In an e-mail sent to  The Miscellany News tonight, Dec. 14, at 9:07 p.m., students involved in last week’s hunger strike released individual statements, each one a “response to the hunger strike from the perspective of those who participated,” said the e-mail, which was signed by the “Hungry for Justice” group. To see the students’ responses—as well as an introductory statement signed by the entire group—please read on below. The statements have also been posted on the group’s blog, Uppity Vassar.

—–

We are united on many issues, including our commitment to the theory and practice of social justice at our College, and our willingness to put our own bodies on the line for this goal. But we are also individuals with unique consciousnesses, and our reactions to the hunger strike are varied. Now that the strike is over, we’ve chosen to express our thoughts not as a group, but as individuals.

—Hungry for Justice

It is all too easy to dismiss the hunger strike as extreme, unnecessary or ineffective. But the fact is that student actions have had a direct impact in changing not only the processes but also the outcomes of administrative decision-making. On more than one occasion, administrators have insisted they tried every possible alternative – but when pushed, they found ways to enact more egalitarian measures. The Hardship Fund, which came directly out of negotiations between strikers and administrators last spring, is one example.

I believe it is important to remember the ways in which dialogue is restricted at Vassar. I am referring not only to the centralized distribution of power and lack of transparency that make it difficult to have a two-way conversation, but also to the construction of what constitutes an “acceptable” way to communicate. I hope that in the future, groups and individuals will continue to make their voices heard and will engage in dialogue in many different ways.

—Sarah Cohen ’11

Reflecting on the second hunger strike of my Vassar career, I think it’s important to remind myself, as well as others, that the College cannot admit to bending to a hunger strike without implicitly encouraging its use as a legitimate tactic. That’s the best explanation for the tone and content of Dean [of the College Chris] Roellke’s less-than-flattering letter to the campus. In my opinion, the combination of the pressure of the hunger strike and the pressure of the unions created the necessary atmosphere to achieve justice for workers. My refusal to nourish my body for 89 hours was an expression of my lack of power and lack of options, as well as a physical demonstration of my commitment to the people who make our campus run. My greatest disappointment about the hunger strike was the staggering number of students who essentially told us that we were not allowed to question or disagree with those with authority/education/age. In that way, my decision to participate in a hunger strike was also an assertion of what I believe to be my place in the College—a place of involvement. I hope that, at the very least, a conversation has been opened about critique, and that now all members of the campus will be viewed as people with valid critiques to make of the College. I hope that we will now be seen as people to be listened to.

—Robyn Smigel ’12

A hunger strike is seen as an extreme action, and it is. No one can deny that. But, I balked, at first, at the portrayals of those of us who chose to not eat as extremists. Extremists brings forth images of men and women with explosives strapped to their chests, or people in cults committing mass suicides. But then I realized that if I agreed that a hunger strike is an extreme action, then I must agree with the designation of myself as an extremist in some way or another. Extreme in that I risked my body, for my convictions. With nothing left of a voice, no decision making, I control the only thing I have left, my own body.

People thought that we weren’t willing to dialogue, that a hunger strike isn’t a form of communication. I disagree. We stopped, once an agreement was made. We were only worried about gainful employment for members of our community. A strong stance was taken, because how else do you create the tension for favorable negotiations? Neither we nor the administrations would publicly bend, and yet we both did. The unions were satisfied, and we did our best.

People accuse us for not thinking, or being misinformed. Or of thinking in black-and-white. I’m a believer in dialogue, but power must be equal between participants. I’m also a fan of critical thought, and I’d hope that all of us would seek a critical participation in campus affairs. Full of questioning, and seeking.

—Royce Drake ’10

I think the hunger strike was a good learning experience in so far as it opened up dialogue between the administration and us from the pressure it put on them. Once we were noticed by the school—which includes administrators, union members and fellow students—progress began to appear in the form of a rescission of a layoff and continued talks into the matter. Being at the center of a serious demonstration, we received valuable information from various sources, such as union leaders, faculty and administrators, which revealed a bigger picture within this long-running issue.

As a striker, I also experienced from my classmates extreme antagonism, some of which I thought were unwarranted. There were a few instances of classmates talking rather loudly about food. For example, I remember someone taunting us with cheese burgers and another exclaiming that he apparently just had a delicious steak (ironically, most of us are vegan/vegetarian).

But I also witnessed first hand how kind others were. Some students and workers asked if we wanted anything or directly gave us Gatorade, apple juice, water or even blankets and a mattress pad. We received considerable praise from students and workers who believed in our cause, and I wish to thank them tremendously for that. We also invited students to hang and we explained to number of them what was going on. Overall, the hunger strike not only resulted in satisfying our demand of having more workers gainfully employed and set a tone for further actions in the spring semester, but also greatly motivated my efforts for this cause.

—Daniel Bruce Wong ’12

Yesterday in our meeting with President [of the College Catharine Bond] Hill, Dean Roellke and friends and members of the Campus Solidarity Working Group, we raised concerns about the governance of the college and methods of decision-making that undermine the priorities and voices of many people on campus. While Hill and Roellke may not understand our methodology, it is becoming clear to me that they are not the ones principally undermining our efforts, nor we theirs.

Rather, I feel our actions have reinforced our need for them to do their jobs well; not simply to make decisions, but to get to know our institution. During our time in the lobby of main, CWA and SEIU members and representatives let us know that the strike was valuable. On our third day, we were told that several people who were laid off had finally been given a means of gainful employment. To reiterate Sarah’s statement, student protests are effective, whether in the sense that they produce discourse or lead to concrete egalitarian change. Without tension and criticism, decision-making suffers and discourse narrows.

The conversation is not over; two positions are still in need of attention, but we feel the hunger strike achieved its goal of giving the unions more leverage in negotiation, and what was “not possible” became reality. Obviously, reshuffling positions is a fraction of the work that needs to be done. However, financial sustainability can be achieved in a variety of ways. We refuse to believe that the Board of Trustees, composed largely of corporate elite, represents the only valuable source of knowledge in this process. We hope students will continue to fight for information, to make their own voices heard and to instill in the culture of this school a sense that we value more than economics.

—Gaelin Monkman-Kotz ’12

It remains that the layoffs threaten the livelihoods of thirteen people, and I feel that the hunger strike drew much needed attention to this fact. I am of the opinion that what the first consideration of the college decision-making process should be is not financial necessity or competitiveness, but the human cost of any and all actions. Vassar, as an institution of higher learning with a history of social responsibility, should take measures to seek new and innovative solutions to financial problems. While layoffs are one way to go about fiscal cuts, they rob workers of the means by which they feed their families. This is significant given the current economic climate: it would be difficult for workers to find jobs after being laid off. Thus, layoffs threaten more than just individuals, but the families that depend on Vassar workers to provide for them.

What I felt the hunger strike did was to show the visceral threat of layoffs. Symbolically, by not eating, we hunger strikers sought to show how some of the workers being laid off might be unable to feed their families in the future. Our desire was that the college take further steps to seek out alternative solutions to fiscal problems, rather than settle on layoffs as being the only solution.

In our three and a half days of not eating, significant progress was made in terms of our goal. Perhaps our full goal was not met, but we were able to meet significant benchmarks in regards to the job security of those laid off. Regardless, we were able to establish a meaningful dialogue with administration about how we feel and make a statement about our beliefs as students of Vassar College who are concerned about the college’s future. It is my personal hope that the members of the college community come together and engage in joint, collective dialogue so that a measure like the hunger strike does not become necessary in the future.

—Brian Hioe ’13