DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS:  Texas State troopers arrive at UT Austin occupation, start making arrests.

The organization initially planned to march and occupy UT Austin’s South Mall, but administrators notified the group that the event wasn’t authorized.

[AYFKM: Columbia president told Congress this prof was ‘terminated.’ Now it appears he’s ‘holding class’ INSIDE Columbia’s gates among pro-Hamas camp]

”Simply put, The University of Texas at Austin will not allow this campus to be ‘taken’ and protesters to derail our mission in ways that groups affiliated with your national organization have accomplished elsewhere,” a letter from university administrators stated. “Please be advised that you are not permitted to hold your event on the University campus. Any attempt to do so will subject your organization and its attending members to discipline including suspension under the Institutional Rules.”

A large state police presence has been reported at the protest, according to the report. A state trooper reported that at least three had been arrested, with the university later confirming to local news that 10 had been arrested.

The University of Austin at Texas Hillel said on Instagram that administrators have assured them that “there will be no tolerance for disruption.”

But how will that play out for UT Austin? In her 2007 book, The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization, Diana West looked back at the college riots of the 1960s and noted wryly the outcome of the one campus were the faculty fought back:

The fact is, general support for the Vietnam War under President Johnson, and, later, President Nixon, remained fairly solid during periods of student upheaval—although such support was going to be lower amid the increasingly liberal subset of society that sent its children to, or taught them in, college. But what did these supporters say to their children? It’s not difficult to imagine long distance arguments over what was going on at school between Junior and the ’rents—liberal or conservative—but what harsh words ever led to harsh actions? That is, what collegiate revolutionary ever saw his dining hall contract canceled, or his bursar account closed? (As one historian remarked, he knew of no other uprising in history in which the revolutionaries had fellowships.) The conduct of the war in Vietnam, the pace of civil rights reform, or university slumlordship wasn’t ever the parenting issue. What concerned Mom and Dad—or should have—had to do with Junior’s behavior. Dirty words. Shoving. Pushing. Cutting class. Cutting fire hoses. Waving guns. Taking things. Breaking things. Throwing things (paving stones, Molotov cocktails). Burning things (buildings, records, research). But it didn’t—at least not in any consequential way. Indeed, at the University of Chicago, which may be the one campus where administrators acted swiftly to expel students who had occupied a building, “parents took out newspaper advertisements protesting the draconian punishment visited upon their darlings, thus providing a clue to what had gone wrong with their children.”

As James Lileks wrote about advertising in the 1950s and ‘60s, “Turns out that living in near-Utopia has the worst possible effect: you decide to strive for a different Utopia altogether. Come to think of it, though, the roots of it all are in the ads. They’re testaments to happiness, a goal, a mode of living. But it’s not happiness you get because you’ve earned it. It’s happiness that you deserve as an American. That’s where things started to go sideways. It’s a short hop to thinking you deserve it all because you exist.”