Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Columbia Under Siege
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 13, 2007
Hierarchies of power, ethnic studies, Manhattanville, Core reform—the demands of the hunger strikers read as a political manifesto. One could spend pages rebutting each incongruent, pigheaded and impractical demand, but there is a larger, more pressing issue at hand—it is a question of tactics. By virtue of shelving debate to impose change on an artificial schedule, a hunger strike is not a form of legitimate discourse. A hunger strike is not, as the protesters write, an opportunity for private “reflection, introspection, and self-examination.” It is, fundamentally, a selfish, coercive and political act. By force and fraud, the strikers hold Columbia hostage.
In true Columbia fashion, this is not the University’s first hunger strike. In 1996, a cabal of self-destructive radicals fasted to create negative press for the administration and elicit sympathy for their cause, ethnic studies. They succeeded. While the new department proved a costly but dismal failure, the strikers vindicated their methods. Written out of this popular narrative, however, is the disturbing escalation of radicalism and violence that accompanied the first hunger strike. In their “Statement of Solidarity” with today’s activists, the 1996 strikers write, if not boast:
“In 1996, it took 15 days of striking, the overnight occupation of Low Library by several hundred students and subsequent arrest of 22 students by the NYPD, and a five-day occupation of Hamilton Hall for the University administration to engage in meaningful discussions with student representatives. We can only hope that the current administration is prompter to listen this time around.”
Note the complete lack of remorse. In their own minds, they did nothing wrong.
In print, strike supporters acknowledge that “there are people who agree with much of the platform but are more ambivalent about the tactic,” but they repudiate such views as ignorant and misinformed. “If you have common concerns with the hunger strikers,” one author concludes, “don’t get hung up on a question of tactics.” In a comically Machiavellian way, the means for committed ideologues will always justify the ends—however they affect the University.
To be clear, as one of the University’s most vocal critics, I am not writing an apologist’s defense of University President Lee Bollinger’s administration. While I’ve spent the better part of my time at Columbia trying to convince my peers of the validity of my arguments, I recognize that they are the minority position. Nonetheless, I want my ideas to be accepted, not forced upon the administration and the community. Reality dictates that Bollinger and his executives represent, collectively, the disparate interests of over 35,000 faculty, staff, and current students, a board of trustees, and hundreds of thousands of alumni. They cannot yield to every demand by every group.
Having failed at both the negotiation table and in the marketplace of ideas, the strikers are unwilling to re-examine their position. They refuse to acknowledge that their “demands” are not in line with the wants and needs of the entire community. They’ve moved further to the extreme, and will never compromise on fringe elements of their platform.
The “all or nothing” mentality of this hunger strike forbids reasoned debate and civil disagreement. There can be no criticism of their actions and demands without cries of racism, privilege, and oppression. It is an illegitimate form of protest and an insult to our community when key figures in the administration, from Provost Brinkley to Vice President for Arts and Sciences Dirks, meet with the strikers’ negotiation team—a coterie of student radicals. If we give an inch, they’ll demand a mile. If they succeed, more hunger strikes will follow.
Instead, students hoping to engender lasting, positive change must build goodwill on the strength of their ideas and arguments. There is no better example of this than Columbia’s veteran population. For 40 years, veterans and their supporters campaigned for the reinstatement of ROTC. For 40 years, the administration stifled attempts at reform. When, just years ago, the University Senate voted down their proposal, ROTC advocates took the loss in stride. Where they had failed in their attempt to amend institutional policies, they, according to Spectator’s polls, succeeded in winning majority support among their peers. Change, they understand, is a long, arduous process not beholden to gastronomic timetables. While they too believe their cause is just, they will never strong-arm the administration into “meeting their demands.” They will never adopt radical and foolish tactics because they, unlike the strikers, respect the University, their peers, and most important of all, themselves.
Chris Kulawik is a Columbia College senior majoring in political science.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 27)
Post a Comment
This article is disgusting, and so are most of the comments following it. Congratulations, you are all part of the problem.
how, praytell, are we part of the problem? because we have pointed out that without evidence, the strikers' demands are no more morally legitimate than the next cause that comes along? because we refuse to see issues such as expansion and giving the CSER more funding (at the expense of other departments) as being black-and-white, right against wrong?
all passion, no reason. that's the problem with the strike and its supporters.
Hear, hear.
Haha ... this article is a joke
Come back when you get real. It's not even funny. haha ...
Sadly, the surrealist state of "progressive" politics on campus is mainly the result of an almost total lack of diversity of discourse on this and most others campuses. For some time now, activists have enjoyed a very long run of being able to blurt out whatever unsubstantiated hyperbole they feel like with virtually no serious threat of debate, confrontation or refutation. I think that is thankfully beginning to change.
... this is definitely the sound of an over sheltered childish rant.
why don't you go and engage "noose hangers" in debate? as if they need ur opinion before perpetrating hate crimes.
Racist!!
What does the word "racist" even mean anymore? People on the left throw it around like Giuliani does the term "9/11."
Thank you, Chris.
What the hell is ethnic studies, anyway? Why should we waste millions of dollars on a non-discipline? Damn these kids!
The comments regarding emilie are ridiculous. She's one of the nicest people I've met at Columbia, not to mention involved and intelligent and informed. She really does have an interest in meeting people from ALL backgrounds. How does that make her a spoiled rich white girl? Bizarre. Starving yourself strikes me as the opposite of spoiled. You're entitled to your opinion, just back it up a little.
Am I the only 'student of color' who is a little annoyed that the hunger strikers and their supporters claim to be representing his/her needs, beliefs, desires, etc?
Because I don't feel oppressed.
If anything, I think that OMA has too much money as they are constantly inundating me with events and opportunities to talk about how special and diverse I am.
I do not understand how one can attend one of the most diverse universities in the country and complain about it being racist. I am baffled. The university is not perfect. The administration is not perfect. But the last time I checked, Bollinger was not going around and hanging nooses on professors' doors.
The only thing the hunger strike appears to have accomplished is making one of their own ill again, enabling her disorder, and putting the greater good of their cause (or rather their 25 odd random demands) ahead of her mental and physical well-being.
I have trouble believing that a group of students who can disregard a fellow student's well-being are really all that concerned with the fate of those who would be displaced by expansion. And I doubt that a group who really wanted to speak to the administration would go so far to alienate them. Why would isolating yourself from the larger campus by sleeping in tents, refusing to accept university compromises, and physically harassing the president of the university ever further your cause?
If anything, this stunt has made me admire the poise and patience with which the administration and Bollinger especially deal with immature and petulant student groups.
you are definitely not alone. i'm also a minority student who does not believe that the strikers represent me. i took 4 years of the core and was satisfied with the non-western perspective i gained. nor did i ever doubt that the university was not doing enough to educate my 'western', non-minority peers on other cultures. if there are people at columbia who believe that other cultures and races are inferior, it is highly unlikely that a seminar on racialization will change their minds.
and i completely agree about the OMA.
Chris Kulawik, you have inspired in me that Columbia isn't TOTALLY overrun by crazy liberals who wants Columbia to cure cancer, solve AIDS, and alleviate world poverty.
I hate to agree with Kulawik, but he's right. a) These strikers lack any legitimacy to speak for the student body. They need this because their demands affect us all, not just them. b) Their protest method is completely disproportionate to their demands; this is not apartheid South Africa/modern Palestine/British India etc. If the hunger strike wasn't so divisive, this wouldn't be a problem. But this protest has divided campus down the middle, with even strong liberals being called racist because they don't support the strike. The protest should be proportionate to the demands, else it is self-defeating.
I guess Bollinger's involvement in the affirmative action Supreme Court case at U of M means nothing to those who are so quick to call everyone a racist.
Chris gets it right again.
I'm a member of the College Democrats (though probably not for much longer as they have horrid leadership) and I actually, for the first time ever, agree with Chris Kulawik.
This strike is useless. The students participating only want attention. The girl featured in the Spec today is most likely a rich, spoiled white girl who feels the need to major in African studies to make herself feel better.
The Core is fine. We're doing NYC and Manhattanville a favor by expanding. Welcome to the real world kiddos, where people with money and brians win.
Blacks and other minorities have good reason to be angry, given the history of their treatment in this country by many in the past. But lashing out at Columbia is anger misplaced. Columbia has provided scholarships for many of these angry young students, and has provided them with an opportunity to do some good in the world. If these students want to correct the many injustices in this world, perhaps they would be better off spending their time facing up to more important problems.
I dont see a group of idealists when I look at these strikers. What I do see is a group of intelligent, well-educated and well-meaning young people having an adolescent fit because daddy doesnt do what they want him to do.
Mark Rudd did an enormous amount of damange when he was a Columbia student, and it took many years for Columbia to make up for the many losses it suffered during that period. As I recall, he has admitted that there are a number of things he regrets from his youth and I wonder if his Columbia rampage is one of them. Perhaps the strikers should look him up for counsel and some guidance.
Dear Columbia Friends:
Anybody who believes that Columbia President Bollinger & his administration
are "reasonable" on issues relating to racial equality and equal rights must
be either living in a fantasyland or are deliberately ignoring the facts.
Most Black and other minority employees at Columbia University know
the iron-fist dictator type blatant racial discrimination, intimidation, sexual
harassment and subjugation tactics of the Bollinger Administration. Bollinger
is directly responsible for the illegal retaliation and firings (no questions
asked!) of numerous Blacks and other minorities who stood up for any
"Racial Equality & Equal Opportunity" at Columbia University. That is why
you do not see any Black Professor talking against the Bollinger
Administration in public at any time. So, WAKE UP & SEE THE TRUTH,
my friends. Bollinger and his executives do not know how to discuss
any racial issues reasonably; They only know how to suppress them
by the "Iron-Fist."
The Black and other minority students are the only ones Bollinger
cannot directly intimdate and fire; So, those COURAGEOUS Hunger-
Strikers stand for all of us by using their BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS.
We must support them all the way so that the continuing Apartheid-
Style Racism of the Bollinger Administration comes to an end.
Yours Truly,
Racial Equality Struggles For Columbia University Employess (RESCUE) Ad Hoc Committee
E-Mail: RESCUE_Columbia_University@Yahoo.Com
Please get AIDS and die, my african brotha'.
Wiat a minute. YOU are employees of the University using the useful idiots, er, students because they can't be fired by Bollinger for complaining?
Reason! Thank you Chris for reason. Long live reason in Columbia's political scientists. Let us say goodbye to the 1960s and proceed with reason to a positive future for all.
Funny, Chris, I didn't think you were there in 1996--I'm pretty sure you missed the many events we held to educate the community about the importance of ethnic studies and of reforming the Core, events that were attended by far too many people to call us a "cabal" (nice word, though). I'm also pretty sure you weren't in the room when we met with administrators who promised much and delivered nothing over the course of my years at CU. And you clearly weren't there when the "department" failed--neither was I, for that matter. There has never been a Department of Ethnic Studies, costly or otherwise.
If the Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race is a failure, it's because its hiring is undermined by departments that are unwilling to give tenure to faculty who are jointly appointed. This has nothing to do with the "marketplace of ideas" (whatever that is) and everything to do with the profoundly resistant-to-change attitude of faculty and administrators.
Your admiration of the ROTC is touching. But most student groups cannot rely on the military to bankroll their political work over 40 years--students usually have just four years to make a difference. That's why frustration boils over into direct action. There is typically not enough institutional memory (as your errors about what happened in 96 and afterwards demonstrate) for effective student lobbying to carry over to the next generation. And don't think the university doesn't bank on this.
Finally, remind me--you thought bringing the Minutemen to campus to discuss immigration was an appropriate tactic because...? And I presume you're full of remorse?? Pot and kettle, Chris.
Whining leftist douche bag. Your views are not backed up by facts and common sense, that is why you fail in the market place of ideas. BTW, I will donate a 1000 dollars to the minutemen to make up for your remark about them.Today I'm also going to report 5 more businesses that hire illegals, have them shut down, and about 100 scumbag illegals deported. All in your name, chum! Later.
Name calling is always my favorite part in a debate. Feel free to send me evidence that you've actually donated money (plausible), reported five business and helped shut them down (ridiculous), and had 100 illegals deported (laughable).
When you're done single-handedly solving immigration in this manner, Mr Common Sense, let me know: which of my views lack supporting facts? And where can I find this market in which I fail?
I hate to say it, but it must be said: This is the first time I've pretty much agreed wholeheartedly with what Chris had to say.
And it's a sad, sad day when Chris Kulawik is the voice of reason on this campus...
Post new comment