Another look at the Sir George Williams riot
Radio-Canada looks back at the Sir George Williams computer riot incident in February 1969. Students had good reason to object to a professor’s racism, although how destroying a computer (a rare and expensive item at that time) was meant to help their case has always been a mystery to me. But we’ve discussed it here before.
Blork 10:31 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
People – in particular, young people – are not particularly good at tactics and strategies when it comes to protesting, as was seen during the 2012 student protests and as described in this squirt-gun parable: https://www.blork.org/blorkblog/2012/08/28/the-squirt-gun-a-parable/
Meezly 11:30 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
From the article that was shared on Jan 2019:
“The only thing people know is that there was an occupation, that the computers were destroyed. That’s the narrative that has survived for 50 years.”
According to Wikipedia, this is what actually happened:
Most of the occupation was quite peaceful: the police were not involved, and negotiations continued. On 10 February 1969, an agreement was reached under which the students would leave the Hall building in exchange for a new committee to examine the allegations of prejudice against Anderson.[21] However, most of the students refused to leave the Hall building. The occupation continued until February 11 when negotiations broke down and riot police were called in to storm the Hall building.[22] After they learned that the university was planning to renege on the agreement, the remaining students began to barricade themselves in.[23] The faculty of Sir George Williams, siding with Anderson, vetoed the agreement to have a new committee appointed to examine the allegations of racial bias against black students.[24] Instead, the administration asked for the Montreal police to evict the students from the Hall building.[24]
As the police and the students fought in the halls, other students threw the computer punch cards out of the windows, littering the streets above with thousands of punch cards.[25] A fire broke out in the computer lab, forcing the occupiers out of the building; 97 of them were arrested. John accused the police of starting the fire: “The violence was perpetuated — I have no hesitation saying this — by the police and the administration. Are students going to start a fire when they’re locked in?”[26]
As the building burned, the crowds watching the scene from below chanted “Let the —–s burn!” and “Burn, —–s, burn!”.[27] As the students tried to escape from the burning building, they were arrested, subjected to racist insults and beaten savagely by the police.[24] Once in custody, the 87 students were divided by race with the 38 black students being separated from the white students.[24] The computer lab was destroyed, resulting in over $2 million in damage.[28] The entire incident was recorded live by television crews, and the most memorable image associated with the riot was smoke raising from the Hall building while the streets were swamped with punch cards.[29] Windows were broken and computer tapes and punched cards tossed onto the street below…. Public opinion in Canada was overwhelmingly against the students who were denounced as “rampaging criminals”, “thugs” and “anarchists”….
——-
Everyone should do their due diligence when commenting about property destruction that results from a protest, esp. a racially charged one, otherwise it sounds a lot like “BLM would get their message across better if they didn’t destroy storefronts.”
Kate 12:18 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
I apologize. I’ve cancelled what I wrote but left it under cancellation marks above so readers can see what Meezly was objecting to.
I was wrong to think what I wrote up there, and will mend my ways.
Joey 13:15 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
@Blork in what way were the student protests of 2012 anything other than a total success? I suppose you can pick apart individual aspects, but as a whole the movement succeeded, no?
Kate 14:17 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
According to Wikipedia – I’m excerpting the main points – a series of student protests began in February 2012 against a proposal by the Charest government to raise university tuition from $2,168 to $3,793 between 2012 and 2018. Student protests evolved into generalized demonstrations against the government. The PQ was elected in September as a minority government and halted any tuition increases in line with its campaign promises.
So from that angle yes, the movement succeeded. That it was not a Quebec nationalist movement seemed to get lost with the PQ in power again, but they were in for less than two years.
Joey 14:19 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
@Kate that’s my point – the protests worked
Blork 14:30 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
@Joey, I didn’t say the protests weren’t a success. I’m saying the tactic of boycotting classes was a bad one; basically shooting themselves in the foot. I think the success was in spite of that tactic, not because of it.
Unfortunately my portal to the parallel universe in which that tactic wasn’t used is temporarily closed, so we can’t be sure. But I’m speaking in terms of principles; in particular the principle where you harm yourself, instead of aggravating your opponent, just isn’t a very good one.
Joey 14:54 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
@Blork you said that “People – in particular, young people – are not particularly good at tactics and strategies when it comes to protesting” – you gave the example of the 2012 protests *even though* the students won a resounding victory. Yes, there is no counterfactual, but even if the students won “in spite of that tactic,” *they still won*… how you can conclude that (a) not only were “people” good at tactics and strategies but (b) that *young* people were *particularly* good at tactics and strategies in this case is beyond me. They won a cancellation of the tuition increase, a freeze that basically still stands nearly 10 years later and a new government! From this you conclude that students were “shooting themselves in the foot”? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Daisy 14:55 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
Can’t it be a good tactic if it succeeds in drawing a lot of attention to your cause, attention that it would not have received through other means?
Joey 14:58 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
@Daisy not only that, but it raises the stakes for the community that movement leaders are trying to motivate… things get personal for them, they get invested, they draw attention, next thing you know there are 100,000 people in the street, a minister resigns, a government backtracks, you win.
Joey 15:00 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
Moreover, there is a powerful message to be sent in sacrificing your own well-being in service of a perceived larger good. Boycotting classes because you think tuition increases are unjustified and will make accessing higher education more difficult gives the movement you are serving value. You’re basically saying that the struggle is more important in the long term than your own well-being in the short term. Why one would assume this wouldn’t galvanize support in the broader community is beyond me, and the 2012 protests suggest that it had precisely this effect.
MarcG 16:00 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
Boycotting classes served as a threat to the social order by backing up the flow of students through the system – it wasn’t self-harm.
CE 20:51 on 2021-02-22 Permalink
Do you think we’d still be talking about the computer riots all these years later had the students just picketed peacefully outside? Would they have won any concessions?
Would the students have halted the tuition increase in 2012 had they picketed peacefully in front of their campuses? Would they have even gotten many students to join if they were all focused on going to class and writing exams?
Meezly 00:28 on 2021-02-23 Permalink
Thanks Kate. It wasn’t so much an objection as a way to stop perpetuating the narrative of destroyed property because things wouldn’t have gotten to that point had the university simply listened to the students. It’s just sad that the very forces that should have looked out for the students (the university, media and police) had utterly failed them instead.
News articles that cover it now take great pains to not call it a riot and refer to it as the Sir George William Affair or the Sir GW Computer Incident.
I only learned of this piece of history myself when the play Blackout came out a few years ago, which I think this very weblog had mentioned!
Kate 11:20 on 2024-08-27 Permalink
I was wrong to write “riot” and have edited the post and will be more mindful in future.