"Occupy Everything, Demand Nothing"

So Hasana Sharp and Will Roberts describe the student protest at McGill. And though those words sound, out of context, like a satirical jibe, they are, in fact, an earnest description of the movement:

". . . the mutation in the university’s response to student protest also marks a mutation in the protests themselves. In 1997, students occupied the same offices as last week.  They came with a list of demands, stayed for three days, and left peaceably when the administration refused to negotiate on the demands.  The occupiers last week made no demands.  Occupy everything, demand nothing.  That is their watchword.  This is not the frightening or confusing development people seem to think it is.  If occupations do not make demands, that means they are not engaging in mercenary activity.  The occupiers were not holding the Principal’s office hostage.  They just want to talk and be heard.  They occupy to short-circuit the usual channels by which concerns get mediated and diluted, and arguments get muted to the point of inaudibility."

Despite the reassurances of Sharp and Roberts, I confess to some confusion.

What I know is that the University is increasingly a regime that runs like a business: the faculty are the production line, Government the customer, the students a nuisance. Like the management of Unilever or Ford, it's not part of the administration's conception of the plant that the workers are owners ("stakeholders", in the jargon), much less so the nuisances.

Against this background, the desire "to talk and be heard" is most welcome. But no demands? No agenda? Sorry, I don't get it. How far can minimalism go? And how far does it take one?