Four students continue their hunger strike to demand changes to the University’s proposed Manhattanville expansion plan, after administrators agreed Wednesday to meet several of the strikers’ academic and administrative goals.
Negotiators representing the hunger strikers met with Maxine Griffith, executive vice president for government and community affairs, Thursday to discuss a set of demands they have presented on the expansion plan.
Administrators also clarified Thursday that they would devote $50 million of the University’s endowment to generate funds for enhancements to the Core Curriculum—including the announced shift of Major Cultures to a seminar-style class—rather than making a one-time capital expenditure. Additionally, Columbia stressed that the plan still needed to go through a lengthy approval process including gaining faculty approval and the implementation of a pilot program.
In a statement presented to the negotiators, Griffith responded on behalf of the University to several student concerns, noting that the administration agreed in spirit with some of the community benefits recommendations, but could not commit to them through negotiations with students.
Students demanded that the University commit to negotiating community benefits exclusively with the West Harlem Local Development Corporation rather than through separate agreements with individual politicians, such as the recent agreement with Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer to set up a $20 million affordable housing fund.
They also said that the agreement with Stringer was insufficient, since it would fund only about 100 housing units. The Environmental Impact Statement states that the expansion plan could indirectly displace more than 3000 people. The students demanded that the University make “a far more significant commitment to affordable housing.”
Griffith’s response noted that, “The $20 million affordable housing fund ... was created to be leveraged by affordable housing developers towards a much larger sum.”
Students called for several community benefits including an increase in community programming through groups like the Double Discovery Center and Community Impact, a scholarship admission program for CB9 residents, and a comprehensive educational complex including K-12 education, a health clinic, and adult education.
Griffith said in her response that the University agreed in spirit with students’ requests. “All of the items in this point have been raised as potential education benefits over the course of the conversations with the WHLDC,” the response said.
Students and administrators’ statements clashed most directly over the strikers’ demand that eminent domain be taken off the table. Griffith said that the University would retain the option of asking the state to use eminent domain if they could not reach agreements with business owners who have so far refused to sell.
Students said they brought up two additional points at today’s meeting, including a demand that the University not build level four bio-tech labs—a promise the University has already made in writing. The other demand was that the University create a committee on sustainable community relations to study socio-economic, environmental and cultural impacts of the expansion plan.
The negotiators released a statement late last night saying that the negotiations “confirmed our worst fears.” They objected to Griffith’s request that Community Board 9 member Vicky Gholson leave the room before the negotiations began. “We are greatly troubled by the implications of this action, which implies that the administration rejects the presence of the very people whom the expansion most affects,” the statement said.
“While we have been willing to compromise from our original position, we have not seen a similar commitment made by the administration,” it continued.
Earlier in the day, a crowd of students and community members gathered in the rain on College Walk in support of the strike. “Using eminent domain is like negotiating with a shotgun on the table,” said Bryan Mercer, CC ’07, who ended his hunger strike Wednesday night.
Later that evening, about 30 students gathered on Low Plaza to protest against the strike.
Christina Chen, CC ’09 and a strike organizer said she contacted the organizers of the counter-protest earlier in the day to suggest that the two sides meet for a discussion. “A lot of what they’ve been saying so far is legitimate,” Chen said. “But they turned my offer down tonight, which was very personally disappointing for me.”
“I’m not for a group of students representing student voice, when we don’t get the administration to listen just because we’re not starving ourselves,” Jenny Honrahan, BC ’10, said.
A group of students from the counter-protest discussed the demands with Barnard Professor Dennis Dalton, who joined the hunger strike last Thursday. One counter-protestor told Dalton he was “the most rational voice I’ve heard from that side,” to which Dalton responded, “Well, what we need to do most is find some common ground.”
Daniel Amzallag and Maggie Astor contributed to this article
The reporters of this article can be reached at news@columbiaspectator.com.
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy