We decided that, because all 20 of us could not negotiate with the administration,
a negotiating team should be created.  Thea and I acted as negotiating representatives. 
This meant that we had the responsibility of meeting with the administration
representatives in order to convey the student’s position.  We had no real bargaining
power because any decision we arrived at had to be ratified by the entire group using the
consensus process.  Unfortunately, simply acting as negotiators gave us access to
information before the rest of the group.  This, in and of itself, made being a part of the
negotiating team a position of power, despite our best attempts to diffuse the power
hierarchy.  We had considered switching negotiators with every meeting in order to
decentralize the power inherent in being one of the negotiators, but we quickly realized
that it was important for the negotiators to establish a rapport with one another.  Since
Thea and I were quickly able to establish such an understanding, we decided as a group
that Thea and I should continue to act as negotiators.
The consensus process was able to relegate that power a little bit, but not
completely.  Thea and I tacitly decided to do our best to keep from dominating the group
discussions.  Rather, we attempted simply to give the group all the information gained
from the negotiating session and then step back as the decisions were made.  We did;
however, add to the conversation when we felt that our insight would be unique or
especially helpful in the situation being dealt with.    
As a team, Thea and I worked very well together.  Thea did the majority of the
talking and she acted as the peacemaker.  She did the majority of the actual talking and
she spent a great deal of her time attempting to assuage the administrators.  However, she
was very tough and never once did she so much as budge on a non-negotiable point.  I
chimed in sporadically with statements that usually started with “we need” or “I’m sorry,
but that is not negotiable.”  It wasn’t quite a “good cop” “bad cop” scenario because both
of us were respectful and cordial.  It was just our different negotiating styles at play with
each other.  Never once did we contradict one another, nor did we slip up and give away
something without the group’s consent.
The first meeting took place around noon on Tuesday.  Thea and I were joined by
Bruce Reitman, Lt. Charles Lonero, and the director of public safety.  This meeting was
the least stressful of our sessions.  It began, like every session began, with us offering the
administrators something to drink.  And, like every session, they refused.  By offering
them something to drink, we were doing two things.  First of all, it let them know that we
had a large and varied supply of food and drinks that could last us a while, so much so
that we didn’t even have to ration it at all.  The second thing it did was put us in a
position of power as the host of the negotiations.  By refusing they attempted to take the
power back, but Thea and I constantly sipped on Green Tea and Soda as their dry mouths
watered across the table.  
This first meeting had a polite, generous air to it as our requests for a “safe space”
to meet out of ear-shot of the police, free access to at least four bathrooms, and
guarantees that both the heat and water would remain on were met.  Their two big issues
were the noise that we were making and the safety of their confidential files.  Thea and I
quickly told them that we were not planning on looking at or tampering with any
university files of any kind.  We assured them that we would remain off of the upper
lever, which had already been locked, in order to ensure that no damage occurred to their
files.  We; however, made it quite clear that the noise level was not a negotiable thing,
especially because our banners, which proclaimed our presence, had been taken down by
the police.  The administration left with a request that we do our best to keep down the
noise.  We respectfully acknowledged their request and then began a drum circle.  
As the administration’s representatives returned to the building at 3:30 there was
a decisively different tone.  As soon as they walked in Thea and I realized that they were
about to attempt to scare us.  We were told that the building would be locked and,
starting at 5:00, we would officially be breaking the law and could be removed at any
time and arrested.  They threatened us with outrageous things like rejection from law
school, separate jails, and a record that would follow us around for the rest of our lives. 
Bruce requested that we leave and have “faith” that the president will continue to work
on the issue.  Bruce then explained that the president had sent an e-mail to the faculty
coalition that “probably” contained “some” of the wording we were looking for.  He
requested that we leave in good fait, assuming that the e-mail met our needs. 
Furthermore, he offered a meeting with the president the following afternoon, if we had
left the building.  Thea and I explained that we would not be able to leave the building
until we had met with president DiBiaggio and had our letter.  The disappointed
administrators gave us one last threat and then asked to speak to the group as a whole.  In
order to buy time, we requested that Thea and I be allowed to meet privately first. 
During that time, Thea updated the whole group in the safe space that had been provided
for us.    
The next morning, at around 8:30, we awoke to the arrival of Bruce Reitman.  His
early surprise arrival was a thinly veiled attempt to regain the power we had taken away
from him the night before.  This session was brief.  Basically we were informed that we
would meet with the President at around 1:30.  Thea and I were pleased to be in the
building and had no new requests from the administration.  We agreed that the president
would come to us for the meeting, rather than risk being divided and locked out in an
attempt to meet with him in Ballou.  Furthermore, holding the meeting on our turf kept
the power in our court.  Dean Reitman had a lingering concern.  He wanted us to keep the
noise down.  Thea and I explained that we would take his request to the group and could
not tell him one way or another.  He seemed disappointed, but understanding.  We also,
made it clear that we appreciated his help, but we really needed to deal with the president
so that we could better hammer out an agreement.  At this point, Bruce realized that his
power had all but completely eroded and he left.
We cleaned up after our long night and prepared to great the president.  At 1:30,
he walked into the back room with Vice President I. Melvin Bernstein and Bruce
Reitman.  Bruce remained silent during almost the entire meeting as did-to a lesser
extent-Mel Bernstein.  This meeting was extremely short.  The negotiating team for this
meeting grew to six students and we started the meeting by explaining to the president
exactly what we needed from him.  We suggested that his e-mail include the wording
“the nondiscrimination policy is understood to include one’s acceptance of their
identity.”  After apologizing three different times for not meeting with us earlier, he left
with our suggestions in hand for a meeting with his advisors.
The importance of having a small negotiating team was highlighted by the way the
administrators spoke to the group as opposed to when they spoke to only a small number
of us.  Behind closed doors they spoke to us as equals.  However, they assumed the role
of professor when speaking to the group.  This allowed them to hold a slight advantage
over the group as a whole.