We write to express our genuine horror and profound sadness at the treatment of student-protesters in Crouse-Hinds Hall by the administration of this university. Between Feb. 17, when the students began their sit-in at Crouse Hinds and late afternoon Feb. 19, when the Chancellor spoke before the University Senate, our students were subjected to extremely coercive measures.

In an apparent attempt to shut down the protests as soon as possible, University authorities used a combination of isolation (locking protesting students into Crouse Hinds and denying entry to anyone else), intimidation (threatening students with suspension and/or arrest for trespassing), and conditional access to food, in order to coerce students who were peacefully protesting.

University officials denied in the Senate that access to food was being used as a bargaining chip against our students, but students were adamant that this was the case. While the students’ account provides a plausible narrative of how this specific package of measures was deployed against them, the administration has not provided a coherent or plausible explanation of what happened during those first three days of the sit-in and why these extreme measures were deployed.

Two administrators, including Sarah Scalese, explicitly acknowledged in the University Senate that food donations were not allowed into Crouse-Hinds during those first three days. A number of us witnessed this firsthand as food donations were turned away at the doors of Crouse-Hinds by Department of Public Safety Officers. Why would they do this? Food is routinely brought on campus without raising concerns about safety. The Barnes protest showed clearly that protesters could be safely fed by donations. But if access to food was being used as a weapon, then cutting off alternative sources would be essential to creating that desperate dependence. The administration has provided no coherent or plausible explanation for barring food donations.

Ms. Scalese also told the Senate that the administration provided food on the second day of the sit-in, but that it was inexplicably rejected by the student-protesters. Scalese explicitly denied that there was any conditionality involved with access to food. The students explained in the Senate that food had been offered to them conditionally on that second day. They did not want to be coerced into accepting the administration’s conditions, so they refused the food that the administration offered. The student’s explanation strikes us as very plausible, whereas Scalese’s account requires us to believe that starving students would reject food out of something like sheer petulance.

Access to food is a human right and its denial is an intolerable abuse. According to Jane Howard of the UN World Food Program, when civilians in a conflict zone are deliberately deprived of food as a tactic, such action constitutes a war crime.

“Depriving people of their means of survival – and that means blocking relief supplies, blocking food supplies – is actually listed as a violation of international humanitarian law. In particular, using the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is a well-known and recognized war crime,” she said.

The use of such extreme and abusive tactics against our students by the administration of this University is unacceptable. Misleading the University Senate and the public about the use of such tactics is also unacceptable. The administration must give an honest description of what happened, those who made these decisions must be held accountable, and the use of war crime tactics against our students must be renounced.

 

Jan Dowell

Professor, Philosophy

 

Mark Rupert

Professor, Political Science

Chapple Family Professor of Citizenship and Democracy

 

David Sobel

Professor, Philosophy

Irwin and Marjorie Guttag Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy

Published on February 23, 2020 at 9:39 pm