Several weeks back, emboldened with a thesaurus and having decided they’d had enough, the Harvard Crimson staff ran an impassioned editorial urging Occupy Wall Street protestors on campus to leave Goldman Sachs, and those hoping to gain employment with the firm, alone. It’d been a “group of Occupy Harvard Protesters who attempted to disrupt a Goldman Sachs recruiting event” that set them off and no longer could they hold their tongues. The newspaper took occupiers to task for “presenting a facile and trivializing interpretation of the root causes of the economic catastrophe and debases our national conversation on the issue,” for failing to comprehend that Goldman Sachs is going to hire employees regardless– and, god damn, it, they ought to be Harvard students–, and for just generally embarrassing themselves by “pitching a simplistic conception of the financial crisis and targeting fellow students [which] is not the way to have a successful movement.” Moving forward, the Crimsonians cautioned, “Occupy ought to refrain from such ill-conceived protests in the future.” But the die had already been cast. Continue reading »