During the sit-in, our group was faced with innumerable meetings; it seemed if
we weren’t sleeping, then we were meeting.  Our choice of decision-making structure
therefore played a large role in the effectiveness of our sit-in.  As we decided upon a
method to use, we looked at for two main qualities: the effectiveness system and the
fairness of the system.  We decided for our decision-making structure to use the
consensus process.  Consensus is a process, in which everyone must agree that the group
should implement a decision; consensus process does not mean that everyone necessarily
agrees with the decision, but at the time finds the decision to be best for the group. 
Unfortunately, as C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein point out, “If the [decision-making]
structure is vague, decisions can be difficult to achieve” and countless meetings
involving consensus have been fruitless due to a vague process.  Butler’s and Rothstein’s
Formal Consensus Process provides a very defined structure for consensus, thus
increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the decision-making process.  Their
structure contains various, “…guidelines and formats for managing meetings, facilitating
discussions, resolving conflict, and reaching decision” (www.ic.org). Butler’s and
Rothstein’s system operates on five steps through three levels, in order to achieve
consensus (fig 1).  In the first step one presents and clarifies the problem, presents a
proposal or issue, and clarifies the presentation.  The group then enters the first level,
“Broad Open Discussion.”  In this level the group discusses the information presented,
however, concerns brought up in this level are noted, but not discussed.  Butler and
Rothstein see the discussion in this level to have, “…a philosophical or principled tone”
(www.ic.org).  This level is also the optimal time to challenged the validity of the
proposal.  If the group seems to be in general agreement as the discussion tapers off, then
consensus can be called, otherwise the decision moves on to level two, “Identify
Concerns.”  In this level all of the concerns that arose in level one are publicly stated and
any other concerns about the issue are listed; related concerns are then grouped together. 
The process then moves to the third level, “Resolve Concerns.”  At this level initially the
group attempts to clarify concerns in clusters.  If all of the concerns are addressed, then
there is a call for consensus, otherwise the process moves into the fifth step.  If all of the
concerns are not resolved, then each unresolved concern is addressed, clarified, and
discussed.  If all of the concerns are addressed then there is a call for consensus. 
Otherwise, the member with concerns can be asked if they are willing to “stand aside,” or 
consent to the proposal or solution without agreeing with it; if not, then the proposal or
solution is blocked. 
Butler and Rothstein believe the best way to call for consensus is to have the facilitator
ask, “Are there any unresolved concerns?”, with ample time left for people to respond;
however, this is not the only method by which one can call consensus. Another such
method is the “thumbs up, thumbs down” method; this method, when consensus is called,
has everybody put their thumbs up (if in acceptance) or thumbs down (if in
disagreement), if the everyone puts their thumb up, then consensus has been reached. 
Other methods have also been created to reach consensus, as well.  The best method for
calling consensus is a method that is the least intimidating. Butler and Rothstein show
that the wording of the question can affect the intimidation level; as they point out,
asking questions such as, “Is there consensus?” or “Does everyone agree?” has a tone that
there should be consensus.  The question “Are there any unresolved concerns?” is more
directed to the members, if any, who are dissenting and thus is more amiable. 
Butler and Rothstein also see six crucial rules as part of the Formal Consensus process;
these are guidelines that, “…seem almost always to be true,” to them (:

1) Once a decision has been adopted by consensus, it cannot be changed without
reaching a new consensus. If a new consensus cannot be reached, the old decision stands. 
2) In general, only one person has permission to speak at any moment. The person
with permission to speak is determined by the group discussion technique in use and/or
the facilitator. 
3) All structural decisions (i.e., which roles to use, who fills each role, and which
facilitation technique and/or group discussion technique to use) are adopted by consensus
without debate. Any objection automatically causes a new selection to be made. If a role
cannot be filled without objection, the group proceeds without that role being filled. If
much time is spent trying to fill roles or find acceptable techniques, then the group needs
a discussion about the unity of purpose of this group and why it is having this problem, a
discussion which must be put on the agenda for the next meeting, if not held
immediately.
