volume 1, issue 2
el participante
Reportback: Immigration Week
Saffiyah Madraswala / el participante
BY ILIANA FELIZ man lives are at stake.
The following day, Lucha held an
One Monday last November, Co- event on the School of the Americas
lumbia students, faculty, and staff mem- (SOA) and their sponsor of torture and
bers were somberly greeted on College terrorism in Latin America. The purpose
Walk by gravestones. These gravestones of the event was to uncover some of
marked the beginning of Lucha’s Immi- the roots of “illegal” immigration and
gration Week, a five-day series created to explain that conditions have been cre-
educate the Columbia community about ated in Latin America that force its in-
immigration’s historical roots and to pro- habitants to leave in hopes of a better
mote action for immigrant rights. life. Claudia De La Cruz, Director of
Each tombstone told the story of an the Dominican Women’s Youth Devel-
immigrant who died on their dangerous opment Center, Pastor at la Iglesia San
journey crossing the US-Mexico border, Romero de Las Americas, Professor at
reminding us that immigration involves CUNY John Jay, Masters candidate at
human beings who risk their lives to pro- the Columbia School of Social Work,
vide for their families. To the same end, and a long time immigrant and women’s
a candlelight vigil was held that night rights activist came to speak about the
honoring all those who lost their lives in effects of the SOA’s actions on Latin
the desert in search of economic oppor- America. She also showed “School of
tunities. Through these demonstrations, the Assassins,” a documentary that pro-
Lucha shows us that immigration cannot vided actual footage of the horrible acts
be reduced to mere statistics that dehu- committed by SOA graduates.
manize the immigration discussion; hu- CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 Association, Al-Awda Palestine Right of
in this issue...
Karina Garcia We Have Our Name For a Reason
Rudi Batzell Problems in Campus Discourse
Jacob Matilsky Building the Anti-War Movement
Wyatt Ford Democracy and the University
Tina Musa Starving Gaza
the core: Selection from Prison Notebooks
Upcoming Events
january 2008
A New Year for
Lucha
BY JOHANNA OCAÑA
Lucha has accomplished a great
deal in its first year as a recognized on-
campus group, due to the enthusiasm
and dedication of its members. As 2008
starts, I hope that we will be able to both
continue and expand on the work that
we have started.
As the new members of the steering
committee assume our roles, we must
ensure that our commitment to off cam-
pus action is as strong as that on cam-
pus. Columbia University is in the city of
New York; it is not just a catchy phrase
to attract applications. If we venture a
few blocks from Ollie’s, we are in Har-
lem. We are situated in a working class
community. Our mission statement is to
promote social, political, and economic
progress in the Latino and working class
communities in the United States, and to
educate our campus about political, so-
cial, and economic issues in Latin Amer-
ica. In this statement, we can see that the
interconndectedness of issues is at the
core of this group.
Lucha will continue to not only link
various struggles, but to fight for justice.
We continue to show our solidarity with
movements that are not particular to La-
tinos, such as the liberation of Palestine.
The first weekend back, members of
Lucha participated in a demonstration
organized by the ANSWER Coalition,
joined with the National Council of Arab
Americans, Free Palestine Alliance, Mus-
lim American Society Freedom Foun-
dation, Palestinian American Women’s
Return Coalition, and other anti-war and
progressive organizations. Together, we
called for the immediate end to the Is-
raeli blockade and siege of Gaza. We ac-
knowledge that amongst anti-war activ-
2 ists, the issue of Palestine can be divisive;
4 thus, we hope to plan an event that will
5 further expose the correlations between
the two movements.
6 Our commitment to the anti-war
7 movement is as strong as ever, as we
9 near yet another anniversary of the Iraq
10 CONTINUED ON PAGE 3
page 2
We Have Our Name For a Reason
Luchistas: I step down as Chair with
a profound sense of love and admiration
for you all. It would take more than a few
articles to recall all the great experiences
of our first year, so I will not even try to
do that here. And besides, I would rather
leave you with something more practical
than a photo album. Instead, I would like
to impart some of the organizational and
political lessons that I have learned in my
years as an activist at Columbia.
