Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world;
indeed it’s the only thing that ever has. ~Margaret Mead

 That is truly the greatness of social movements- that collectively, individuals do
make change. Social movements are literally dependent on “the power of the people,”
and considering constituency and group dynamics is therefore critical to movement
analysis. This evaluation will address the membership of Tufts Students Against
Discrimination (TSAD), the relationship between group constituency and the issue,
membership and participation outreach efforts, and the process of constructing the
membership of the “super-secret” TSAD group. These issues significantly shaped how
the TSAD and sit-in constituency developed. TSAD was never a homogenous group of
people- if there is such a thing- and individual identities critically affected how TSAD
operated, throughout the movement and within Bendetson. Movement analysis would be
incomplete without reflecting on the identities of TSAD members, and to truly appreciate
the direct action, it is critical to consider the group dynamics. 
 The possible factors influencing group dynamics are numerous and complex, and
evaluating group dynamics is undeniably subjective. Therefore, not wanting my
perspective to be the singular or official analysis of our group, I have included the
“voices” of other people who were inside Bendetson. It is telling that not everyone in
Bendetson saw our group interactions as being affected in the same ways. Listening to
how different individuals perceived a shared experience was insightful and challenging.
Initially I had only intended on getting a few different opinions, admittedly to ease my
own guilt about being the subjective historian, but as I listened to the spectrum of
different perceptions I heard and how the responses themselves were indicative of the
diversity of the individuals, I ultimately spoke with almost every person who was with
me throughout the Bendetson occupation. It was interesting to consider how different
people responded to this topic, but I chose not to identify the speakers in any way. Giving
people’s names would have been totally inappropriate, and labeling or describing who
gave what insight would have been even more problematic. These anonymous voices are
challenging, and these conversations made me realize again that I shared this intense
experience with an amazing and remarkably thoughtful group of individuals. 
 To ultimately analyze group dynamics inside of Bendetson, it is necessary to
critically evaluate the development of movement constituency. Therefore, it is important
to begin by recognizing that the membership of TSAD was not permanent nor static.
TSAD developed as a group of students, officially unrecognized, coming together as
individuals in response to a common concern. This was the structure for participation
throughout the movement’s progression. Anyone could be part of TSAD and, just like
with any organization or movement, there were varying levels of commitment to the
cause and different reasons why people were involved. The initial emergence of TSAD
was a direct reaction to the TCUJ decision, and the initial membership of TSAD was
self-selected as students that wanted to be involved in actively responding to this
decision. TSAD was open to students with a diversity of perspectives about the situation,
and the issue was an issue that affected every Tufts student, but the diversity within the
group was ultimately diversity among like-minded individuals.
 When considering the students who became mobilized (and those who didn’t)
around the non-discrimination policy through TSAD, it is important to consider how this
constituency was affected by the issue and how the issue was perceived. The membership
of TSAD sheds some light on this relationship between who was involved and the
perception of the issue. From the beginning, there was a significant commitment to this
issue by individuals from the queer community and the activist community. This is
obviously not true for everyone; there were individuals in both communities that were
not involved in the campaign, and there were also some queer individuals and some
activists that resented the attention brought to this issue or were specifically opposed to
the direct action. But the majority of the movement constituency was drawn from these
two communities. Despite outreach efforts, and despite the inherent diversity in the
identities and beliefs of TSAD members, there was never adequate racial or ethnic
diversity in this movement. TSAD members-- queer, straight, white, and non-white--
have spoken about the affect of the non-discrimination policy issue being perceived as a
“queer issue.” Most TSAD members at some level acknowledge a correspondence
between the perception of the issue as “queer” and TSAD membership. Although the
issue was marketed as an issue of “discrimination,” this often became lost in the
complexity of the case. It is hard to imagine any other person besides someone with a
queer identity being discriminated against because of self-acceptance of their identity.
Although this loophole effectively and critically threatened the non-discrimination policy
at large, it was easy to believe that this loophole would never affect “me.” But
self-interest and fear of application to one’s own situation are hardly the only motivation
for mobilization, and I think the lack of endorsement for this issue by culture groups does
reflect prejudice or at least  distancing from issues perceived as “queer.” 
 This assessment is hardly an end-- TSAD did not do outreach to culture groups
and did not consider the diversity of its membership simply to have “token minorities”
locked in the building with us. As one TSAD member explained, we did and continue to
do coalition-building because there is a connection between “our causes,” and we need to
celebrate and use this connection to support each other. This is an active and reciprocal
process. We can’t just do outreach to culture groups when we need their support; but
rather we need to extend our solidarity to their causes so that we can expect some
alliance on our issues. I feel proud and confident in stating that the individual members
involved with the TSAD movement are very personally committed to goals of social
justice and take personal responsibility for the on-going process of coalition-building.