4) All content decisions (i.e., the agenda contract, committee reports, proposals, etc.)
are adopted by consensus after discussion. Every content decision must be openly
discussed before it can be tested for consensus. 
5) A concern must be based upon the principles of the group to justify a block to
consensus. 
6) Every meeting which uses Formal Consensus must have an evaluation. 

These rules allow for an effective process, and without them the consensus process can
lose validity. 
However, rules and processes are not the only components that make Formal Consensus a
successful decision-making structure.  The role of the facilitator and members
participating also are of vast importance to making Formal Consensus successful.  The
role of the facilitator is to guide the process of the meeting.  The facilitator is in charge of
calling on people to speak, making sure that everyone who wants to speak gets the
chance, getting the group to stay on topic, giving background information, making sure
the agenda is followed, making sure information is clarified, and suggesting various
means to make sure that the meeting flows well.  The facilitator is absolutely not to
direct the content of the meeting, nor let one point of view dominate—the facilitator is to
play a neutral role; this also means that the facilitator has no more power than anyone
else participating in the discussion.  (However, if the facilitator wants to make a
comment on an issue, he or she can temporarily leave the facilitator position, make the
comment, and return to the facilitator position.) Although everyone participating in the
Formal Consensus process should work to make sure the consensus process is followed,
the facilitator is the person who makes sure that the process is followed.  All of the
participants (including the facilitator) have to be actively working to make Formal
Consensus a successful process.  According to Butler and Rothstein, Formal Consensus is
built upon eleven tiers: trust, respect, unity of purpose, non-violence, self-empowerment,
cooperation, conflict resolution, commitment to the group, active participation, equal
access to power, and patience (www.ic.org).  Humility and discipline are two other traits
which are vital to successful Formal Consensus.   If participants are lacking any of these
qualities then the effectiveness of consensus can be severely threatened.  Participants also
have the obligation to be active in discussion; if members do not express their concern,
then the most effective solution will not come about nor will those silent members be as
enthused by the decision.  Each participant involved must actively work to include these
traits in the discussion.  Due to the non-hierarchical nature of Formal Consensus each
member holds equal responsibility for including these traits, therefore each member also
has equal ability to disrupt the process.  Participants must also make sure that they stay
on task, contribute ideas, and are willing to compromise ().  Not only do participants
have to make sure that they include these traits, but there are also traits that they have
which they must overcome.  Butler and Rothstein saw three major impediments which
have to be overcome: lack of training, external hierarchical structure, and social
prejudice (www.ic.org). 
Despite all of the difficulties that come along with consensus, it is still the best
decision-making process available.  Consensus is the most non-violent decision-making
structure; it holds strongly with the non-violent philosophy, as well as being the most fair
system.  C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein contend that, “Traditional nonviolence theory
holds that the use of power to dominate is violent and undesirable” (www.ic.org);
consensus process dispels power to dominate by giving everyone a voice that must be
listened to in the decision-making process.  Other structures, whether voting systems or
dictatorships, give people the power to dominate.  Since in these systems participants or a
group have the ability to silence dissenting voices, the power of domination, a violent
power, is inherent in the structures. Butler and Rothstein point out that with voting and
Parliamentary Procedure that, “The will of the majority supersedes the concerns of the
minority.  This is inherently violent” (www.ic.org).  Also, consensus shifts the decision
process away from winning the vote to get a decision implemented, to getting everyone’s
agreement in order to get a decision implemented.  Instead of creating schisms  through
different voting factions, consensus keeps everybody in the same faction and therefore
working together.  Even though other decision-making structures tend to make decisions
more quickly than consensus, this does not mean as a whole that other structures are
faster when implementation is included.  When a consensus decision is finally made, it
can immediately begin to go into effect—everyone already knows why they agreed to the
decision, and why it is the best.  However, when a decision is made through
non-consensus means, support must be bolstered for that decision.  With a dictatorial
process, the decision-maker must convince the other members why the decision was
made and why they should comply with it; with a voting or parliamentary structure, the
majority must convince the minority why they are right and why the decision must be
implemented.  With implementation included in the time count, Formal Consensus
compared to other structures is not much longer, if longer at all.  Decisions implemented
by consensus need less enforcement than decisions made through non-consensus means. 