We have proven that Lucha will
never be an organization that sits on the
sidelines and converts living and breath-
ing struggles into meaningless academic
debates.
We have our name for a reason. Our
organization was founded after a very
contentious event that not only divided
the campus, but received national and
even international media attention. The
founder of the Minutemen Project—a
group of white supremacists and vigi-
lantes who “patrol” the U.S.-Mexico
border in the hunt for undocumented
immigrants—came to campus and we
unabashedly led a protest against him.
Due to the directness of our chal-
lenge to the Minutemen, right-wingers
and liberals alike vied to see who could
most loudly denounce us. Several of our
members, myself included, were subject
el participante
contributors
ILIANA FELIZ is the Vice Chair of Lucha, and
the Secretary of the Chicano Caucus. She is
studying Political Science and Antrhopology at
Columbia College.
KARINA GARCIA is a member of Lucha. She is
studying Economics and Spanish Litarature at
Columbia College.
JACOB MATILSKY, is a member of the General
Studies Student Council and the Columbia Co-
alition Against the War. He is studying Political
Science at the School of General Studies.
TINA MUSA is a member of Filasteen and
SPEaK. She is a Comparative Ethnic Studies
major at Columbia College.
JOHANA OCAÑA is the Chair of Lucha, and the
Education Chair of the Student Organization
of Latinos. She is studying Political Science and
Latino Studies at Columbia College.
WYATT FORD, RUDI BATZELL, editors
el participante is a monthly publication
devoted to activist thought and action in the Colum-
bia University community. An online blog, http://
elparticipante.blogspot.com, provides coverage and
commentary of campus news, politics, and activism.
Submissions and letters to the editor are welcome, and
should be sent to
editors.el.participante@gmail.com.
el participante
BY KARINA GARCIA
to disciplinary procedures by the univer-
sity, and the mainstream media attempt-
ed to reduce a demonstration that spoke
for the rights of millions of immigrant
workers to a petty and abstract discus-
sion about the “free speech” rights of
racist hatemongers.
The Minutemen Protest and its af-
termath necessitated the formation of
a new, explicitly political group—the
existing cultural organizations would
not do—and the heat of that struggle
welded our founding members together.
Our group, from its very genesis, was in-
timately tied to struggle.
It is also therefore intimately tied to
taking dramatic risks that may result in
temporary isolation on campus. We have
formulated our tactics and strategies
based on the needs of the movement
and our broader community, not the sen-
sibilities of the “campus community.”
We are in one of the country’s most
elite universities, and in the center of
global finance capital. Columbia Uni-
versity is the city’s third biggest land-
lord, a multi-billion dollar corporation,
and the training ground for the political,
economic, and ideological establishent’s
next generation of “leaders.” That estab-
lishment, it bears repeating, is the very
one that displaces families and exploits
workers and immigrants.
So, in short, we are not exactly root-
ing for the home team here. Our mis-
sion statement does not coincide with
the University’s mission statement. To
not be seen as radical in this environ-
ment should be cause for concern! We
have to be as radical as reality itself. As
long as we support full rights for all im-
migrants, Harlem’s right to determine its
own destiny, and an immediate end to
the occupations of Iraq and Palestine,
we will be shunned by a broad section
of the political spectrum. It does not
matter how we articulate these goals. It
is what we represent that offends them.
We do not embrace or take foolish pride
in isolation; rather, we have accepted the
fact that this elitist environment makes
isolation—at least in times of shapened
conflict—inevitable.
There is only one way to overcome
this isolation without compromising our
principles: connecting with the outside
community. We do not connect with off-
january 2008
campus organizations simply to increase
attendance at our events, or as some sort
of goodwill to the outside community.
Rather, we know that the political, class,
and demographic composition of the
“off-campus” community makes it our
only reliable basis of support, and at
times of hardship, our only refuge.
