The Incarceration to Education Coalition’s occupation of the NYU Kimmel Center ended on Saturday in an agreement struck with the NYU administration. The IEC has worked to remove the question, “Have you ever been adjudicated guilty or convicted of a misdemeanor, felony or other crime?” from the Common Application. After 34 grueling hours, the demonstration finally got the IEC a timely personal meeting with President Hamilton and a recorded discussion with the Common App CEO on Tuesday. Not only does this agreement represent a significant victory for the Ban the Box movement, but it also provides an important milestone for disruptive student activism and administrative transparency.

The IEC’s past efforts to “ban the box” have fallen on deaf ears for the past three years. The NYU administration has diverted and stalled less intrusive methods, such as letters, closed door meetings and town-hall appearances. But this weekend’s disruptive and highly-visible sit-in successfully won important concessions from the administration and captured the attention of the larger student body. Now that this debate has become more visible and substantive than ever, a new stage of this protest has begun that the administration can no longer ignore. Disruptive protest works because it motivates the student body and agitates those in power.

Perhaps the most important piece of the agreement was that the meeting between the IEC, NYU administration and the CEO of the Common App will be recorded. This is an important step in holding the administration accountable to the larger NYU community. The IEC has held private, unrecorded meetings with NYU administrators for years with little effect. Greater transparency further pressures the administration to take the concerns of the community more seriously. Without a recording, there can be no accountability, and without accountability, there can be no guarantee of meaningful results. The IEC has achieved a major victory for themselves and their cause by removing the administrative opacity which plagued previous attempts at change.

While the IEC’s success demonstrated that it is possible to force the administration’s hand, civil disobedience should be a measure of last resort. Too much rowdiness can quickly sour the administration’s relationship with student activists and hinder future dialogues. Hopefully, with the Hamilton administration’s growing push for open communication, groups like the IEC won’t be forced to use civil disobedience. The administration has made an effort to act in good faith, and student activists should hold up their own end. After all, the goal is to have students working in collaboration with the administration to improve the university. With the IEC’s newly minted agreement, the student community is one step closer to being a part of the administrative process, rather than an outside agitator.

A version of this article appeared in the Monday, March 28 print edition. Email the Editorial Board at [email protected].