With real change, NYU is a paper tiger
WSN Editorial Board
Issue date: 4/15/08 Section: Staff Editorial
In late 2005, after Coca-Cola was accused of violent anti-union crime in Colombia, a group of students protested and successfully banned Coke from campus. Soda lovers were enraged. Eventually, as is wont to happen, the fervor died down. NYU students sipped Pepsi, and those who were instrumental in getting the administration to ban Coke graduated and presumably went on to fight bigger battles.
Now, the University Senate is preparing to review and likely overturn the ban, which most of us were not around to see instated in the first place. For NYU, the opportunity for ostentatious righteousness has passed; business has returned to the top of its priority list.
We believe the university should not repeal the ban - as symbolic or as small as it may seem, it sends a message that NYU will not support a company with dirty labor practices.
But the Killer Coke campaign and its success represents something bigger and leads to a more general question about the way our university responds to its students. Why is it that NYU is ready and eager to facilitate demands for certain kinds of change while simultaneously ignoring others? We've seen mixed-sex housing, gender-neutral bathrooms and the NYUGreen initiative - a costly and showy detail most often mentioned to potential students touring the campus - go through, while student concerns about the university's administrative practices have continually been ignored.
NYU's environmental lean, though commendable, would likely have occurred with or without student agitation. It was fueled largely by the administration's own desires and the generally pro-green political climate; the fun fact that students were involved only adds to NYU's prestige. Students battling for lower tuition and budget transparency, however, have been either discouraged or ignored by the administration every step of the way. The Graduate Student Organizing Committee strike three years ago did not fare so well either - notwithstanding the union's widespread support among undergraduate activists and professors when the strike began. The fact is, banning Coke and installing gender-neutral bathrooms doesn't force the administration to drastically change the way the university functions in the same way that lowering tuition would.
The administration is more than willing to let students take credit for policies that line up with its own philosophies; it wants badly to appear open to student feedback. But it is not willing to sacrifice to make that appearance a reality, and so it stifles calls for larger reform. That is a shame.
We appreciate that NYU is willing to let its students make the world a better place. But for those who want to change the administrative status quo - don't hold your breath.
Now, the University Senate is preparing to review and likely overturn the ban, which most of us were not around to see instated in the first place. For NYU, the opportunity for ostentatious righteousness has passed; business has returned to the top of its priority list.
We believe the university should not repeal the ban - as symbolic or as small as it may seem, it sends a message that NYU will not support a company with dirty labor practices.
But the Killer Coke campaign and its success represents something bigger and leads to a more general question about the way our university responds to its students. Why is it that NYU is ready and eager to facilitate demands for certain kinds of change while simultaneously ignoring others? We've seen mixed-sex housing, gender-neutral bathrooms and the NYUGreen initiative - a costly and showy detail most often mentioned to potential students touring the campus - go through, while student concerns about the university's administrative practices have continually been ignored.
NYU's environmental lean, though commendable, would likely have occurred with or without student agitation. It was fueled largely by the administration's own desires and the generally pro-green political climate; the fun fact that students were involved only adds to NYU's prestige. Students battling for lower tuition and budget transparency, however, have been either discouraged or ignored by the administration every step of the way. The Graduate Student Organizing Committee strike three years ago did not fare so well either - notwithstanding the union's widespread support among undergraduate activists and professors when the strike began. The fact is, banning Coke and installing gender-neutral bathrooms doesn't force the administration to drastically change the way the university functions in the same way that lowering tuition would.
The administration is more than willing to let students take credit for policies that line up with its own philosophies; it wants badly to appear open to student feedback. But it is not willing to sacrifice to make that appearance a reality, and so it stifles calls for larger reform. That is a shame.
We appreciate that NYU is willing to let its students make the world a better place. But for those who want to change the administrative status quo - don't hold your breath.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Eric Moskowitz
posted 4/16/08 @ 1:03 AM EST
"The Graduate Student Organizing Committee strike three years ago did not fare so well either - notwithstanding the union's widespread support among undergraduate activists and professors when the strike began. (Continued…)
Post a Comment