Activist Updates: 2024 YDSA Convention Day 2

The Activist Editorial Board summarizes the second day of the 2024 YDSA national convention.

After being taught how to use OpenSlides  and the history of Robert’s Rules of Order on day one, delegates began debating, persuading, and voting on resolutions on day two. 143 delegates gathered on Zoom, participating in three “deliberative blocks,” with votes on resolutions covering a variety of topics, from political education to Palestine organizing. 

Before the proceedings began, delegates heard from guest speaker Vincent Bevins, a journalist who worked as a  correspondent for the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post.  Bevins has written two books—The Jakarta Method and If We Burn—using his speech to focus on the latter, which analyzes the mass protest movements of the 2010s, and the lessons they have for modern protesters. 

“I try to tell the story of the 2010s as if the most important thing that happened is the mass protest that gets so big that it becomes something else,” explained Bevins. “The mass protest that either overthrows or fundamentally destabilizes an existing government.” Noting that a specific form of response to injustice— the “apparently spontaneous, leaderless, digitally coordinated, horizontally organized, mass protest in public squares or public spaces,”—became hegemonic during the 2010s, Bevins argued that until the encampments, “the pro-Palestine protests reminded me more of 2003 than the 2010s. They reminded me more of what I had done as student at UC Berkeley to protest the invasion of Iraq.” He argued this changed with the mass demonstrations and harsh crackdowns seen on college campus in April and May.

Asked about how socialist groups should engage in coalition spaces, Bevins reflected on his knowledge of protest in the past twenty years to answer. 

“The story globally is that actors in the student milieu, that have a coherent ideology, a very well thought out theory of change,and  that are committed to the task of organization, end up really punching above their weight,” Bevins said. 

Block 1:

The first deliberation block involved votes on two resolutions. Resolution 5—”Towards a National Student Strike for Palestine”—and Resolution 15—”No Votes for Genocide.” 

Sponsored by Bread & Roses member and NCC co-chair candidate Uma Clemenceau, R5 encourages YDSA chapters to “organize democratically-run campaigns demanding their school’s divestment from Israel, a ceasefire in Gaza, and free speech on campus,” with those campaigns being aimed towards a national student strike. 

“We should be brave, we should be bold, this is a generational significant moment for us, and it could be our movement if we answer the call,” said Jeffrey Childs, a member of Bread & Roses running for NCC at-large from Oakland University YDSA, in favor of the resolution. 

Others disagreed, believing that a single strategy for Palestine organizing wasn’t suitable for all chapters. 

“I think it abandons a lot of our southern and more rural chapters, especially small chapters,” said Callynn Johnson, member of the Constellation Caucus and current at-large member of the NCC. “Those are chapters that do not have the ability to safely execute those things right now. We’re often putting a lot of our southern chapters in needless danger that doesn’t build power.” 

R5 passed, with a vote of 75 in favor, 69 against, and 5 abstaining. 

“I’m really excited that it passed!” said  Uma Clemenceau when asked about R 5’s passage. “ I think it’s time to escalate past encampments and experiment with new ways of bringing the masses into struggle on our campuses. The student strike has historical precedent but for it to work, we need national leaders who can be flexible and coach chapters through this escalation regardless of their campus’ terrain.”

Others were less enthusiastic. 

“I feel as if this resolution will abandon the states where it is genuinely hard to mobilize, and bring the masses to a student strike,”replied Max Agosta, co-chair of University of Cincinnati YDSA and a member of Libertarian Socialist Caucus, when asked about his thoughts on R5. “The states will not all get the same negotiations, many states will get a lot more harm to the movement rather than others. This also fails to recognize that YDSA did not start the encampments, and does not allow us the flexibility to put the resources towards work that we have to do with other Palestinian orgs campaigns.”