Yes, we are part of Columbia Uni-
versity. We take classes here, we reside
in the dorms, and we should of course
try our hardest to push the school in a
progressive direction. But we should not
confuse it with home. Our chances of
survival as radicals on an elite campus
are the same as the amphibian that is
stuck on land and never returns to the
water. There is a sea of oppressed people
across the world who do not enjoy even
one-thousandth of the privileges of Co-
lumbia University. This is our water and
we must always return to it.
From the guest speakers we invite to
the alliances we build, from the slogans
we advance to the tactics we choose, we
cannot make our decisions based on the
campus norms of “academic respectabil-
ity.” Instead of inviting the same cast of
professors to analyze the latest immigra-
tion bill, let’s invite those who are most
affected—those who have the most to
gain and to lose. Instead of just hand-
ing out flyers on College Walk, let’s go
speak with the men and women behind
the Pinnacle pizza counter.
Despite its reputation, Columbia
University is not full of radicals. Sure,
many can mouth the right phrases, but
few genuinely feel—or dare push them-
selves to understand—the necessity of
struggle. Lucha’s purpose on this campus
is to find those few, and to unite them.
We cannot expect hundreds of mem-
bers. It would take a political earthquake
that shakes all of society to change this
equation.
Lucha has a lot to be proud of on
its one-year anniversary. We have laid the
groundwork for an organization that is
hard working, efficient, and bold in the
face of adversity. Our dedication will at-
tract more dedication, our creativity will
attract more creativity, and our willing-
ness to struggle will in itself draw in like-
minded activists. Although several of
our founders are graduating, I know that
Lucha’s proudest days are still ahead.
page 3
Reportback: Immigration Week
CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE
Based in Fort Benning, Georgia, the
Western Hemisphere Institute for Secu-
rity and Cooperation—as SOA was of-
ficially renamed to detach it from its no-
torious history—trains Latin American
security personnel in combat to suppos-
edly oversee nation-building and counter
insurgents. In reality, SOA graduates are
there to ensure that puppet regimes are
put into place by any means necessary,
even if this means massacring men, wom-
en, and children alike. The most famous
of these massacres was Las Hojas massa-
cre in El Salvador. The film also brought
to light the detrimental economic conse-
quences of ruthless capitalism on Latin
America. Corporations profit from the
exploitation of Latin American workers
who barely make enough to feed their
families. The puppet regimes set in place
with the help of the SOA guarantee that
the system does not change. Watching
the film and hearing De La Cruz speak
A New Year for Lucha
CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE
War. As students at a prominent univer-
sity, we must realize that the investments
of our institutions speak for themselves.
Lucha plans to join the Columbia Coali-
tion Against the War in their divestment
initiative. We also hope to expand our
efforts in the surrounding community.
Army recruiters often target working
class communities, so we will start an an-
ti-recruitment initiative this semester. We
el participante
allowed us to rethink the definition of
“illegal” immigration. The discussion
that followed was centered on this ques-
tion: why is it not illegal for corporations
to go into Latin American countries and
exploit their workers but, it is illegal for
one of those workers to cross the border
into the US in hopes of finding better
opportunities? We were unable to find a
satisfactory response to this question.
The next day’s event examined the
treatment of the undocumented in the
US in a panel on immigration raids that
Lucha organized with representatives
from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense
and Education Fund (PRLDEF) and
the Workplace Project. The panelists ex-
plained how ICE takes advantage of the
fact that people are not aware of their
rights, invading homes without search
warrants and detaining undocumented
people. Last November, on Long Island,
many families were terrorized at night
when ICE broke down their doors and
searched them and their homes. These
plan to reach out to high school students
in working class and immigrant commu-
nities about opt-out forms and opportu-
nities available aside from the army.
With so much to do this semester re-
garding such a variety of issues, we are
always grateful to our dedicated mem-
bers and contributors. We hope that you
will join us in our struggle with any cause
that resonates with you. I am very excit-
ed for the work we have ahead of us and
hope to see some new faces.
january 2008
Saffiyah Madraswala / el participante
raids unfairly resulted in the detainment
and deportation of many immigrants.
The panelists then informed us about
what rights these immigrants do have
and what should be done in the event
that one is caught in a raid.
