The “Occupation” Hits Home at Wharton

Just two weeks ago, I lamented the fact that my fellow Wharton students seemed so disengaged from the national debate swirling around the Occupy Wall Street movement. Well, on Friday afternoon, Occupy Wall Street “occupied” The Wharton School.

The proximate cause of the “occupation” was a planned speech at Wharton by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R) on “inequality.” When Cantor realized that the speech would be open to the public (a policy made known to Cantor’s people all along), the Leader bailed, lest he have to discuss inequality with everyday people, some of whom might be unreceptive to the gospel of free-market capitalism.

As I’ve said all along, I’m “unsure of how I feel about Occupy Wall Street,” especially the rhetoric of some involved that blames capitalism (rather than crony capitalism, unjust and unwise government policy, or Wall Street excesses) for all of our ills. Things are not so simple as that segment of protesters suggests. (To be fair, other protesters seem more limited and focused: “Reinstate Glass-Steagall” and “End Corporate Personhood” are common signs at OWS.)

But I understand the feelings underlying that critique, and I understand that nuanced views don’t always fit on a rally poster. (As a reporter from The Economist recently put it, “Force the banks to raise their capital reserves — but not too soon, or it’ll threaten the recovery!” is not much of a battle cry.) Things are not so simple as some of my capitalism-loving colleagues want to believe, either.

But What's The Game?

As far as I’m concerned, it’s valuable for Wharton students to be faced with a bit of raw emotion first-hand. With the precise (faux) “science” of demand curves, net present value calculations, and utility functions that we deal with every day, it’s easy to forget that we’re actually talking about people.

Finally, the silence among Wharton students has been replaced with chatter and argument: people are talking. And they should be. Reaction within the private Wharton Facebook page has been diverse and fascinating.

One student wrote:

I’m always surprised by the reflexivity of the “mainstream” in marginalizing protestors by painting them as unsophisticated hippies who merely enjoy protesting and carrying the torch passed down to them. We’re in troubled economic times; people are scared and frustrated and the political system is not generating solutions. To boot, they see billion dollar public bailouts morphed into million dollar wall st bonuses payments. The root sources of and answers to our economic travails are elusive; I think it’s unfair to demean the protestors for not being able to articulate what really no one else can either.

Another applied MBA logic:

This protest may be great in spirit, but it is still not organized with central command, unified message, or firm defensible policy stance on a wide range of issues to make a lasting impact, so it is likely they will disappear as quickly as it rose…the main message from OWS is that people are frustrated in a vague way, which is not constructive because they did not really make any practical demands or actionable item that can be conceivably achieved in a reasonable time horizon.

Another was appalled:

I hate government and taxation cause I believe no one can possibly know what is better for society or and individual than the individuals themselves… Never ever believe in someone that says they know what is better for you! The result are ideologies and a growing government machine!

Another was indignant:

Assuming they’re not students, I’m actually really annoyed that they were allowed into the building.

Another wrote:

The issue isn’t finance, it’s people in power who make poor decisions that have widespread financial impact. if Cantor was there i could see the reason behind the protest…but he backed out. perhaps the protesters wanted to press on, but it just made them look antagonistic. and it shows they lacked an alternative strategy. as a former disestablishmentarian, i empathize with them, but their frustrations are misdirected on this one…we should hold a town hall discussion on it.

"Get Into Our Bracket"

Lastly, a Whartonite standing on the balcony overlooking the protesters like King Louis over his subjects decided that the appropriate response to cries of “We are the 99%” was a sign that read “Get Into Our Bracket.” Classy. Naturally, Fox News opted to run with the story: according to that impeccable news source, “Students began chanting in unison, ‘Get a job! Get a job!’”

If that happened at all, those sentiments are in the minority as far as I can tell. The reaction online to the “Get Into Our Bracket” sign was angry and swift. One student wrote on Facebook:

I think it’s disgusting. I hope these were undergrads who can, at least, claim ignorance on what it’s like to lose, let alone, have a job.

Eleven readers “liked” her comment, and one responded. “Makes me sad to see such malicious indifference.” Another replied, “Horrible that [they] don’t sympathize with the average man on the street fighting for a job and (a life).”

While I’m disturbed by such immaturity among students — and embarrassed that that sign was interpreted by some as speaking for our community — I’m actually glad that that student showed his true colors. It is only when arrogance and callousness are exposed that we can address them. To my mind, it’s also instructive that protesters responded to the elitist student with the inclusive chant: “Join us! Join us! Join us!”

Finally, it’s important to give the Wharton administration credit for handling the protests so well. They might have caved to pressure from Cantor’s office. Or they might have tried to block protesters from entering private property. They didn’t. The school let hundreds of protesters into the lobby of Huntsman Hall (but no farther), where they could make a loud statement and then leave peaceably. No one was hurt. No one was arrested. Indeed, one of the school’s beloved deans actually stood outside and listened to the critiques being offered.

Both Wharton and the protesters came out of the experience looking pretty good. In the end, the only one who came out for the worse was the Honorable Eric Cantor.