The other Palestine resolution in block one was Resolution 15. R15 clarifies YDSA’s electoral strategy for the 2024 elections, establishing a series of “anti genocide” requirements for student government candidates, and encouraging YDSA members to withhold support for federal candidates that don’t meet these demands. For student government, the requirements include: 

• Support the disclosure and termination of all school investments in Israel,
• Support student-worker resistance to the genocide, including but not limited to spoken or written criticism, rallies, encampments, occupations, and strikes, and
• Oppose repression of student-worker resistance, including but not limited to student conduct charges, academic sanctions, suspensions, use of the police or national guard, and arrests,

among other things. Comparatively, the resolution asks YDSA members to not support federal candidates who don’t: 

• Support a permanent ceasefire,
• Oppose immigration restrictions including, but not limited to, the militarization of the US-Mexico border, and
• Oppose restricting the self-activity of the working class and oppressed, like the punishment of the Palestinian solidarity movement, including, but not limited to, the rights to strike, freely assemble, protest, or criticize.

“It’s no secret that the presidential election this year is one of the worst in history,” said Steven Raney from Furman University. “I think our two critical tasks as socialists in this moment is one to intervene in the election in a way that offers people a alternative and begins building something new so that next year, or four years from now, or eight years from now, we don’t have the same crisis facing us, and two, to continue building on the Palestine solidarity movement,” Raney said. “ I think the best way to do this is no votes for genocide.” 

“I think the requirements this amendment lists for endorsements of socialists in office is unreasonable, given the size and power of DSA at this moment,” said Ryan Jones from NYU YDSA. “The truth is by passing this amendment, and by trying to increase needed requirements we’re really telling present candidates they have to be perfect in order to get our endorsement, our support, our volunteers on the ground, but we don’t have the power to endorse that. DSA is not a large organization.” 

R15 passed, with two amendments, by a narrow margin. 73 votes in favor, 72 against, and 4 abstaining. 

Block 2:

In the second deliberation block, delegates discussed five resolutions. Resolution 17—“There is only one solution! Intifada! Revolution”—motivated by Aron Ali-McClory was debated first. There was no debate against the resolution and it passed with 91% of votes in favor.

Aron told the Activist after the vote that they were “proud that almost all delegates– an absolutely watershed 93%– support [their] vision for how YDSA should orient towards the movement for Palestinian liberation. It’s clear what’s next– time to get to work on building our movement ever stronger!”

Next, delegates debated Resolution 1—“Make YDSA an Anti-Zionist Organization in Principle and Praxis”—was motivated by Bryce Springfield of Princeton YDSA. Four floor amendments were proposed, each requiring a rules suspension in order to be considered. These amendments attempted to revise the conditions and process of controversial expulsion clauses. All four motions to suspend the rules failed. The original resolution passed with 65% of the convention vote

“I think we need to have hard lines with against reactionary tendencies,” said Noah Levy from Miami University YDSA. “I also think most fears about it being abused are overblown considering my understanding of existing processes.” 

“My thoughts on the resolution are that I worry it’ll have a chilling effect on the ability for Jews – including anti-Zionist Jews – to safely work and interact within YDSA,” explained Evan Cholerton from University of Chicago YDSA about concerns involving whether the restrictions of resolution could include religious organizations that also participate in political activity. “Forcing socialist Jews to choose between their socialist and pro-Palestinian activism and their ability to participate in their cultural life is already a hard-enough decision, and should not be made even harder by YDSA.”

Next, Uma Clemenceau motivated Resolution 3—“For Rechartering the Youth Labor Committee, Student Worker Unions, and the Rank-and-File Strategy”—with no debate against the resolution passed with 92% of votes in favor.

After the vote, Uma told the activist the resolution made her “excited for the future of the undergrad labor movement. I wake up every day and talk to student workers at UCSB who are so ready to take things into their own hands and fight for a union here.” However, she continued, “I feel like none of this happens without sustained mentorship for chapters though. We need to protect YDSA autonomy and a strong budget so we can continue to support the life changing work like University of Oregon YDSA did in their union campaign, like at UCSB, and beyond.”

Then, delegates debated Resolution 21—“Building Militant and Democratic Student Unions on College Campuses.” Carlos Callejo III of Cal Poly Pomona motivated in favor of the resolution. The resolution passed with 91% of the vote. Carlos described YDSA’s new commitment to student unions as “without a doubt, the most dynamic force in the current American socialist project.” He continued “It’s time to be bold and creative, let’s get to work.”

