After nearly 40 hours without food, the hunger strikers stationed in the lobby of Main Building explained to The Miscellany News that they plan to continue with their demonstration, despite receiving an e-mailed statement from Dean of the College Chris Roellke stating that “there will be no change in policy on the announced layoffs.”
“That’s basically what they said last year,” said Robyn Smigel ’12, who was also involved in a hunger strike last spring which ended in the creation of the Hardship Fund and an economy website after negotiations with senior officers. “Based on our experiences in the past, things were called impossible until we suggested alternative solutions. That’s basically how the Hardship Fund started.”
Smigel explained that she and the other students involved in the strike still hope that the 13 positions eliminated this September will be reinstated or that those who have had their positions eliminated will be be given different College “jobs of equal pay,” she said.
The four students present during the Miscellany interview—Cohen, Smigel, Royce Drake ’10 and Brian Hioe ’13—explained that though they were all originally involved in the Campus Solidarity Working Group, they consider themselves and their actions to be separate from those of the Working Group. “We definitely still support [the Working Group],” said Smigel.
“We think there is space on campus for different kinds of organizing,” added Cohen. “[The Working Group] does a lot of community building—that’s a great thing to have,” she said.
According to Sarah Cohen ’11—not participating in the strike, but present to support it—the senior officers have been in contact with the students since the demonstration began on Tuesday at midnight. “We’ve e-mailed back and forth a couple of times,” she said.
Though no formal meeting between the senior officers and the strikers has yet been established or scheduled, Roellke explained that this morning, he, Dean of the Facutly Jonathan Chenette and Dean of Planning and Academic Affairs Rachel Kitzinger stopped by the lobby of Main to talk with the students. “We went to see if they were okay and to indicate to them that their actions do impact the broader community, whether they think they do or not,” said Roellke.
In addition, Smigel said that earlier today her parents were contacted by Dean of Students D.B. Brown. “My parents called me and they had got the impression somehow that disciplinary action may be coming our way. No one had said that directly to us,” she said. According to Roellke, however, the students were contacted by Brown in what he called “a standard call,” “made whenever there is a health or safety concern regarding a Vassar student.” ”D.B. Brown was never given any instruction to speak about disciplinary action,” said Roellke.
I just want to say that the Misc is really on top of its game this year. Really impressive reporting!
I really don’t see the point of continuing this “hunger” strike. If Chris Roellke has talked with you and told you that there is no chance that the 13 staff positions will be reinstated, then what are you all going down there for? Do you know that nearly all of the people who had their positions eliminated will find jobs at the College or elsewhere? Did you know that there is NO company or non-profit around that isn’t cutting back and consolidating? Did you know that this College is suffering from the global economic crisis, just like every other single college and university in this country? Do you know that by hunger striking you’re threatening the morale of this community and hurting Vassar even more? And did you ever think, even for just a second, that maybe the President of this College, who got her PhD from Yale University in ECONOMICS, knows a little bit more than you do about how an institution works?
Rich,
We are not questioning President Hill’s expertise in neoliberalism. I am sure she is more than competent to further a set of priorities based on a corporate model. We realize that she is a trained economist – but that is not the only kind of knowledge.
Sarah, I think you have absolutely no conception of what “neoliberal” means, at least insofar as it relates to our college. Cappy Hill is one of the country’s greatest minds working to expand access to education for those who couldn’t otherwise afford it. Translation: financial aid = giving a product away for free. This is a fundamentally liberal policy, by any definition. If you were correct in implying that the administration is full of conservative hacks who have no interest in anything but money, you would have a hard time explaining why they are essentially giving away $40 million in free discounted tuition every year. Cappy has made this a hallmark of her presidency, when it would without doubt have been easier to ignore the issue entirely. Clearly, Sarah, you are missing something. Your false accusations are hurtful and misguided. You should really think a little bit more carefully before assassinating someone’s character. Time to stop your inane “action” or find yourself another school.
