Although the posters appeared more than a week ago, Occupy Bowdoin is still an enigma. If the movement continues loosely in the spirit of the large-scale protests, it could do good on campus by asking hard questions that we could all benefit from considering. But as a previous Orient editorial spelled out, it cannot lose sight of its situation or get caught up in classic Bowdoin foibles.
If its participants go off on hypocritical tangents or explode with passion, but never follow up their outbursts with dialogue, Occupy Bowdoin will sink into irrelevance.
As of now, all of the "Occupy" protests are simply posing questions for society without offering any answers. While the camp-outs are arguably unproductive, these are questions that society needs to consider.
While Occupy Bowdoin will probably never become a direct vehicle for social change, the point of student movements of this type is to get people talking and asking questions.
The movements in cities across the country—and the world—have sparked fascinating conversations this year, as well as a few great Halloween costumes.
Posing these same questions on campus, in an environment where many would find it hard to agree with "we are the 99 percent," should cause students to examine their own perspectives on the world.
As Bowdoin students, we need to come to our own conclusions about the morality of social inequality while maintaining full knowledge of how we ourselves have benefited from it.
Here at Bowdoin, it's hard to claim that we're the 99 percent. Even for those of us on heavy financial aid, simply the fact that we attend Bowdoin lessens our immediate exposure to social inequality.
According to the U.S. News and World Report, compared to the almost 14.5 million college students in the United States, the top 10 liberal arts colleges enroll just 18,000. That is roughly 0.12 percent of the total. If we add the top 10 national universities into the mix, we are still members of the top 0.52 percent of college students. Any campus discussion of the American economic model needs to keep our privileged status in mind.
Just as the Bowdoin environment informs any discussion, it also carries risks for nascent campus organizations. In terms of grassroots movements, we've been here before.
Occupy Bowdoin should learn from the I Am Bowdoin events of last spring: if there are going to be protests, it pays to know exactly who you are protesting against. The movement should be wary of exhausting its passion in a single, symbolically-confused outburst of energy.
After the I Am Bowdoin protest in Smith Union, the movement fizzled out, despite the emotionally charged nature of the event and the valid questions it raised. Only the sting of duct tape on its participants' lips remained.
Losing focus is always a danger for leaderless groups. Hopefully, Occupy Bowdoin can do better while maintaining the egalitarian structure of the full-scale protests.
If the movement is going to go anywhere, it cannot heed its name, which is unfortunately unalterable. It shouldn't "occupy" anything, but should instead try to start a dialogue.
Bowdoin students love to pay lip service to equality, but we should ask ourselves what it would mean to have a more equal society.
We should be led to ponder what our position in society is, and, from our educationally-privileged vantage point, whether we should act to make the world a more equal place.
Bowdoin could certainly use some perspective, and the movement could be the spark needed to get students thinking past the coming weekend.
Perhaps posters with pointed messages could help; perhaps the group should organize an open-microphone event.
There are many options, but I'll leave that up to the students who decide to get involved.
It's important to remember that anyone can call themselves a representative of a leaderless movement, so anyone can take up the banner of Occupy Bowdoin and lead it forward. That person need not be the original architect of the poster campaign.
As of now, Occupy Bowdoin can hardly be called a movement, but it's significant that people are already talking about it. Just by the creation of the moniker, the posters have managed to start a conversation on campus.
Occupy Bowdoin could help us look beyond Bowdoin and ask hard questions about the world, but to do so, it has to overcome the classic side effects of the bubble; students have a penchant for displaying bursts of emotion but rarely follow through once the anger or lust fades.
Perhaps Occupy Bowdoin will manage to follow up its posters with action that is measured and poignant—I certainly hope so, as the campus could use a round of reflection and debate.