Kevin Dugan, one of the students inside the cafeteria and the senior news editor at the The New School Free Press, said in a phone call that the students decided to leave after the university’s embattled president, Bob Kerrey, agreed to four demands: amnesty for students participating in the demonstration; student participation in selecting a new provost; creation of a committee on socially responsible investment, with student representation; and the replacement in other New School buildings of space that will be lost because of the demolition of 65 Fifth Avenue, including a library and a 7,000 square foot reading room.
At the beginning of the protest, students had said they would not leave the cafeteria unless Mr. Kerrey and other administrators resigned. But as the occupation grew in size and stretched into a second day, a new consensus seemed to emerge, with some students saying it was it unlikely that Mr. Kerrey would agree to such stipulations and instead advocating goals that they said had a better chance of success.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/new-school-students-end-dining-hall-sit-in/?pagemode=print
The fact that their first demand was “Amnesty for the protesters” tells us everything we need to know about their motives: They were in on the sit-it for their own self-interest and not the greater benefit of the school. If they truly cared about making the university better, they would’ve willingly sacrificed their own well being if it meant the greater good of the school would’ve been served.