Hunger Strikers, Your melding of a hunger strike and a slumber party on your blog this afternoon cheapens and trivializes not only the political history of hunger striking but also your own actions. A hunger strike is not a get-together. A hunger strike is not an invitation for friends to hang out and share water. A hunger strike is not a PR campaign. And your rhetoric consistently turns your efforts into little more than these things.
A lot of faculty oppose job cuts. A lot of faculty desire community-wide input that informs decision-making at the college. A lot of faculty are committed to making Vassar as open and transparent as is possible. A lot of faculty are committed to social justice. As are you.
But a lot of faculty see complexities we have yet to hear acknowledged by you. Would you support saving jobs if the trade-of was an erosion of financial aid at the college? Is accessibility to higher education not a form of social justice? I think it is. Would you support saving jobs if the trade-off was suppression of salaries for employees at the college? Before you say yes–aren’t salary freezes that suppress incomes in relation to local and national costs of living a form of social injustice to all who work at the college, who hope to see their salaries keeping pace with inflation so that their real earnings are not diminished? Because that’s another–and very real–way in which people have trouble putting food on their tables. Would you support saving jobs if the trade-off was that the college had no option but to enroll more full-pay students (thereby eroding need-blind admissions and socioeconomic diversity), meaning larger class sizes and therefore a fundamental change in the kind of regular, intensive, face-to-face interaction that is the strength of a liberal arts education? A kind of education that, I imagine, has been instrumental in your becoming the impassioned people you are?
Perhaps you would accept these trade-offs. And that would be fine as far as I’m concerned. I would completely respect your right to feel that way. But you’ve never said so. Nor have you indicated that these kinds of trade-offs are precisely the ones that are on the minds of many faculty, who you seem to claim to represent. Though I’m not sure–your banner addresses “layoffs”; does that include faculty who are not being renewed next year, or only staff? If the latter, I should end here. You are then not interested in the issues I’m writing about. And that would mean that you do not in fact speak for the community, although you claim to do so. But If you are interested in these issues I raise above, why do you remain mute about them?
I would not be surprised if by now you have lumped me into the category of someone speaking from the mask of experience that Benjamin condemns. That is an appropriate and brilliant piece of Benjamin’s work to quote. But it is selective. Benjamin’s larger project was to critique the aestheticization of the political via mediated forms of expression. In Benjamin’s view, aestheticization was a means of masking the violence of fascism. Your own use of blogs, tweets, and other social media as a way to build community and to create and disseminate slogans, acronyms, and spectacles of resistance, partakes of the 21st-century’s analogous mechanisms, though of course not the same politics, that Benjamin’s work pervasively lamented in the early 20th century. Perhaps you are arguing, then, that the ends justify the means. But that was not Benjamin’s argument–not at all.
But you are not saying so. You seem to remain mute to the subtleties of what you are doing. You ask what is theory without praxis. I would argue that praxis without coherent, articulated theory is neither praxis nor even action; it is simply an activity. And perhaps that’s why it’s easy for you to suggest it sits comfortably along-side a slumber party.
Faculty members why the fuck are you hiding?
You’ve got your advanced degrees and your smarts. Come talk to us in person.
Why you hidin’?
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
Also…
you think a hunger strike isn’t a PR campaign? Maybe you believe in Gandhi’s soul-force but I don’t.
You really think Benjamin would support anonymous web comments?
I can “trivalize” myself all I want. But thanks for the tip on how to engage in praxis.
And again I extend an invitation for you to come down here and talk to us in person. A dialectical pillow fight awaits.
faculty #2 –
If people weren’t allowed to quote selectively, no one would ever quote Gandhi, MLK, or anyone really. Are you not supposed to quote Gandhi unless you also agree that Africans are less intelligent than Indians and should be repressed due to their incompetence? Gandhi preached that opinion for quite awhile.
I’m disgusted, but unsurprised, that faculty would join in this absurd practice of annonymous internet commentary.
Excuse us if we have failed to perfectly encapsulate our theory to you, personally. If you have questions that you actually want answers to, kindly stop by and ask us in person.