Therefore, for this action, visible membership diversity was desired because it could have
symbolized that the issue was an issue of discrimination and that the movement and the
action had more broad-based relevance and support. Race affected the dynamics of our
group and of our movement not despite, but because the group of people in the building
included only one non-white. This is a disappointing reality, but I am proud of the
ongoing efforts of my peers to do coalitioning with other groups, especially culture
groups, not only for the benefits of greater support, but because we need to unite in order
to effect progressive change. There were examples of support as a result of our cultural
outreach: the Pan-African Alliance sent out an email in support of the rally on the library
roof, and various leaders of culture groups and Culture Coordinating Committee showed
support for TSAD by attending the rally. The Culture Coordinating Committee also held
its meeting Tuesday night right outside of Bendetson Hall. This action was powerful in
its influence on group morale, but also showed that the foundation for intercultural
coaliting is there. Race was not ignored by TSAD, but as part of a greater social justice
movement, more coalitioning needs to be done.
 Perception of the issue and racial dynamics exemplify how the membership of
TSAD and movement constituency developed as it did because of a host of
considerations, but the construction of the “super-secret” group was a much more
deliberate process, and this is fundamental to analysis of the sit-in group dynamics. The
suggestion of various types of radical direct actions, including a building take-over were
suggested early on at TSAD meetings, and it wasn’t too long before the behind the scenes
discussions and planning for an action organized into separate “super-secret” TSAD
meetings. Deciding who to tell and who to invite to these secret meetings was left to
individual discretion, and there was a conscious filtering of those who were “down.” I
didn’t actually think very much about this recruitment process, because by the time I was
involved, the people I would have approached were already also involved. Other people
were much more actively involved in “selecting” the inside group membership. One
TSAD member talked to me about their choice of who to approach about being involved
with the direct action. Not only did this TSAD member consider who would be “down”
with the action, but they also took into account how different individuals would affect
our group dynamics. This person told me that they knew someone who was dedicated to
the issue and who might have been interested in being inside Bendetson, but this TSAD
member chose not to approach this potential “inside” person and did not want them
inside. I know the person this TSAD member was specifically referring to, and I
empathize with their reservations about not wanting this person on the inside, but this
example challenges the arguably exclusive nature of our action. 
 This is a very dynamic situation where we controlled the dissemination of
information about the sit-in, and by these means, had control over the membership of the
“super-secret” group. We desperately needed numbers inside the building, so it is
challenging to admit that we were selective. From point zero, we were selective because
the only potential recruits were people we knew. Beyond that, selection was more
subjective, and I think it was admirably self-reflective of the TSAD member who made
the connection between our group dynamics inside the building and how we created that
constituency. The individual who my fellow TSAD member deliberately did not invite to
be a part of the action is a very dedicated activist, but this person is also actively and
vocally self-centered. This is not a good personality to have as part of a group that needs
to hear all voices and needs to decide by consensus. I think this example brings up an
interesting twist to the conversation about constituency and the effects of constituency on
the movement. Every TSAD member I spoke with was enthusiastic about the overall
dynamics of the group inside of Bendetson, but we have to be critical about our
self-reflection. Yes, it was remarkable how well we performed as a group, how we
utilized consensus, how we listened to everyone’s voice...but we still had arguably
problematic aspects of our group dynamics, and how might this have been compounded
if the group membership had been different?
 The choice of the action was itself imbedded in issues about constituency. TSAD
members recall when the idea of a building take-over was first being talked about
(though no one is totally sure who first made the suggestion!). This proposal and
subsequent conversations and planning about direct action strategy alienated some people
from being involved with the movement. This obligated compromise. As one TSAD
member stated, the idea for a building take-over was “definitely proposed by an activist,”
and the suggestion made many people nervous. Some people wanted a less radical action
for issues of their own comfort or to lessen fears about potential repercussions. Other
people wanted a compromise because they feared alienating the greater Tufts
community, which is also an issue of constituency. The reality was that the action
couldn’t be “excessively radical” because there wouldn’t be enough people willing to
participate. Another TSAD member felt that it was a struggle from the very beginning
between the “all-out crazy radicals” and those who wanted to be more conservative. The
compromise was natural, though, and, it was not only a compromise between individuals,
but also a compromise of goals and necessity- being assertive enough to effect change,
and also being moderate enough to sustain the constituency necessary to go through with
the action. Some people said that they look back and are amazed by the succession of
events that led us to this course of action. They emphasized that the direct action was not
something they would have ever considered being part of had it stood alone, but they
supported the sit-in as a culmination of movement efforts. 
