AIMING TO DISPLEASE
Although many of the specific demands that Occupy Harvard issued were met during the occupation and soon after, the extent to which the occupation served as the impetus for these changes seems minimal.
Reinvestment in HEI, for example, was an issue under discussion in the University long before Occupy came to campus.
“This was definitely an issue SLAM was addressing before,” Whitham said.
University Executive Vice President Katie N. Lapp issued a statement in December announcing that Harvard would reconsider the controversial investment, a move that occupiers heralded as a victory. But when the Harvard Management Company announced in March that it would not reinvest in HEI, it made it clear that it was a decision based not on the ethical concerns raised by Occupy but rather on the financial viability of the asset.
“Importantly, this decision was based on factors related to the HMC portfolio and its strategy and needs, not on concerns about HEI’s practices,” HMC President and CEO Jane L. Mendillo wrote in an email to Faust.
Occupy Harvard also claimed responsibility for the signing of a just contract for custodial workers. But while Wayne M. Langley, the director for higher education at SEIU Local 615, said that union organizers were grateful for the “important presence” of Occupy, they believed that the outcome of the contract negotiations was probably not affected by the movement.
“I think the results would probably have been similar if we had not had protesters,” said Langley, though he noted that he did appreciate the support.
Beyond specific goals, Occupy prided itself on bringing issues like economic inequality to the forefront of the community’s conversations.
“Messaging was really important—it is important not only to say how they feel, but to communicate it in a way that other people can understand and that can bring people together,” Narefsky said.
To some, that message made its mark. Former Undergraduate Council President Senan Ebrahim ’12 said that the movement “polarized students and administrators [but] opened up the conversation.”
Ebrahim is now involved in Responsible Investment at Harvard, a group of students who hope to influence the manner in which Harvard manages its money, a goal that echoes the ideas touted by Occupy. He said he believes that Occupy Harvard helped spur the group’s creation.
Others said that Occupy could have been more successful at voicing its opinions.
“The most ineffective part of the Occupy movement was definitely communication,” Whitham said. “It definitely hindered how far this movement could go.”
Narefsky agreed, “It’s important for protesters to think about the way they put forth their message. It could have been done more deliberately. It’s always a struggle.”
But even with the iconic dome cleared away and the people who call themselves occupiers at Harvard down to a few diehards, those who slept in tents for their beliefs this past fall see cause to celebrate their lasting impact, however embattled and unpopular their protest was. Because in the end, the aim of Occupy was not to please but to inconvenience.
“It unavoidably disrupted the comfortable image of Harvard as a constant contributor to society, of everybody being happy,” Sheehy-Skeffington said. “It interrupted that for students, professors, the president, tourists—and forced a new conversation.”
—Staff writer Mercer R. Cook can be reached at mcook@college.harvard.edu.
—Staff writer Hana N. Rouse can be reached at hrouse@college.harvard.edu.