Stop trying to define us and create rules that we must follow. We enjoy a little humor now and then, and if you don’t that’s not our problem. Making jokes does not mean we’re not on hunger strike, and I really don’t understand at all why you think it’s your job to tell us who we are.
One last thing — our dealings with the administrators have been a hell of a lot more civil than our interactions with you annonymous critics out there. I wonder if all you rage-aholics who think you’re helping them in some way are aware of that.
I totally get that I’m an anonymous commenter and I won’t get a “real” answer, but I have to ask: Why is the faculty being addressed as “rage-aholics” just because they dared to ask you valid questions? I thought they were pretty respectful in their admonishment of your beliefs and tactics. Yet you show more vitriol to faculty and faculty #2 than to the people on the other thread who told you to “go die, see if I care.” Personally I don’t think anonymous commenting is necessarily bad if it’s contributing to thoughtful dialogue.
I also think there is a value to you answering their questions here, or on a blog, or in a different Miscellany article rather than in person. You don’t think these are things the entire campus has been thinking about with respect to your campaign? You don’t think that explaining yourselves will help earn you more respect and support on this campus? Really, you should try to be as public as possible with your logic—it’s more productive to your cause than the theatrical proclamations this campus is accustomed to hearing from you.
I mean, sure, you can discredit the faculty commenters all you want by attacking their anonymity. You can tell them to come talk to your faces if they want answers. But all this suggests to me is that you really don’t have answers to the questions they’re asking. In ignoring the points they make, and doing it in a really obnoxious, petulant kind of way, you’re really discrediting yourselves, too.
Given the fact that the 13 staff members terminated were informed of the decision in mid-September, and that many of them have apparently either accepted other college positions, taken voluntary retirement, or found other work, what is the point of this strike? These people have by and large moved on. Why can’t you? You’re using their lives and their futures to make a political statement, and it’s completely disrespectful.
Bob Vance,
Faculty:
conflates neoliberalism with conservative thought.
forgets that the college gets money from the government for financial aid.
assumes that Cappy is a proponent of financial aid from the bottom of her heart and that being a proponent of financial aid makes one a “liberal”
Faculty 2:
Assumes that a hunger strike must always be a somber event for those not eating. As a person hunger striking I can say that I disagree.
Proposes a non-existent trade off of financial aid for jobs.
Forgets the college is already moving towards larger class sizes.
Assumes we only got our passion from our liberal arts education. Puh-leeze.
Assumes that one action with one focus means the end of action from us. We never said that.
Lumps all of Walter Benjamin’s writing into one project, and everything that doesn’t fit is an outlier. As if Benjamin wasn’t a hash-eating, critical thinker, with a wide variety of interests just like all the rest of us.
Assumes that we should talk theory all the time on our blogs or tweets. Friere would be so upset. We all know liberation can’t be given with slogans (or a blog, or twitter, etc etc). We have offered dialogue. None of you want to come talk to us in person. I’m not a big fan of cybering.
So there you go Bobby, hope that helps you understand. We’re not going to bend to some anonymous person because they try to invoke the authority of “faculty.” As I said to the folks who hoped I die, “Come and say that shit to my face.”
Strikers, I will admit that many students share your concern for the people who work here and make up this community, but it seems that most if not all the 13 staffers will find work here or elsewhere. What is the point of the strike then?
Bob Vance –
I think you misunderstood. When I said “rage-aholics” I was in fact referring to the people who told me to die. I wasn’t very clear, sorry. On annonymous commenting in general, it’s very hard for me to have respect for someone’s opinions if they refuse to stand behind them. Maybe I wouldn’t feel that way if I hadn’t had so many people misquote me, mindlessly insult me, or tell me to die on the internet. Unlike them, I take personal responsibility for my own reasons for distrusting annonymous dialogues. I must say, however, that I did not find the faculty comments respectful. The words were autoritative and fancy, but the message was violent — they attempt to define me against my will and without my consent, which is not something I respect.