Since with consensus everyone agreed with the decision that was made, there would be
no reason for resistance; reminders might need to be made, but not heavy-duty
enforcement.  However, with non-consensus means it is likely that enforcement will be
necessary for the silenced minority, since their issues were not accounted for.  Also, the
decisions made by non-consensus means do not reflect the whole group—they only
reflect the decision-makers; consensus allows for the whole group to be represented in
decisions.  The meeting atmosphere of consensus is also much more productive than the
meeting atmosphere present during other decision-making structures, according to Fen
Labalme. Labalme sees this difference because, “Consensus assumes that people are
willing to agree with each other, and that in such an atmosphere, conflict and differences
can result in creative and intelligent decisions” (www.activism.net).  All of these
advantages led us to use the consensus process during our sit-in in Bendetson Hall. 
Largely the theory put into practice was successful.
While we met before to plan the sit-in, we were also indirectly preparing for
consensus. All of the meetings we sat through together allowed us to become acquainted
with each other and also express our dedication to the action.  During this preparatory
time, we definitely began to work on building the thirteen points necessary to have a
successful Formal Consensus process during the sit-in.  Through organizing for the letter
campaign, the rally, and the sit-in we built a lot of solidarity among group members; the
trust and respect earned through these activities definitely was a cohesive force that held
the group together.  Our dedication of time to this cause made everyone involved very
committed to the group.  Also, as the group collectively came up with the demands for
the group, therefore our unity of purpose became extremely strong: we were all protesting
for the same demands.  Although people had different views on just about every other
political cause, our work on this issue brought us to an informal consensus on what
politically should be done.  This political cohesiveness allowed us to only have
disagreements about means instead of ends, which drastically decreased the amount of
time we spent debating things in meetings.  Before the action everyone involved in the
group pledged to be non-violent for the action.  Since the organizers were looking to
make a stride for equality through the action, in the group there was work for equality, as
well.  There was a somewhat conscious view of gender and power roles during the
planning and the action; consensus was the logical decision-making structure for the
group.  Once we entered the building the rest of the attributes fell into place.  Due to the
radical nature of occupying a building, the action itself led to empowerment of the group
and individuals.  I remember feeling the control I had to accomplish change as the
administration realized we were in the building indefinitely.  The empowerment I
received from this helped me feel comfortable in articulating myself during meetings. 
We had control.  The self-empowerment, as well as facilitation techniques, led to active
participation of the group.  Although some people felt that some people could have
spoken more, multiple people felt that people’s voices were being heard. 
The self-empowerment and active participation of people led to equal access of power
for the group, as well. 
*DICTION
In order to negotiate with the administration, we had a two-person negotiation
team to deal with them; this team could have inevitably led to a large power
stratification.  However, all decisions that the negotiators made were ratified through
consensus.  Also, it was brought up that a maldistribution of power could occur, by
having constant negotiators; bringing this idea to consciousness helped keep the power
distributed somewhat equally.  The equal access of power and diversity of political views
(from moderate to radical) led to successful conflict resolution.  The protesters had lots
of radically different plans on how to deal with the administration, how hard-line we
should be, and how much we need to worry about our views in the community—all
issues became challenged.  During the challenging of ideas, people cooperated very well
in order to reach a decision that appeased the group.  There were no underlying tensions
in the group, and everyone knew that success was close; therefore, we were very willing
to cooperate in order to win.  Although many disagreements naturally came about, we
were more than willing to work civilly to come to an agreement.  And even though these
agreements sometimes took an inordinate amount of time to achieve, for the majority of
decisions we were quite patient. Since we had put ourselves solely to the task of
occupying the building, this scenario gave us a bit of time and allowed us  to dedicate our
time solely to the action—these two factors helped us keep our patience immensely.
