As the hunger strikers who are protesting administrative and University policies completed their first week on the Gatorade-and-tea diet, they were confronted by one small question.
“Hungry?”
That was what the sign, tacked to a table of donuts and soda facing the hunger strikers from Low Plaza, said. The display, erected by the Columbia University College Republicans, was one of several forums that have emerged in opposition to the strike.
The Republicans said their event encouraged debate that was lacking in the protest. “A hunger strike is not a legitimate form of debate,” Chris Kulawik, CC ’08 and CUCR president, said. “It shelves debate.”
Strikers have called for a more diverse Core Curriculum, an ethical expansion into Manhattanville, improved administrative response to bias incidents, and more support for the ethnic studies program.
The event coincided with a one-day fast among students who wanted to show their support for the six primary hunger strikers. The fasters met for “mocktails” of diluted Gatorade on College Walk at 12:30 p.m., the same time that CUCR provided donuts a few feet away.
Like CUCR, fasters said their presence promoted discourse.
“I’m grateful for questions that are being raised,” said Lillian Udell, CC ’10 and a faster. Referring to the Republicans, she said, “It’s obnoxious to have an event with donuts when people are striking, but ... people need to see the opposition.”
Christina Chen, CC ’09 and a strike organizer, doled out pro-strike fliers at the Republicans’ tables. “I like hearing out people’s concerns. They’re very valid,” she said.
The Republicans had their share of critics. Some visitors accused them of callousness for, in the words of Terrell Winder, CC ’11 and a faster, “dangling food” in front of strikers.
D. Max Moerman, an associate professor at Barnard, asked the group members, “Do you know how stupid ... you look?”
William Nosal, CC ’08 and CUCR treasurer, told Moerman to leave, and when he didn’t, called Public Safety. The professor left before Nosal finished his call, but not without offering to leave his number and address.
Although Kulawik admitted that, like the strike, the event sought to draw attention, he argued, “We’re looking for debate; they’re looking for leverage.”
Kulawik also maintained that: “the strike uses coercion and force to get ideas through. Where does that leave everyone else who doesn’t resort to such tactics?”
Shannon Tan, SEAS ’11 and CUCR member, called the strike sensationalist and questioned the strikers’ demands. “Do minority students even need more administrative support?” Tan asked. “I don’t feel like I need more support, as a minority.”
Aga Sablinska, CC ’09 and creator of the Facebook group “We Do NOT Support the Hunger Strikers,” criticized the Republicans for nonconstructively mocking the protesters, but agreed that the strikers have unfairly imposed their demands since: “they never asked the student body if they agree. Because of that, I don’t think they’re entitled to make demands.”
Sablinska said she also disapproved of the “all or nothing” approach to negotiations. She created the Facebook group after realizing that many students disagreed with the strikers, but didn’t speak out for fear of being labeled racist or uneducated.
Josh Mathew, CC ’09 and a member of the Facebook group, attributed this fear to the strikers’ rhetoric. By calling themselves anti-racist and concerned about the University, Mathew said, the strikers imply that anyone against them is against these qualities.
“The protests tend to create a dichotomy,” he said.
Another group member, Courteney Ervin, CC ’09, agreed, adding that the demands are too “expansive and can’t be solved easily.”
Striker Emilie Rosenblatt, CC ’08, encouraged people who disagree with the strike to “take their own action.”
But for Kulawik, hunger striking is the wrong action. “There are changes we’d love to see, too, but you won’t see us resorting to those tactics,” he said.
Lien Hoang can be reached at lien.hoang@columbiaspectator.com.