Your second suggestion is perhaps something I’ll take you up on. I don’t want to answer those questions on the Misc, where people will immediately bombard us with hate mail, but continue checking our blog for answers to any and all genuine questions. As much as I don’t like being called obnoxious and petulant, there may be some truth in that, seeing as I’m a little irritable from almost 50 hours without food, little sleep, and dealing with constant hate-filled accusations and death threats.
2001 –
Have you actually spoken to “these people” that you believe we’re disrespecting? Well, we have. They brought us pillows, blankets, water, and apple juice today. If I remember correctly, they wished us good luck and thanked us for our efforts. Just to hurl that comment back at you, I find it really disrespectful for you to claim to speak for people you don’t even know.
As always kids, it’s been fun.
–Robyn
Royce:
A real trade-off exists between faculty compensation and financial aid. These two areas represent Vassar’s largest expenditures from the operating budget. All chatter surrounding Board of Trustees meetings indicates that something has to give, and eventually this will become an issue of need-blind versus staff positions. It’s the same money, and the only reason why you seek to dismiss the connection is because you know that whatever student support your cause currently enjoys will implode once this connection becomes clear. Isn’t need-blind a form of social justice?
If you wanted to make a positive impact on the college, you could help raise money to support FinAid, which would take pressure off of the operating budget. Or, you could promote unity by using Vassar and Hudson Valley networking to find new jobs for the laid-off employees. Instead of doing this, you’re sitting on a sleeping bag in the Main lobby, sowing division and unrest and hurting morale. You’re quite sedentary, for a self-proclaimed “activist”.
What is the point of the strike?
Wait, Robyn, so all 13 laid off employees came up to you and personally thanked you? That’s pretty impressive. Do you have proof? It seems like you have a little problem with honesty.
4south,
You go raise money for financial aid if you are so worried and think that’s the only way to go about things. I disagree.
I just happen to think there is enough capital around here to take care of things– even if it means *gasp* not turning a profit for a few years. I want to see the numbers not some third-grade pie chart.
I’m also willing to bet my prettiest penny that not only would falculty and staff cuts occur, but then financial aid would be cut as well. I want to stop the monopoly of power now, you can wait until everything is cut if you like.
No doubt need-blind is some form of social justice. Doesn’t mean we have to pick just one.
“Sowing division and unrest and hurting morale?” Your school pride smells like jingoism to me. I’m sorry if my logic doesn’t follow the “Unity through Strength, Strength through Unity” model.
You’re damn skippy I’m sitting on my ass. You want me to dance and sing for you or something? “Activism” (I don’t know if I ever called myself an activist… so much for self-proclaimed) doesn’t always require people to be yelling and waving signs. I’m sure most reasonable folks would however agree that a hunger strike is still doing something.
Yo Dierdre.
If Robyn’s honesty troubles are due to rumors floating today:
I, Royce Drake, was tweeting earlier today. Don’t assassinate Robyn’s character because of my trigger-happy tweeting.
I’m sorry if you use a rumor blog for your news source.
Wait, Deirdre, did I say that all 13 people came up to me? Oh, no, I didn’t. Good catch you little detective, you! Let’s see, am I only allowed to count workers who’ve been laid off? Today, then, I guess there were 2 people. Yesterday there were a few others. Does this satisfy your curiosity?? Should I take pictures and get them checked against birth certificates? Wait another second, I forgot that I don’t interrogate the people that come and wish us luck — I actually don’t know how many of them lost their jobs, unless they mentioned it explicitly. One more second, I think I’m on to something . . . right, I don’t have to prove shit to you, nor do I care to! I really don’t need any validation from you to prove to myself that the workers who visited us were real. Wow, Deirdre, I’ve had so many realizations about myself! Thanks!!
Go placidly amid the noise and the haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter,
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs,
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals,
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love,
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,
it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be.
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life,
keep peace in your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.
Since when did it become okay to turn the Main lobby into a homeless shelter? You people look pathetic. And you smell. Go to your rooms if you want to starve yourselves, I don’t want to see it.
