Thirteen individuals were detained at New Mexico State University’s Las Cruces campus on Thursday following a two-hour sit-in protest. The demonstration, organized by anti-Israel parties, took place in the Hadley administration building, a hub for the university’s top administrative offices.
The protest started with a group of about 12 to 16 people positioning themselves in the central hallway, engaging in chants and songs. Outside, additional supporters joined, some playing musical instruments on the building’s doors, echoing the sentiments inside, as campus police restricted entry.
The sit-in was part of a broader movement that included a week-long encampment on campus, during which protesters issued demands to the university’s board of regents. These demands included adopting a cease-fire resolution and transparency about the university’s investments, specifically concerning any financial ties to entities benefiting from military actions in Gaza or associated with the Israeli government.
The protesters also strangely demanded that NMSU remove Pistol Pete as the university’s mascot.
Despite the protesters’ demands, the university’s regents did not address the cease-fire resolution. Interim President Mónica Torres communicated through a letter that the university had found no investments matching the criteria specified by the protesters and requested the disbandment of the camp due to policy and safety concerns. This camp was dismantled shortly after, on May 6.
As the sit-in commenced around 4:30 p.m., just before the end of the academic year, the atmosphere outside Hadley Hall was contrastingly serene, with students engaging in typical campus activities. However, inside, the mood was different as protesters, closely encircled by campus police, continued their demonstration.
By 5:30 p.m., the building was fully occupied by protesters and police. NMSU Police Deputy Chief Justin Dunivan mentioned efforts to de-escalate the situation and acknowledged the ongoing dialogue with the protesters.
As tensions escalated, supporters outside intensified their efforts, banging on the windows and shouting support slogans, with one protester marking the pavement with messages calling for a cease-fire. The administration noted a window was broken during the protest, attributing it to the intensity of the demonstration.
The situation reached a climax at around 6 p.m. when the university’s spokesperson, Justin Bannister, stated, “That building closes for business at 5 p.m.,” indicating that the protesters had been repeatedly asked to vacate the premises before being warned of impending arrests. This led to the arrest of 13 people, with charges ranging from misdemeanors like criminal trespass to felonies such as battery on a peace officer.
The following day, Interim President Torres released a statement, acknowledging the presence of both students and others in the protest and reiterating the university’s commitment to enabling peaceful protests while maintaining campus operations and safety.
After the news of the arrests, the far-left fringe group “ProgressNow New Mexico” bemoaned on X, “Last night peacefully gathered protesters at NMSU were violently removed during a sit-in. One was so brutally assaulted they required hospitalization.
We expressly condemn the use of force by police against students exercising their right to assemble and speech (sic). Again.”
On the other side of the argument, former Congresswoman Yvette Herrell wrote, “Kudos to NMSU for handling this the right way. Clear communication from the administration about the consequences for breaking the law, then rapid follow-through from law enforcement when those warnings were ignored. Lawbreakers were promptly removed, arrested, and charged – problem solved. Other universities should take note!”
Good for NMSU!
The police handled the protest professionally. The protesters not so much…
I agree with you, Paul. These “protesters” got what they richly deserved. Way to go NMSU and campus police!
Kudos to Yvette Herrell’s comments regarding the police and protesters at NMSU. Meanwhile, crickets from her opponent Gabe Vasquez.
The minute protesters cross the line or break the law police must arrest them and remove them. 🇺🇸
I am very surprised NMSU did anything being how far on the left their professors are. I am glad they did the correct thing. I would ask why would their students believe they were even doing the right thing? Who is pushing the issue that the Palestinians are victims?
Put them in jail, they don’t have a right to disrupt and vandalize.
I really expected better of you, Pinon Post. The demonstration, organized by anti-Israel parties, took place in the Hadley administration building,
Why anti-Israel and why not pro-Palestinian? Is the life of one Jew worth the lives of thousands of Palestinians? The punishment does not fit the crime. I agree that some of the demonstrations may seem bought and paid for, but as a former protester (Vietnam, Iraq, and various peace demonstrations) I believe that if you want democracy, you had better support dissent especially if you don’t agree. It’s good if the dissent does not descend into rioting of various sorts. What you described in your article seems to have fallen far short of that. What is happening in Gaza fits the description of genocide, and genocide no matter who the perpetrator is wrong! Why does the US supply superior weapons and cash to Israel? I don’t appreciate my tax dollars being spent there or in Ukraine. If you all think Russia is a bully in Ukraine, where Ukraine has superior weapons and plenty of money, then what does that make Israel?
Well, Sue, we are on a neo-conservative blog here and that is to be expected. I, for one, do not expect better of Pinon Post. There are a few contributors who understand nuance, but most just parrot what they hear on Fox. The same people who would decry chattel slavery and racism in the US sense no cognitive dissonance when it comes to de-humanizing whoever the neo-con press says it is OK to dehumanize. If I am to be intellectually consistent I cannot endorse Israeli actions while at the same time condemning National Socialist actions in Germany.
