Students gather outside of campus following Monday’s General Assembly.
By Aurore Laborie
This evening, a second General Assembly convened to discuss recent issues at the heart of French politics voted to occupy the main amphitheater of Sciences Po Campus of Reims. While around 120 students participated in the assembly, at the time of publishing close to 40 students remained on campus facilities past opening hours.
A first assembly was called by a group of Sciences Po students last Thursday, who decided that a meeting was necessary to talk about the ongoing debate raised by students around France concerning the Parcoursup university law, and which led to the occupation of university campuses across France, including Tolbiac (the Sorbonne). The committee that organized the April 19 assembly was criticized for being biased by audience members who objected to its designation of the law as “racist” and “classist”. After hours had passed and it was clear that no decision could be taken, since the actual subject of the debate was never brought up for discussion as participants argued over the legitimacy of the moderators and the rules of voting procedure, the final decision was to have another General Assembly.
The goal of today’s General Assembly goal was to have the debate that the first Assembly had failed to foster. A special committee was created for this meeting comprising four Euram and four Euraf student representatives, as well as four randomly chosen students and three members of the “collective” that organized last week’s General Assembly. Members of the committee that organized the second assembly signed a declaration of impartiality in order to avoid the controversy that resulted last time.
Earlier Monday, the committee sent out its agenda for the meeting, calling for students to submit their proposed amendments to the issues that the agenda would raise. The assembly proceeded to vote on these proposed amendments, a procedural motion. Starting at 5:30 p.m., the assembly voted on the first amendment, and ruled against the possibility of having a time of five minutes to speak about an amendment. Instead, the assembly chose to keep the committee’s choice of giving a three minute time to speak. Two other amendments concerning the addition of the persecution of Christians, and the instrumentalization of anti-Semitism to justify Islamophobia failed to pass.
At 6:30 p.m. the Assembly proceeded to talk about the Vidal Law, and six speakers were invited to voice their opinions. Fifteen minutes later, the Assembly voted 57 in favor to 56 against with 20 blank votes to write a statement condemning the Vidal Law; 78 in favor to 29 against with 23 blank votes in favor of creating a website to counter “anti-egalitarian rhetoric”; and 78 in favor to 53 against of enacting mobilization within Sciences Po, meaning creating workshops enabling those who are “usually marginalized” to speak. There were 20 blank votes. This last proposition added that the “occupation of rooms” was “required”. The only proposition that was not accepted showed 97 to 24 voting against “doing nothing”, with 4 blank votes.
The second theme of the evening was police violence in France. During this portion of the Assembly, ten students students voiced their opinions. The debate was lively, with students saying that the French police system was “structurally colonialist” and violent with the example of 200 policemen that have been deployed to the working class neighborhood of Mirail. According to some, French police officers use “colonial techniques of management of working-class neighborhoods.” Others argued that 28 policemen died on the job, whereas only one man died of police violence in France in 2016. The debate quickly turned to a discussion of what sources could be trusted, with students labeling each other’s examples as “fake news.”
At around 7:30 p.m. students proceeded to a vote on a motion to occupy the campus’ main amphitheater. In an initial vote, students opted in favor of such a measure by 48 for, 43 against, and 28 abstaining. This motion, however, was replaced by a later motion for an “indefinite occupation of LS01 with an open letter to Turpin [Reims campus director] demonstrating that an occupation of one room does not have to lead to the occupation of the entire campus”. 72 voted for this measure, while 27 abstained.
The assembly also voted in favor of writing an open letter to the authorities to demand “open and transparent data on casualties among police forces and victims of police violence”. Students rejected a motion for a demonstration or protest against police brutality. Voting in favor of this would have overruled the proposition of occupation of the amphitheater and the notion of “doing nothing”. However, the assembly seemed to agree fully on one issue, the showcasing of M84 stun grenades that are used by anti-riot police. When detonated, the grenade emits a loud bang of 170 to 180 decibels with a blinding flash. These weapons can cause severe injuries. 98 voted in favor of hosting an exhibition of these arms on campus, and only 2 voted blank.
The last theme of the assembly was on immigration laws in France. Most people left the assembly by this point, so the number of people voting was heavily reduced. By this time, however, the occupation of the campus had been approved by the assembly.
At close to 8:30 p.m., the Student Representatives concluded the assembly and dissolved the special committee. Around 40 students remained in the amphitheater. Several students gathered in front of campus, some with supplies to deliver to their classmates, who did not bring food with them. While campus administration officials have not yet communicated their response to the student body, they had previously indicated that an occupation of one room would require the closure of the entire campus.