I have to say I agree with those who are requesting that you yourselves make some suggestions- you demand creative solutions, what are yours? Refusing to answer questions like those posed by Faculty 1 & 2 does, as Bob Vance wrote, seem to suggest that you might not have answers. I respect the sentiment behind your actions but they seem pretty misguided in that they’re sensationalist and attention seeking… but seeking attention to what? What do you stand for other than job reinstatement? which obviously isn’t going to happen, at least not without a SERIOUS alternative. You’ve got a twitter, you’ve got a blog, you have these comments and the Main lobby. Give up the self important rhetoric and give us some answers because so far your whole protest seems pretty empty. Activism for the sake of activism is meaningless- stop defending yourselves with snarky responses and “what are YOU doing about it?!” and start providing the administration, faculty, and student body with some meaningful dialogue and important contributions to the issue. Otherwise all your passion and commitment totally goes to waste which is a shame considering how little there is on this campus.
I tend to agree with Julia in that while your passion and commitment is admirable, it needs to be paired with creative thinking towards productive solutions.
There is great animosity in the comments I’m reading above – I think the Vassar spirit would be for everyone commenting here to sit in the lobby with the Hunger Strikers and calmly discuss potential solutions.
Have there been other opportunities for such a dialogue on campus?
-Evan Tintle Charpentier, ’03
Hm, 4S, I would tend to disagree and say YOU are pathetic, attacking the way people physically look and smell. And hiding behind a veil of anonymity the entire time! Impressive and respectable. Oh wait, no..your actions are definitely neither of those things. Obviously they are not using the Main lobby as a homeless shelter. They’re using it as a place to raise awareness about the issues the care about. Finally, I truly am sorry that *you* don’t want to see their actions. However, you (believe it or not) are not the center of the universe, so if you don’t want to see it, then don’t walk by them. But don’t order people to go back to their rooms because you don’t want to see their hunger strike.
Hm, 4S, I would tend to disagree and say YOU are pathetic, attacking the way people physically look and smell. And hiding behind a veil of anonymity the entire time! Impressive and respectable. Oh wait, no..your actions are definitely neither of those things. Obviously they are not using the Main lobby as a homeless shelter. They’re using it as a place to raise awareness about the issues the care about. Finally, I truly am sorry that *you* don’t want to see their actions. However, you (believe it or not) are not the center of the universe, so if you don’t want to see it, then don’t walk by them. But don’t order people to go back to their rooms because you don’t want to see their hunger strike.
Aw, looks like someone got hungry! Better luck next time.
[...] Advertise « Hunger strikers plan to continue, despite statement from senior officers [...]
Everyone should try to think about one thing: A lot of people are saying that the CSWG and hunger strikers do not offer viable money-saving alternatives for the college – the problem here is that they HAVE. Faculty have also offered many ideas that could save the college money, but the point here is that the college still insists they they will cut jobs, even if they make the money.
The problem is being approached the wrong way by so many people on campus who do not realize that THIS IS NOT A MONEY PROBLEM – alternatives have been proposed, and rejected. The administration will make unethical cuts despite the fact that they can save money.
This is not a last resort for the college. Basically the administration is trying to DOWNSIZE because they say they are overstaffed – yes, they are, but it is the administration that is bloated, not the staff or faculty. There are bedbugs in the dorms, Buildings and Grounds cannot answer to calls on time, because they are severely understaffed. If the administration cares that us students are not getting what we pay for, they should not be cutting. There are places to cut the budget which would save the people who work here, but the the fact is that the administration are trying to downsize by firing people who have worked at Vassar their whole lives, and it is deeply unethical. As students we are lucky, why not try to help the people who are unlucky, especially if it is obvious that there are ways in which this could be done. If the administration continues to cut people because they want to downsize, then someone should stand up to them and say that this is wrong.
I personally do not feel comfortable writing out solutions to the budget problem on this message board, but as I said, COME TO A MEETING. If you really want to know, you should put in the effort to find out.