About 14 hunger strikers from my university (UCSB) are at the UC Regents meeting today, hoping to persuade the UC to cut ties with two nuclear weapons labs. The issue has become a hot topic as Lawrence Livermore Laboratory won the bid to develop a new nuclear warhead (the first in 20 years). Although our tuition money does not directly go to the development and maintenance of these weapons, the strikers argue that the weapons are developed in our name. I am impressed with the strength of the protesters who are currently on day nine of their hunger strike, but their tactic of fasting is not without criticism. Many faculty and student organizations have come forward to support the strikers, but others are critical of their tactic for various reasons. While many of their critics are against UC’s management of the weapons laboratories and are long-time activists, some are concerned that the young students are a taking on a serious health risk without knowing of the dangers involved or proper procedure. Organization leaders argue that they have spoken with ex-hunger strikers and have educated themselves on the topic, however, their first official announcement of the action speaks ever too nonchalantly of fasting.
A second critique is the timing of the fast. The group of over 40 strikers is currently in San Francisco at the Regents meeting, but their issue is not on the agenda. Some argue that this can change and their story could sway the Regents to give them time at the meeting. However, most people agree that their hopes for this meeting are way too high; they will not get on the agenda and they are doomed to fail. The next meeting is not for two months. When will the strikers call it quits? In a set of interviews by a host of the campus radio station, KCSB, some of the strikers claimed that they will strike indefinitely until their demands are met, whereas others will strike up until the meeting (a few stopped today). Several of the strikers admitted that they do not foresee a victory, but that they see success in educating students and others about this issue. This concerns me because if I was involved in a hunger strike, I would want everyone to be on the same page, have the same goals, and a strong sense of collective identity.
If their plan is to educate, why did they not pursue a strategy that includes more from the faculty, administration, and other students? They ask for our support but did not pursue tactics that include us in building their community (i.e. teach-ins, meetings, and films). Despite a couple rallies and a class presentations, more could have been done to foster dialogue and support for these strikers. This is part of the reason why misinformation about the strike is rampant–and perhaps why I have so many questions.
After attending a recent rally at their campsite (a bunch of tents outside the administration building), I was moved by their sense of solidarity and passion for this cause. I was happy to see the faculty support an end to the strike. For me, I want an end to nuclear proliferation, I want a change in foreign policy, and I want these strikers to stay healthy. So I feel weird critiquing their tactics. And although I criticize the tactics and decisions of this group, I also understand that all organizations and social movements have problems. I believe it is useful to analyze effective strategies and tactics. We tend to idealize direct action and dismiss other forms of activism. But that does not mean one is “better” than the other. Sometimes one tactic is better suited than another, so I ask, was this the right time for a hunger strike? Could something else have been done? What does it mean if so many long-time activists are confused or upset by this action? How can the activist community become truly united around this issue? What will happen to the strikers who continue to strike after today’s meeting (if their demands are not met?)? Is it significant that most of the strikers are white women? And finally, should we be concerned that a few of the strikers are not enrolled UCSB students?
One can also argue that this group has accomplished something. More of us (including myself) learned more of the details of the UC’s connection to nuclear weapons and the new warhead that could be developed at Livermore. Along with education, this event has sparked an interesting debate on campus. Hopefully, interesting and productive dialogue can come from this. We will know more soon once we hear reports from the UC Regents meeting. I hope for the best. Despite our concerns of this strike, we can at least agree that the “conservative” student group that set up a pizza stand next to the hunger strikers is disgusting and inconsiderate, right?
Below is a video of day 3 of their fast:
0 Responses to “UC Hunger Strike”
Leave a Reply