 Given the group of individuals that was ultimately committed to the direct action,
the dynamics of this group were critical to the movement. The individuals inside
Bendetson were an amazing group of people who associated with diverse identities and
ideologies. There was a significant diversity in the backgrounds of the TSAD inside
membership. One way of looking at this was that there were “activists” and then there
were people who would only be willing to be this committed and participate in this
extreme of an action, for this specific issue. These dynamics were effective in balancing
each other out. According to one TSAD member we needed both the “people who were
willing to cave” and the “fuck, no!” activists. Those who were more motivated to leave
Bendetson, pushed the group to consider what negotiations and demands or concessions
would expedite us leaving the building. And without the activists, such actions as a rally
or a building sit-in might never have occured. The point is that every individual was
critical to this action, this successful action, and that is why it is important to consider the
group dynamics.  
 Leadership dynamics within this movement, and specifically during this action,
were intriguing because we didn’t have “leaders.” In keeping with our consensus
decision-making technique and our pledge of solidarity and non-violence, there were no
official leaders for our group. The reality is, though, that you don’t need “leaders” to
have leadership dynamics, and we had leadership dynamics....I had written this paragraph
introduction before I had gotten input from other TSAD members about “leadership
dynamics.” These dynamics seemed obviously apparent to me, though, and not simply as
leadership dynamics, but as “gendered leadership dynamics.” Actually this paragraph
was going to be about leadership, and the next paragraph was going to invoke leadership
and gender dynamics. And then I talked to a male TSAD member about what I had
written thus far in my part of the paper. He teasingly assumed that I had already filled
five pages with analysis of gender dynamics. And I replied, “no gender...yet.” He asked
what I had written about, then, and I told him that I was starting to discuss leadership. His
response was that we didn’t have leaders, and my response was to doubt myself and my
analysis. I am angry that my initial response was to doubt myself rather than to challenge
him, especially since it was important that I hear about what he thought about
“leadership” and gender dynamics and important that he hear what I have to say. I wish I
hadn’t needed to hear from other women to feel justified, but other women’s perspectives
did just that- they validated me. It is a challenge for all of us to look critically at how
gender does affect relationships, interactions, decision-making, the performance of
leadership, etc. without making gender the only thing to consider. It is an even greater
challenge to not just point out how and when gender is oppressive, but to be constructive
about this analysis. 
 This introduction does not imply that perspectives about leadership or gender
dynamics were homogenous along gender lines, and the most interesting thing about
asking people to talk to me about group dynamics was the variety of answers I received.
My point is, though, that listening to responses from both male and female sit-in
participants validated some of my claims about leadership and gender playing a role in
the movement and the action, even though we didn’t have leaders and though we made
some conscious efforts to mitigate the influences of both. I think the fact that there were
some leadership dynamics was justified by the fact that when I asked people to speak to
the issue of leadership dynamics, almost everyone had something to say. There was such
a diversity of responses, and each of them so insightful that it would be impossible to
make many generalizations. Therefore, for the topics of leadership and gender dynamics,
which I perceive as being interrelated in significant ways, I will present many of the
voices of TSAD. 
 Leadership must be talked about in the context of movement analysis because it is
not only considerable whether or not a movement or an action is “successful,” but it is
also necessary for the movement and action to function in a way that reflects the final
objective and member values. When I asked sit-in participants about leadership in the
action and in the building, every female I talked to referred to specific, named group
leaders. From this generalization, emerged very different ways of looking at how
leadership was performed and how this affected our action. One TSAD member
immediately acknowledged who the leaders were inside of Bendetson, but said that it
was OK that they were the obvious leaders because they were actively concerned about
being “leaders;” therefore they were modest about this role, which made everyone more
comfortable. This interpretation of the leaders notably included that the female
leadership was more concerned than the male leadership about having the role of
“leader.” Another female sit-in member also made reference to a gender distinction
between the leaders’ comfort levels with their leadership roles. She said that the male
leader “took the position of leadership...or people thrust him into it,” and she emphasized
that the female leader made such constant efforts not to be perceived as a leader. I found
this analysis to be especially interesting because she gave this evaluation of the situation
without mentioning gender. When I asked her if she thought gender affected the different
responses to leadership, she said that “typical gender roles” may have affected why the
female was more uncomfortable with her leadership than the male. She also made an
interesting note that, even with the specific example of male leadership, it was the male
TSAD members inside of Bendetson that were most vocally challenging leadership. This
is a curious addition to examining the gendered nature of leadership.
