Oct 24

Oct 24 SAIC Walkout

Public Declarations, Protest, Performance, Demonstrations

At noon today, students at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (“SAIC”) staged a walkout from classes to protest the War in Gaza. Given prior demonstrations at the Art Institute of Chicago, this was one not to be missed. In May, the Chicago Police Department arrested 68 protesters who had set up an encampment in the Art Institute’s North Garden, which the encampers named Hind’s Garden, honoring a six-year-old Palestinian child who had been killed in Gaza. The charges against the demonstrators, some who were SAIC students, were eventually dropped.

The May demonstration was not the first protest addressing the Art Institute’s role in the War in Gaza. On November 10, 2023, the group, Behind Enemy Lines, staged a protest outside the Art Institute’s Modern Wing. That demonstration focused on the Crown Family’s relationship to the Art Institute. At one time, the family held a significant ownership interest in General Dynamics, a defense contractor that manufactures munitions used by the Israeli Defense Forces in the ongoing war. Over time, the family has significantly reduced its ownership interests in General Dynamics, with its current ownership stake at 10%, according to Forbes Magazine.

Those demonstrating in November demanded that the Art Institute’s board of trustees: (i) cut ties with the Crown Family; (ii) refuse all future Crown Family donations; (iii) remove Steven Crown from the board of trustees; (iv) rename the Henry Crown Gallery; and (v) end the Crown Professorship at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). The students today were demanding that the Art Institute cut all ties with the Crown Family, a demand that presumably encompasses the earlier ones.

At the November 10th demonstration, the protesters marched to the Art Institute’s main entrance on Michigan Avenue, and then rushed up the stairs to the entranceway. The police and museum security officials successfully prevented the demonstrators from gaining access to the museum (if that was the intent). The question on everyone’s mind: would something similar to what happened in May or last November occur today?

I arrived shortly before noon at SAIC’s building at 36 South Wabash, only to find two police officers standing on the corner, but no student protesters. I asked the officers whether they knew whether this was where the demonstration was taking place. They responded by asking me essentially the same question—we were all in the dark. Then another photographer arrived. The two of us eventually decided to head to 112 South Michigan Avenue, where SAIC has another facility across the street from the north end of the Art Institute’s campus. Upon arrival, we found two or three dozen students milling about, many wearing kaffiyehs, some holding banners. Several bicycle cops were already in position.

As advertised, at or shortly after noon, more students streamed out of the building. Simultaneously, more police officers arrived. The ensuing demonstration adhered to a well-honed protocol—speeches and chants, followed by a march, this time to the Art Institute, where bicycle-rack barricades blocked access to the museum’s main entranceway. Several demonstrators spoke outside the Art Institute, as wary security officials stood on the steps and the museum’s beloved lions symbolically stood guard, although not yet in their holiday red bows.

The students then marched south to a strip of land in Grant Park separating the train tracks and Michigan Avenue. Once everyone was gathered in front of the statue of Sir George Solti, several demonstrators spoke.

Somewhere between 100 and 125 students took part in today’s demonstration. There were no arrests or incidents, although the photojournalists left before the demonstration ended. Despite no major drama, the demonstration produced two noteworthy incidents.

Dispute Over Doctrine. During the speeches in Grant Park, one speaker drew a favorable comparison between Hamas and the Black Panther Party. I didn’t see the subsequent dispute between one member of the Bob Avakian’s Revolutionary Communist Party (the “RevComs”) and several other demonstrators, but another photographer told me about it. The party member objected to the comparison, which resulted in a discussion off to the side between the RevCom and several demonstrators who took issue with his objections.

I did eventually photograph the member explaining his views, but the other photographer told me things had calmed down by then. She said someone had done a good job de-escalating what was at first a tense exchange.

When the sidebar broke up, I asked the RevCom why he objected to the comparison. According to him, the Black Panthers were liberators who had hoped to free Black people from the systematic oppression of capitalism. On the other hand, if I understood him correctly, Hamas is not interested in liberating the Palestinian people from their circumstances. He characterized Hamas as oppressors.

I had to laugh, because I am just finishing Adam Shatz’s well-reviewed biography of Frantz Fanon, The Rebel’s Clinic, The Revolutionary Lives of Frantz Fanon. Fanon was a psychiatrist who played a seminal role in the Algerian War of liberation during the Fifties. His thinking and tactics served as the foundation for much of the what was heard on the world’s streets during the protests marking the Sixties.