Everyone had a reasonable level of humility, since from the beginning of the movement
we had attempted to organize non-hierarchically.  Our discipline was very focused due to
the determination and focus of the action; we knew this was one of our last moves, and
we needed to be successful—the necessity of the action kept us very disciplined. 
Our dealings with the three impediments of Formal Consensus tended to be much
more difficult..  External hierarchical structure was our easiest of the three to overcome;
social prejudice was a seemingly easy obstacle to overcome—however this was not true. 
TSAD had conducted all of its meetings without a hierarchical structure, however an
informal hierarchy did exist.  However the ills of external hierarchical pressure were
irrelevant, since there was no other body or group pushing us away from the use of
consensus. The only group which could have possibly pushed us away from consensus
was the administration through negotiating, but our group solidly stuck with the
principles of consensus.  Social prejudice in the group was not accounted for, but were
somewhat challenged.  Occasionally gender roles or power roles were mentioned during
the meeting; by bringing these ideas up our ingrained social prejudices were beginning to
be attacked.  However, the group did not find the time nor energy to successfully deal
with all of the social prejudices the group brought into Bendetson Hall.  However, our
largest problem was lack of training.  Although everyone agreed to use the consensus
process, not everyone was trained in it.  During our first meetings adjustment to the
decision-making structure was made; also, people not trained in facilitation sometimes
had trouble being an effective facilitator.  Even though we were not rushed on most
decisions, there was not enough time or energy for the group to go over facilitation skills
once we were inside the building.  This lack of training caused some minor obstacles
during meetings, but on a whole enough people were trained or grasped the ideas of
consensus; the lack of training was not a large hindrance. 
The protesters  had all of the traits to make consensus successful, now we just
needed to put consensus into action. We formalized our consensus process in the second
meeting when we instituted the “thumbs up, thumbs down” system to see if we reached
consensus.  Before the “thumbs up, thumbs down” system we would verbally verify if
consensus had been reached, as Butler and Rothstein suggested.  This method was not
working for us because it allowed consensus to be very unorganized.  At any time during
the consensus process someone could verbally see if consensus was reached—some
people did not seem to realize that consensus was being called for.  By implementing the
“thumbs up, thumbs down” system we made it necessary for people to make formal
proposals and acknowledge that consensus was being called.  Also, the “thumbs up,
thumbs down” system has everyone participate in it every time consensus is called—the
verbal system only involves people who are dissenting.  Since everyone is involved with
the “thumbs up, thumbs down” system, a distracted person would be noticed, and then
the group could help refocus him or her. With the verbal system, if for some reason a
person became distracted, one would assume that instead of being distracted she or he
agreed with the decision.  The visual aspect of the “thumbs up, thumbs down” system
also signifies the possibility of a decision being made, the verbal aspect only has oral
skills to work with, so there are less ways of reminding people that they have reached the
final stage of consensus.
Our formalized consensus process differed a bit from the system Butler and
Rothstein describe.  In our consensus process we did start with the first step of the
Formal Consensus process, but we blurred the following three levels much more than
Butler and Rothstein propose.  One reason for the blurring the three levels was a lack of
materials necessary to make the three levels separate.  Since we did not bring an easel
and large paper into Bendetson Hall and there was no large paper or chalkboards
available inside Bendetson, we had  no way to put up agendas or lists so everyone could
see them; therefore, we had to deal with each issue as they arose. However, most of
Butler’s and Rothstein’s rules did hold true for us:  consensus decisions could only be
changed by consensus, one person could only speak at a time, and blocks had to be based
on principles of the group.  We did choose our facilitator (we did not have any other
specified roles) through consensus, but we did it through a very informal verbalized
consensus process and not our “thumbs up, thumbs down” process.  We wanted to have
as many people as possible be facilitators in order to emphasize that there was no
hierarchy.  When we chose facilitators the group just looked to make sure that a new
person was facilitating for each meeting, but no other requisites.  Therefore, consensus
was reached virtually when someone new volunteered (or someone volunteered them) to
be the facilitator.  The fourth rule had no relevancy to our group since we did not have
any content decisions.  We did not follow the sixth rule because although we weren’t
under great time constraints, the group did not have the time nor energy to do
evaluations.  Our alterations to the Formal Consensus process were not great, and our
process had the benefits that Butler and Rothstein claimed a Formal Consensus process
would have.