 There were suggestions that leadership was very different before and during our
time in Bendetson. It may be that leadership was more necessary or appropriate before
entering the sit-in, simply in order to “get shit done.” This analysis, especially within the
context of gender analysis, makes sense to me. Leadership in this form builds from
wanting to do things, than being expected to do everything. In my opinion this is
considerable to a discourse of activist leadership. I can empathize with this justification
for leadership, a similar justification to the idea that leaders are simply those who were
most committed to and active for the cause, and, though I think this is very relevant, I
think we must also consider the perpetuation of gendered leadership, and how leadership
is addressed.
 Leadership was discussed inside of Bendetson. Some people felt like this was
adequate- that by discussing leadership and making it visible, it was OK. Other
individuals did not feel like a conversation about leadership was adequate. One TSAD
member linked this to realities about time; we really weren’t in the building for that long,
and by the time leadership was discussed, it had already been established and there
wasn’t much motivation to make change. This TSAD member referred only to a male as
the “self-appointed leader,” and though I empathized with her frustration, I wondered
why it wasn’t vocalized when we were in the building and it could have been more
immediately constructive. 
 The consideration of leadership as gendered was not simple. I believe that several
of the female reflections on leadership are indicative that leadership was problematically
gendered. But not all females felt that way. One female TSAD member acknowledged
the leaders, recognized that there was a gender balance, and said that the situation would
have only been problematic if “two straight, white males” represented the entire group.
She also pointed out that the negotiating team for the meeting with President DiBiaggio
also had a conscious gender balance of three females and three males. I think this was a
significant decision and it was important for us to be responsive to gender representation,
but if you look at the numbers inside of Bendetson, there were five males and eleven
females...I don’t know that we can be satisfied that numbers indicate or guarantee “real”
equal representation. Another female’s response about leadership talked about it as being
“about and beyond gender.” She spoke about how, in the specific context of Bendetson
dynamics, male leadership “took up a lot of space,” and that was why it was so important
to have a strong female presence to balance this out. The male leadership did make
efforts to “step back,” but she saw this as different than the way the female leadership
consciously performed her role as leader. In these leadership dynamics, the female was a
different type of leader than the male, and this was both “about and beyond gender.” The
dynamics of our leadership were arguably influenced by how gender is socially
performed, but these dynamics were also about the dynamics of individuals, so
personality is also significant.    
 Leadership was also perceived as being significant, but genderless. Such analysis
was typically how male membership evaluated the dynamics of leadership, and I don’t
think these different analysis (gendered and not gendered) have to be mutually exclusive.
One male TSAD member saw leadership performed through group dependence on
certain individuals. This was specifically an issue of leadership before the sit-in. If a few
significant people were missing at meetings, namely male leaders, TSAD seemed to lack
clear direction. Similarly, all TSAD members could explain the movement or the issues,
but certain individuals still seemed to be “the sources of information.” According to
another male individual, leadership progressed throughout the movement, so that there
was a more distinct hierarchy in the movement before we entered the building, where it
was then more democratic and egalitarian. Other TSAD members answered my questions
about leadership by acknowledging that some individuals were definitely the most vocal
and visible spokespeople for the cause- on campus and in the media. One TSAD member
specifically defined the “inside” leadership as “vocal power,” where the leaders were
those who spoke more and louder than everyone else. A female TSAD member who
didn’t see gender as making a difference inside of Bendetson, pointed out that it was
always the males who led the chants. Then is gender irrelevant? True that males may
have a greater physical capacity for making noise, but when noise becomes associated
with leadership, both in terms of leading chants and also who speaks the loudest and the
most, we can’t ignore the multiple ways that males are socialized to lead. 
 There were differing views about how gender affected the performance of
leadership, but beyond leadership, gender arguably impacted the group dynamics of the
movement and sit-in. I say “arguably” with reluctance and only because I feel that it is
important to feature the diverse voices of the group. It is so obvious to me that gender
was relevant, and I feel validated that the majority of females share my opinion. But I
will start with the dissenting view. There were various perspectives on how significant
gender was to identity dynamics, but few sit-in participants out-right denied the
legitimacy of gender as a force inside of the movement. One female voice was previously
mentioned as not thinking gender was very important, but also pointing out that the
chants were always led by males. She also reflected on whether or not there were any gay
males inside of the building, and as neither of us knew, we didn’t speculate; but we did
challenge how this might have or did affect the group. If male, straight, and almost
entirely white was the constituency of the most vocal of all the voices, this is
problematic. Rather interestingly, one male TSAD member just had nothing to say either
about leadership or gender dynamics, even when specifically asked about these two
components in the context of requesting his input of group dynamics. The last voice
generally discredited the application of identity as a factor. While I agree with this
individual that differences of opinion were also very relevant, I can not understand how
he could, from his privileged position as a straight white male and given the context of
our action, deny that identity was significant. This statement may appear judgmental, but
the goal is not to criticize, but rather to critically analyze so as to be ultimately
constructive.
