking to them. Some of them can be secret. Everyone in your group should either be extremely knowledgeable about the situation or should ALWAYS defer to a media contact that is. The person who is should stick to the talking points. Put these out in press releases before rallies or media events. Feel free to change your talking points as a group when needed. The Talking points should be simple, clear, and indisputable. They can be questions or statements, but they should be very short (easier to quote) and backed up by evidence. However, let the evidence speak for itself. Don't talk about anything besides the points. Journalists will become frustrated, and ask you questions. But remember, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER MEDIA QUESTIONS. Often they will ask questions that they will use against you, (like, how did you get started in activism? - the purpose is to psychologically and sociologically isolate you and paint you as fringe or essentially less-than-fully-human.) ( Another example is, asking about who funds your group, what age you are - usually done to isolate older 'professional activists' as not part of the traditional student body and therefore illegitimate representations and other cultural questions meant to make you look different) (Some journalists will even ask one member of the group to comment on the decision of the whole group or answer questions about other people. Never do this, at best it’s displaying your dirty laundry in public, at worst it's snitching. ) Journalists may even ask you about the substantive issues, but you should avoid answering unless you have a rock-solid short response based on evidence (and its best to just refer to the evidence by handing them a copy rather than talking), or a quick quip back , like a question answering a question. Never go into the detailed reasoning for your arguments with outsiders like journalists because it can be taken out of context. Don't be rude, but after a while of repeating the talking points the journalists will get that you’re not answering their bullshit questions.
2. Be creative. This is activism 101, but seriously, the media is not your friend, but it still loves anything catchy, funny, or controversial. IF you can do an action or make a display which says your point for you in a way that the media can't criticize as boring, emotional, juvenile, etc. it's 10x better than any interview or Op-Ed. The best is to be Ironic, but sometimes being insulting is also great, seriously.
3. Be Bold. Traditional fliering locations, chalking, or other methods of outreach are ineffective. If it's sanctioned, don't do it. Campuses have rules about such things that are really violations of the 1st amendment (see theFire.org) . The entire campus is a free speech area. Students learn to tune-out messages from sanctioned channels, mediums, and locations. Putting them elsewhere in different and unusual ways makes them not only standout, but also the medium of your message says that you're not another bullshit club, and that you're serious, skilled, and smart! I'm talking banner drops, spray paint, wheat pasting, and more. Also, call the Admin on their shit. If they're infantalizing, say so, if they're using ad hominem, make a point of it. Know the fallacies of logic. Defeat their arguments with simple one-sentence references to fallacies of logic or references to the facts. This can be done in media quotes, op-eds, fliers, pamphlets, conversations, etc.
Another part of being bold is not being afraid to do personal attacks. Bad decisions are made by people, and they'e the ones responsible, not just the group to which they belong. Calling out individual admin members, rather than institutions, really affects them psychologically, and draws more media attention. And, damn it’s being real too. The best kind of attack is to find evidence of a serious contradiction in their statements and/or actions. The second best is to just focus on one outrageous statement, action, or lack of action (The Kent State threat is a good one in this case). Be creative with this too, but also be bold enough to take unusual actions as long as you are smart about it (not getting caught). Make sure that you have some factual basis for your attack and also that you don't push it so far that they fear for their safety. People don't like to give in when they feel their personal safety is threatened.
Millitary runs on public money. So it is also their duty to remember the public interest while doing anything.