A Scenario.
Setting: a quiet cafe in rural Minnesota where a Palestinian is at table with a Lakota elder. The Palestinian used to be a small farmer but the Zionists took his family’s farm away 70 years ago. Family brought him to the US as an immigrant. He entered legally.
The Palestinian: “They came in boats from Europe. At first we welcomed them. We gave them jobs and food. Then, little by little, it became obvious that they did not want to live with us. What they wanted was to take everything we had, expel us from our own land, eliminate as many of us as possible, and, those they could not eliminate, herd into walled compounds where they could attack us from time to time. They expropriated the family farm, bulldozed our home and killed my little brother who was throwing rocks at them.”
Lakota Elder: “Right. Not hard to imagine. And when you had the opportunity to retaliate with whatever means available to you they called you ‘savages’, right?”
The Palestinian: “Yeah…exactly…how did you know?”
You know that this is a conservative venue. If you don’t like the direction that the editorial takes feel free to favor us by your absence….
That is the whole point, Mike. This is not a conservative venue. It is a neo-conservative venue and the difference is very important. It is very unfortunate that the one has become confused with the other. Most people will not go so far as to investigate this difference; they will simply reject the notion. The hope is that one or two people will be encouraged to learn the difference. Neo-conservatism has done far more damage to our country than has liberalism over the last 50 years. Authentic conservatism is a narrow and tough road, but it is our best hope. Having rejected liberalism, we must now reject neo-conservatism. If nothing else, just keep this in mind, neo-conservatism shares little similarity with true conservatism, despite the similarity in the names.
Dear Sue, Baruch, and Armando,
I fail to see where you were forced to read the article of which you have such disapproval. I believe the Piñon Post is received by subscription, and I think the “unsubscribe” link is quite easy to find. I heartily recommend utilizing that function. In the meantime, the rest of us will enjoy decent journalism.
As for the “protesters,” it devolves into a riot when the normal course of business is interrupted, laws are broken, and damage is inflicted. Well done NMSU on holding to a line and following through.
Exactly right. Clint! Plus, Hamasaki is a terrorist organization and started whole thing by attacking, not a military etc, but innocent civilians (women, children, babies…raping, torturing killing). Then they run and hide behind civilians. First of all…don’t believe the numbers of civilians dead that are put out by Hamas news organizations and the crooked UN. Second. Israel has warned the civilians to leave the areas controlled by Hamas and given them time to leave. Third, as horrible as it is, civilians die in a war. Read about the British, French, German and Russian civilians who died in WWII. I say, let those who hate America, hate Israel etc moved to the Islamic controlled nations. Evidently, they hate us and love them so what are they waiting for. If that’s the type of government they want, let them go live it!
Sorry, Hamas…not Hamasaki. My predict got me.
I dunno, “Hamasaki” does have a certain Word War II era Empirial Japanese-esque sound to it that is not entirely without analog . . .
A question here. Could we define some terms? I don’t mean to step out of line, but it seems you define terrorist as a person or group who attacks innocent civilians. Am I close?
So I bottle up civilians in a circumscribed area. Then I tell them to move to a different part of that area because I plan to bomb the part they are in. Once they move I bomb both the formerly inhabited area and the area they moved to. Sure. Sounds reasonable.
More comfortable in an echo chamber?
**chuckling** Yes, since it is well known liberalism is the bastion of independent, rational, and critical thought!
And there you have it, Sue. Perfect example. Our friend Clint has determined that I am a liberal. How did he reach that conclusion? Because I am critical of the Zionist agenda. He has not the slightest clue as to my views on other topics that might define a liberal or a conservative. But he is sure he smells a liberal when he finds an anti-Zionist. And this would perhaps qualify as “independent, rational, critical thought”. We are all chuckling now.
I readily confess my ignorance: I’ve not come across antisemitic conservatives. Oh, wait! Perhaps you’re one of those vaunted, sought after “Independents”? The ones who all the talking heads say need pandering despite little evidence of actual usefulness.
Nah. Thanks, Clint, but I’m not going anywhere. I like it right here. I sort of like this little blog because I get to keep up with NM politics from a fairly reliable point-of-view. Not to worry. I hold to most of the views generally considered to be “conservative”. Maybe even a lot more than the neo-cons on this blog. I just am not a Zionist supporter. So, yeah, thanks for the suggestion, but I’ll just stay here and agree when I agree and disagree when I don’t. Cute little response, though. Gotta’ hand it to ya’.
Awww, you’re making me blush
We all have choices… I choose this publication, I choose the First Amendment, I choose to live in this Country and what it stands for: Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You no like. I no like you. Just get the hell out of Dodge and take the Swamp with you.