 I believe gender and identity were very relevant to our movement and our action,
and I think that recognizing gender dynamics is an important first step, but not a
sufficient end, to challenging the injustice of gender inequity. Sometimes I wonder if
women are programmed to passively accept their persistent and institutionalized gender
subordination, or if women see and understand how gender works to oppress them but
just don’t speak out about it loud enough or persistently enough, or just don’t expect
enough that gender oppression and inequity can change. Looking at gender in activism, I
think it is less an issue of women developing a feminist consciousness-- because I feel
legitimized by talking to female TSAD members that many of them also recognized
gender inequities-- than a challenge about when and how to be constructive about the
unacceptable realities of gender inequity. It is as if gender is never and always the issue
that needs to be addressed. We have solidarity behind activist causes, and the issues and
the action are so demanding that it seems as if there isn’t time, or it’s never the
appropriate time, to explicitly address gender dynamics. This is how I often feel-- as if it
is selfish to even notice gender inequalities, let alone vocalize opposition to them, when
everyone is unified to be effective for a specific cause. The cause is rarely if ever
specifically about gender, so that means that gender, if considered at all, is always
perceived as secondary to the issue at hand. But if we don’t consider gender as part of the
process, can we ever be truly successful? If even one female group member consciously
stops going to meetings for a time because they are “sick of just hearing the guys talk,”
the performance of gender is definitely problematic and needs to be challenged. 
 The difficulty for TSAD and other examples of progressive movements is that
issues of internal inequalities or problematic dynamics are not adequately addressed in
the present tense. This is a challenge to the group: to be focused about their purpose
while also being responsive to identity and group dynamics. I am frustrated that gender
isn’t more often discussed while it is most apparently problematic, not because I want the
focus to always be about gender or because I want not detract from the issue at hand, but
because I never want to feel like I am a female “help-mate” to activism that is socialized
as exclusively masculine. One TSAD member said that we needed females inside to
make sure that there was female representation and for such specific examples as female
members challenging music that was lyrically offensive to women, but she also said that
“we shouldn’t have to do that.” I agree. How can women be leaders and equal to men in a
movement, if women have the additional burden of being the “gender watchdogs.” This
needs to be a shared responsibility, not just so that it is more vocally addressed and
everyone is more aware, but because affecting change about gender oppressions and
unequal gender expectations can only be accomplished when all genders and everyone
involved are actively committed to this goal. Therefore, an analysis of group dynamics
should not be in retrospect, but rather it needs to be an active part of the movement, so
that action participants can feel good about the process and even better about the
conclusion, knowing that the group was committed to its ideals throughout the
movement.
 The ideologies of individuals also affected how group dynamics affected the
process of the sit-in. The diversity of ideas and perspectives was critical because it kept
us in check. We had to make decisions by consensus, and that meant everyone had to be
convinced that what we were going to do was the best choice. People had different
comfort levels, and people had different ideas about the impact of our actions. Deciding
on strategy was incredibly challenging. After a night inside of Bendetson, we had to
determine how to regulate our own behavior. The choice was whether or not to make
noise- LOUD noise. We had talked extensively about strategic issues before entering the
building, and the initial intent was to totally disrupt work and to prevent
business-as-usual during our occupation. Issues were reevaluated from our current
position, and people were generally concerned with how our activity before negotiations
would impact the negotiation process and the administrators’ attitudes towards us. This
specific consensus-making process warrants consideration because we literally spent
three hours talking about whether or not we were going to make noise, and these three
hours were testament to how individual ideology impacts the group’s decision-making
and actions. We talked about our position towards the administration, the value or
detriment of being disruptive, whether or not our disruption would be perceived as
disrespect, the perception of us by the outside when we made noise or when we were
quiet, and a host of other considerations. This meeting exemplified differences between
ideologies, backgrounds, “radicals” and the more conservative membershaip, “activists”
and activists for this cause....more importantly than pointing out our differences, this
group conversation was testament to how respectful we were of every individual and that
we valued the input from every individual. This was true people power.