Finally delegates debated two amendments to Resolution 2: “Bringing Class-Struggle to Student Government.” First, Winnie Marion of NYU YDSA motivated an amendment targeting the scope of the resolution towards identified strategic campuses. This amendment passed with 90% in favor. The second amendment, motivated by Jeffrey Childs of Oakland University YDSA, expanded the electoral committee chartered by the resolution to include YDSA involvement in local electoral races in their communities. In making the case for YDSA-led independent socialist electoral activity, Jeffrey said “We know in many places the far right loses ground when they ‘stick to their guns’ on bad policy. We cannot be soft on the Democrats when they ‘stick to their guns’ on bad policy too.” While some delegates argued that this was too far an extension of the spirit of the resolution, the amendment passed with 72% in favor. Time in the second block ran out before voting on the amended resolution which was moved to the top of the agenda of the third block. 

Block 3:

While the agenda for block 3 was planned to solely deliberate Amendment 2  — “Towards a Workers Party” and its sister resolution of the same name, Resolution 4. The block began with continuing debate on the amended Resolution 2 — “Bringing Class-Struggle to Student Government”—from the previous block. 

The power or lack of power of student government was hotly debated. Beyond student government legislation which may or not be recognized by university administration, there was agreement on the agitational role of student electeds around class struggle. The amended version of the resolution was extended towards establishing a YDSA electoral committee to support on and off campus class-struggle elections and to prepare independent action for the 2024 Presidential Election. The resolution passed with 74% votes in favor. 

The block also included a motion to reconsider a previously passed resolution, the amended R15 — “No Votes for Genocide.” However, the block continued first with the original agenda and deliberated A2 and R4. Ryan J, author of the amendment and resolution, motivated for A2 to be deliberated on first. The implementation of R4 would be largely contingent on A2 passing. 

A2 calls for the direct affiliation of student worker unions with YDSA and their representation at our Convention – despite heated debate the resolution failed with 92% votes against. Carolyn R motivated against A2 and had this to say following the vote, “I think it’s important to acknowledge that this is just the beginning of the undergrad labor movement. We’ve been very intentional about building shop floor organization and getting them into YDSA. I had concerns since we’re leading the movement that it would come from a top-down place rather than building consensus for socialism on the shop floor. We need to fully commit. With R3 (“For Rechartering the Youth Labor Committee, Student Worker Unions, and the Rank-and-File Strategy”) today we talked the talk that we’re committed to labor and now it’s time to walk the walk and build winning union campaigns”

David L also motivated against the amendment. Both comrades are members of University of Oregon YDSA and UO Student Workers. UOYDSA led a historic labor campaign, chartering the path for the first undergraduate student worker union at a public university in the United States. 

Then came the deliberation on whether or not to reconsider R15. Leonardo H. motivated reconsidering R15 over a complication regarding a miscast proxy vote, significant considering R15 passed with only one vote more in favor (73-72). There was confusion on whether reconsideration was warranted but those in favor believed it to be beneficial to reconsider the motion given the margin of error and believed it to be a matter of internal democracy. Still yet, the vote for reconsideration failed with 52% votes against 

The amendment to Resolution 4—“Towards a Workers Party”—was up next. R4-1 replaces the strategy of direct affiliation with YDSA with creating explicitly socialist rank-and-file caucasus in unions. Proponents, including an OC member for a student worker union at the New School, explained that socialist caucuses in labor unions would serve to achieve the ‘merger of the socialist and labor movements’ and act as a counterweight to labor bureaucracy and ineffective reform caucuses. Those against, largely disagreed for the same reasons as they did for Amendment 2.

R4-1 failed with 68% votes against. R4 unamended failed with an even larger margin of 90% votes against, due to the signaled lack of support for both the amendment and the amended version of R4. 

Steven R, Marxist Unity Group NCC candidate, who motivated in favor of the amendment said, “I thought it was important to vote on R4-1 because while R4 demonstrated the kind of creativity and party-oriented thinking we need in YDSA, the vision for a workers’ party it put forward was flawed…While the ‘status quo’ position on labor organizing won pretty handily, I think the fact that there were  three distinct approaches to the labor party question in real competition with each other this year speaks to the fact that YDSA is quickly evolving past the days of unquestioned labor orthodoxy.”