Fanon was influenced by Jean-Paul Sartre and other existentialist philosophers. Out of his efforts to meld philosophy with his experience as a doctor, Fanon developed a unique take on the oppressor-oppressed paradigm that is dominating current discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In describing the intellectual debates surrounding Fanon and others as they worked out the ideas that now influence the pro-Palestinian movement, Shatz recounts countless disagreements over seemingly minute points of doctrine that could splinter groups into opposing factions, if not resulting in the assassination of those deemed not ideologically pure.

Before my eyes, I was witnessing a similar ideological disagreement—one that largely ignored the common objective held by all the demonstrators who turned out today. In 1961, Sartre anticipated this sort of conflict in his Critique of Dialectical Reason. in describing this “fraternity of terror,” Shatz writes:

[The freedom] that revolutionaries fight for is threatened, if not doomed, by the coercive practices that bind them together against external threats (such are the ruling class or imperialism).

Fortunately, there was no violence today. In fact, everyone deserves kudos because what I witnessed turned into a peaceful airing of differing perspectives.

The same photographer who alerted me to the disagreement, also told me that one speaker had hailed the late Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, as a hero. That characterization strikes me as a knee-jerk and poorly thought-out reaction. Sinwar did irrefutable damage to the Palestinian people. The vast underground network of tunnels that Hamas built was financed with aid diverted from UNRWA and foreign countries; aid that could have been used to build hospitals, housing, and schools above ground that would have benefited the Palestinian people. Hamas, under Sinwar’s direction, purposely embedded itself in the civilian population, hoping that Israel would kill innocents as it tried to eradicate Hamas. For Sinwar, civilian deaths were a tactic, with those who are killed serving as easily-sacrificed pawns.

Do Sinwar’s misdeeds absolve Israel of responsibility for its uncalibrated response to October 7? No, both sides bear responsibility for the ongoing debacle in the Middle East. Neither side has clean hands.

Attempted Control Over Coverage. I was covering the event, together with three other independent photojournalists who regularly cover demonstrations in Chicago. During the dispute between several demonstrators and the RevCom, we were told we could not photograph the discussions.

Shortly thereafter, I saw a scene that I knew would produce a great photograph. Four demonstrators were sitting on a park bench, apparently stepping away from the demonstration for some sort of confab. The early afternoon light was beautiful; and the four figures seated on the bench were pleasingly configured.

I chose not to take the photograph. My instincts told me someone would object. It just wasn’t worth it. One of my fellow photojournalists saw the same image, but she pointed her camera at the bench. She was then confronted by two or three of the women. They told her that she couldn’t take their photograph because they didn’t have their masks on. To ward them off, she showed them the image she had captured, which apparently didn’t include their faces. As a friendly point of information, the Covid-masks are not hiding anyone’s identity.

Both incidents reflect poorly on the demonstrators. Many people are concerned about Donald J. Trump’s efforts to bend the media to his will by threatening prosecution of reporters and revocation of broadcast licenses (often ‘non-existent’ licenses, a reflection of Trump’s ignorance). His threats do appear to be having the intended chilling effect, however, as evidenced by the decision by both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times to refrain from making traditional presidential endorsements this year. In both cases, the endorsement would have been for Vice-President Harris, but the endorsements were spiked by the higher ups.

Trump’s efforts to suppress First Amendment activity are both despicable and deplorable. The efforts of the students to restrict First Amendment activity are equally so. These are adults engaged in political activity in a public park and on city streets. The U.S. Supreme Court has been quite clear—they are fair game for photojournalists. If the students don’t want their identities captured, then they should refrain from protesting, or better disguise themselves.

One of the women who objected said that some students previously experienced problems when their images were published—she did not specify whether they were doxed, fired from jobs, expelled from school, or something else happened. Too bad. What those who interfered with our efforts are calling for is the right to demonstrate without any adverse consequences, reflecting a sense of entitlement most likely instilled by over-protective parents.

People who peacefully demonstrate shouldn’t be subject to adverse consequences, but it is not the media’s responsibility to insulate demonstrators from the consequences of their actions. We simply document and report what transpires.

Moreover, the students exhibit hypocrisy by demanding that the Art Institute cut ties with the Crown Family, including accepting contributions. According to U.S. News and World Report, tuition at SAIC for the 2024-25 school year is $56,420. Why do these students continue to attend SAIC if the school and the Art Institute refuse to cut ties with the Crown Family and profits from an unjust war? If every student who demonstrated today transferred to another school, it would send quite a message, given the adverse effect such action would have on SAIC’s bottom-line. Is transferring schools too much of an inconvenience, particularly when balanced against all the death and destruction in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon? Apparently, the students believe that they can make demands without backing their demands up with personal sacrifices.

[Click on an Image to Enlarge It. The Images Are Not Necessarily in Exact Chronological Order]