Wait! I’m confused. Get the hell out of Dodge? What happened to that First Amendment you mentioned?
Hi Baruch, you’ve got it right. But like me on last weeks blog on genocide in Palestine , we were propelled from “conservative “ to a hamas terrorist by the stroke of a key and some readers wild imagination. Anyone who stands for human rights whether it be the Uighers in China or Palestinians is immediately branded and minimized by name calling and vitriol. Since Zionism has turned into the religion of the (right) neo-conservatives, I’m not sure where Jesus would fit into the equation. And this site should focus on the fact that the Zionist “conservative “ Mike Johnson, just teamed up with communist Biden to totally betray all Americans on the “aid” package that provides zero border control!
Dear Norteno: It gives me hope that there is another person out there who reads this blog, ostensibly realizes some importance to it, and understands the difference between conservatism and neo-conservatism. Thank you. As you know, the distinction is quite important. My hope is that even one or two of the good people on this blog will step back and take a little time to learn the difference. It is then that they will realize the destructive path down which neo-conservatism leads one.
You are right Carlos , most people on this site can’t even identify a true Semite yet regurgitate all of CNN and Fox News talking points. They then think they are informed instead of propagandized. Thank you for your informed approach and reality based comments.
RMG goes radio silence.
Since there are paid protestors at a lot of these pro-Hamas rallies, I would expect paid pro-Hamas trolls on conservative news websites. So I don’t buy the whole “I am an anti-zionist conservative” line.
Rose, a suggestion in good faith. Perhaps you should take a deep breath, stand back a moment, and learn the difference between authentic conservatism and neo-conservatism. My suggestion is meant to be helpful, not derogatory.
Sure Carlos, would you care to explain the difference?
Actually, Rose, with all due respect to everyone, I’d not like to do that on this site. It is not something that lends itself to quick, easy explanations and on a site like this it would just lead to useless argument. I appreciate your willingness to open your mind to the possibility that not everything that is branded as “conservativism” deserves that title. There is plenty out there written about neo-conservatives so it should be easy for someone motivated to come up to speed on it. After you do you will begin to be able to pick it out right away. It has certain characteristics just like any political philosophy. I can sympathize with people who unknowingly espouse neo-conservative viewpoints because we are told that these are “conservative” positions when they are nothing of the sort. True conservatism, by its nature, is based on principles that apply to all people and situations. That is to say, true conservatism is, above all else, principled. About the only thing neo-conservatism shares with true conservatism is a similar, if misleading, name. A true conservative would, for instance, hold to the principle that, with rare genetic exceptions, humans are born male and female and that, consequently, we should not be mutilating people sexually in order to try to affect that and that this stricture applies to everyone, always, everywhere. By the same token a true conservative would take the position that genocide or ethnic cleansing were always wrong regardless of who is doing it or to whom it is being done. That conservative may dislike the group which is being targeted and may love the group that is doing the genocide, but they are still going to oppose the action because their position is based on principle and not upon personal preference. That same person will condemn terrorism and will refuse to allow terrorism to be called by any other name regardless of the perpetrator. Therefore it is not only easy, but actually consistent, for that person to oppose terrorism on the part of anyone because they are not considering the parties involved but the act itself. This is by no means a complete explanation, but I hope it helps. The more people who discover authentic conservatism and abandon neo-conservatism, the safer our country will be.
Clint. In one post above you would seem to extol the virtue of independent thinking. Two posts later you refer to independents as “useless”. I sense some inconsistency. Notice also how you immediately conflate a disdain for Zionism with “antisemitism”. Unfortunately, that is quite common in neo-conservative thinking. Can we start with definitions? Who, exactly, are the “Semites”?
Yep. This is why definition of terms at the outset of a discussion is so important. It is also why we should not allow any group, or any person, to change the meaning of a word from its etymological origin. Before someone starts throwing around the term “anti-semite” they should stop and ask where the term “Semite” came from in the first place. Who, exactly, are the Semites, anyway? Where does that word have its origin? This blog suffers from a lot of imprecision in the use of terms. It makes some of the comments ludicrous when viewed from a precise use of terminology.
Crickets from Clint.
You know, I have had time to stand back and take a breath, and I realized that, if this had truly been “a suggestion in good faith”, you could have just explained these differences to me yourself. Instead, you were very condescending, which is exactly how a troll would behave.
Rose, it was the farthest thing from my mind to be condescending. I find nothing in my last message that I would consider condescending but we have a saying in Spanish, “Cada cabeza es un mundo”. So if you found something condescending so be it. I think you have convinced yourself that an objection to genocide, as long as it is genocide against a particular group is not compatible with a conservative mindset. You are by no means alone. You are also convinced that those of us attempting to introduce a position rarely considered on this blog are trolls. So be it. All the best to you.