On Thursday, the screening of Ar-
turo Perez Torres’s film “Wetback” pro-
vided a new perspective of immigrants
and their struggle. The film traced sev-
eral stories of Central American border
crosses and the obstacles the immigrants
faced. So often the immigration debate
is focused only on Mexicans coming to
the US. It is often forgotten that many
other groups also risk their lives on their
way here. The film showed that Central
Americans do not only have to face ter-
rorism from US vigilantes in the desert
surrounding the US-Mexico border, but
also the threats posed by danger gangs
in Mexico. A powerful film, this movie
truly captured the suffering and fear of
the migrants and ventured into uncom-
monly touched areas of the immigration
issue.
On Friday, to wrap up the week, Lu-
cha threw a fundraising party for the vic-
tims of Hurricane Noel in Mexico, Haiti,
and the Dominican Republic. We were
able to gather $175 for relief efforts.
Although Immigration Week had
come to a close, we invite all of those
who participated and those who could
not attend to think about what is to be
done next in regards to the immigration
issue. Lucha will certainly continue ef-
forts to promote immigrant rights and
raise awareness this semester, and we
expect that many will join us as we look
forward to May Day.
page 4
“Barrouns and nobilitie That dois oppres my pure communitie”:
Problems in Campus Discourse
The ubiquity of the word “commu-
nity” in recent campus discussions, of-
ten used in conflicting and contradictory
ways, is troubling. Community is a very
old word, a word that speaks to basic hu-
man desires for solidarity, camaraderie,
and a shared moral life. Modern usage,
however, has emptied this word of its
substance.
The recent use of the idea of “com-
munity” on campus is particularly prob-
lematic. The struggle over expansion
was framed as a battle between “the
community” and “the institution.” It was
the “Coalition to Preserve Community”
which led the resistance to Columbia’s
expansion into West Harlem. With the
outbreak of racist aggression and threats
in the aftermath of Jena, we were told
that these “bias incidents” were a “threat
to our community.” Most troubling of
all, “communities” has been used as a
euphemism for perceived racial divisions.
While some will think it petty, the words
we use are revealing, and quite often,
loose language reflects loose thinking.
The first usage is problematic, but
not overly offensive. In defending the
democratic right of self determination,
activists involved in expansion used
“community” as a gloss for much larger
processes: gentrification, struggles over
public and private space, property rela-
tions, and of course, Harlem’s eroding
status as a metropolis of African-Amer-
ican culture. This usage, community
vs. institution, lacks specificity. Whose
community? A community of what?
Small business owners, property hold-
ers, residents, tenants, landlords, work-
ers, employers are all lopped together
and supposed to have common inter-
ests. There is a tendency to mythologize
Harlem as “the community,” lending it
romantic attributes of authenticity and
solidarity that hide the real tensions and
conflicts involved. The predominance
of a community vs. institution discourse
subsumed dimensions of class, race, and
culture that deserved more explicit ar-
ticulation.
One of the most astonishing things
about the outbreak of racism on Colum-
bia’s campus, from Bollinger invoking
the white man’s burden to defend civi-
el participante
BY RUDI BATZELL
lization when introducing Ahmadinejad,
to the nooses in imitation of Jena, to the
graffiti scrawled across walls and bath-
room stalls, was the stunning absence of
the words “racist” and “racism” in the
formal response and discussion. The ad-
ministration never once used the words
“racism” or “racist.” We were witnessing
“bias incidents” which threatened “our
community.” The administration made
no effort to acknowledge how deeply
racism is rooted in American culture.
Our willingness to carry out wars of ag-
gression and occupation in Iraq, to in-
carcerate millions of young black men,
We apparently have
“communities” within our
“Columbia community,” and
this is how we talk about
racism.
to permit the destruction of New Or-
leans: should we call this a long string of
“bias incidents”? Racism is prevalent in
structuring the power relations of Amer-
ican society and systematic in shaping
political, economic, and social outcomes.
While I understand the bureaucratic
legalese which institutions necessarily
employ, not once did the administration
acknowledge that this was not a problem
of “incidents” within “our community,”
but rather reflected the systemic role of
racism in American society.
