From her start in San Francisco on May 21 to her arrival in Washington DC on Sept. 10, Ashley Casale ’10 walked nearly 25 miles a day on a 3,000-mile “March for Peace.”
Casale clearly deserves the applause she has received; the march was as much a fete of ideological purpose as it was one of physical endurance.
In light of Wednesday’s undercooked “Usdan Boycott,” we can all learn something from Casale’s journey. It’s not hard to care about an issue, but making a statement requires a clear declaration of purpose and an equally clear plan.
The Usdan Boycott had good intentions and reflected the ongoing campus reality of widespread student dissatisfaction with both the Usdan facility and Bon Appétit’s dining services. But unlike Casale’s walk, the boycott lacked a clear, stated purpose, and suffered from serious organization issues.
To begin, flyers advertising the event claimed that Bon Appétit has denied its employees health care. This is completely untrue. If you don’t know the facts, the chances of affecting change, or even gaining the attention of administrators, seem slim. Sure, the facts are complicated, but there are groups on campus who know them, chiefly Union Student Labor Action Coalition (USLAC), the Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) and the dining workers’ union. A successful protest would likely have some backing or involvement from one or all.
Furthermore, the boycott lacked clear purpose. Was it against high prices, or for the rights of dining workers? Was it a criticism of Usdan’s design, or the long lines inside? A protest can span multiple issues, but it helps to articulate them as part of an overarching message.
What’s more, even students who participated in the boycott didn’t clearly understand the boycott’s tactics: were students meant to physically block entrance to Usdan, or simply not go there for lunch?
Finally, as pointed out by USLAC and the WSA, a boycott that withholds our dining points doesn’t make all that much sense, given that Bon Appétit already has our money.
Which certainly isn’t to say that students should sit back and ignore nagging problems with Usdan and dining, or that the protest or its organizers were completely misguided.
Casale thought out her message and her plan, and has gained national media attention for her efforts. Given the University’s size, making that kind of impact on a campus scale should be easy. Unfortunately, the boycott’s murky message and weak organization make it doubtful that it gained much notice from administrators in North and South College, mere feet away from the protest site.
A solution? While trying to get near President Bush could land you in jail, as Casale could attest, scheduling a meeting with President Roth is just an e-mail away. We encourage students to do just that.
Leave a Reply