The protesters found the consensus process that was developed to be a very
successful process, even though some members were worried about the feasibility of the
process.  All of our meetings and decisions benefited from the use of the consensus
process, and they also gauged our ability to hold to the tiers of Formal Consensus. 
Consensus helped the group deal with very difficult situations in the very best ways
possible.  Participants in the consensus process definitely felt that their voices were heard
during all of the meetings.  During a couple of meetings consensus process allowed the
group to alter decisions to appease everyone and make the decisions more solid.  When
the idea that different negotiators should meet with Bruce Reitman arose, initially all but
the person proposing the idea were against this idea.  However, discussion of the issue
allowed the group to analyze the  power roles that were forming in the group; this
discussion would not have happened without someone bringing up the idea of switching
the facilitators.  In the end the facilitators were not switched, but the discussion of the
issue led to a heightened awareness of power roles yet again.  This discussion would have
never occurred with other decision-making structures.  When the group was deciding on
whether or not to make noise on Wednesday morning consensus once again led to
strengthen the group and make the best decision possible.  Once again everybody but one
person wanted to make noise, and once again this person’s views were respected and
accounted for in the decision.  Although many people seemed to feel that this discussion
took way too long, the discussion did let us analyze how we wanted to be viewed by the
Tufts community.  Once again, if we had used another structure, this conversation would
have been lost.  Also, by talking through the action with the dissenter, we were able to
communicate to her that she was having a role in the decision and was not being
silenced.  In the end we did decide to go through with the action and make noise, but her
viewpoint was definitely considered.  She also did a wonderful job of showing how to
sacrifice personal wants for the benefit of the group—this dedication to the group made
the consensus process very successful.  Our process also increased the amount of
creativity our group had.  During our discussion of whether or not we would leave after
the letter was issued to the Tufts’s community or after the president published his letter
in national media, we reached a deadlock: some people wanted to leave after the letter
was issued, while others wanted to get the president to publish the letter.  Neither side
wanted to cede to the other side; however, one side could have definitely outvoted the
other.  However, consensus process led to the decision that since the president would
make a press release, that his press release would be sent to the press.  If a vote had been
taken, this idea would have never come about.  This discussion however, also began to
show weaknesses that our decision process had.
There were two major problems that people had with the consensus system: it
took too long, and it was too intense.  Consensus decisions inevitably take a very long
time to make, and the discussion leading to the decision does tend to be very intense. 
Being in meetings all the time finally started to get to us.  People were becoming
perturbed with conflict resolution; as we were talking about when we would leave the
building, people were tired of hearing people who wanted us to stay.  The meeting
process was beginning to take a physical toll on people.  Since there was only a few
people who wanted to stay to get the media release, people just wanted to silence them. 
Emotional breakdown was beginning to occur.    Also, the conflict and dragging
discussions caused people to question the ability of consensus to work when there is a
serious disagreement.  However, these problems were only minor hindrances in our
process.  Even though problems with conflict resolution were arising, the people causing
the conflict adjusted the situation in order to diffuse the problem.  Even though problems
were arising with consensus, it was not falling apart; people’s respect for each other kept
the situation  from becoming a big issue for the group.  However, the view of the people
who conceded was silenced. 
On a whole, though, our consensus process helped us achieve the goal of winning
our campaign, as well as having the fairest, most non-violent means possible.  Not only
can we look with satisfaction at the meeting process, but we can also be proud of it. 
Other decision-making structures would have stifled our creativity, silenced minorities,
created hierarchies, and destroyed our unity. This sit-in is proof that a fair system can
work—and can work well. 

Fig. 1

http://www.ic.org/pnp/ocac/