While student activists were ready
to make the connections, the response
tended to get trapped inside the notion
of “the Columbia community.” The so-
lution, it seemed, was to promote toler-
ance, inclusiveness, understanding, and
safe spaces within our insular “com-
munity.” The real problem, of course,
is the overwhelming power of racism in
American society. By making the admin-
istration responsible, we lost sight of the
scope and dimensions of the problem.
No amount of campus dialogue, hand-
holding, diversity training, or departmen-
tal tokenism will begin to address–let
alone affect–the racist power structure.
Of course, arming ourselves with the
intellectual tools necessary to confront
racism is crucial, but ultimately substan-
tive change will come from below, from
january 2008
black, Latino, and white workers uniting
and struggling for power. This is not to
say that victories within the university are
insignificant, but only to draw attention
to the historical depth and social perva-
siveness of racism.
These alone, probably, would not
have drawn my attention to the use of
the word “community.” It is the plural
form, “communities,” when used as a
euphemism to describe racial or ethnic
categories that seems the most insidious.
In a circular and confusing formulation,
Bollinger expressed his concern that “we
have witnessed unspeakable acts of prej-
udice intended to intimidate members of
our communities.” Or maybe it was rac-
ism, but we dare not speak the word. We
apparently have “communities” within
our “Columbia community,” and this is
how we talk about racism.
But Bollinger can hardly be blamed
for this awkward euphemism; an open
letter sent to the administration stated
that the hunger strikers aimed to “ad-
dress the ways in which this university
contributes to the marginalization of
communities.” The open letter continues
with a call to “(re)envision a process, ad-
ministration, and university that will lead
to this safe, just and inclusive commu-
nity we imagine.” Following upon this,
the “Joint Statement” released by the
negotiators stated that the university was
committed to reducing the “marginaliza-
tion experienced by some of our com-
munities and enhanc[ing] inclusiveness
for all.”
I’ll have to leave my polemic against
“marginalization” for later. The point
for now is that we all know who Bol-
linger means when he refers to certain
“members of our communities,” we all
know which groups are meant by “some
of our communities,” but this is only be-
cause we assume the racist cultural con-
text of American society. Language that
involves racist assumptions is racist in
the strict sense. If we want to confront
racism in all of its horrendous reality,
we cannot dance around the issue with
euphemisms and (re)envisioning com-
munities of inclusion. At best this seems
like postmodern nonsense, at worst it is
a dangerous capitulation to deeply in-
page 5
grained racist culture.
Of course, many of these docu-
ments were composed hastily, and it may
not be fair to submit them to a close
analytical reading. But the ubiquity of
the word “community,” and the ways in
which it repeatedly served to obscure,
divert, and assume in statement after
statement needed to be addressed. The
word itself is a fine one. It has its origins
in medieval England in the commons,
those things held communally, and the
Building the Anti-War Movement
This nation is still fighting a war
in Iraq, although it seems many of us
forget. It is harder for Iraqis to forget.
One American soldier tells the story of
people camping outside of a massive
US-guarded detainment center, waiting.
When a reporter asked one woman why
she was waiting when there was little to
no chance of seeing her loved one, the
woman explained that the rest of her
family were dead and her house had been
bombed. “Where else would you recom-
mend I go?” she asked the reporter.
It is difficult for me to write about
the antiwar movement. I would love to
be able to say that we are doing all we
can to end this war and that we are also
working to end injustice in general, but,
although there are some success stories,
the antiwar movement suffers from par-
alyzing inaction frustrating those of us
committed to global justice and peace.
One ongoing problem is that the left
remains uselessly divided along outdated
lines. While the divide many times seems
personal rather than political, groups
like the Columbia Coalition Against the
War and the College Democrats remain
at odds over some very real issues sur-
rounding tactics, rhetoric, and politics.
One major sticking point is whether
the situation in Palestine and Israel is rel-
evant to Middle East peace. Further dis-
agreement remains about the depth of
accountability: Is the Bush administra-
tion solely to blame, or should we hold
congress and war industries accountable
as well?
Another issue surrounds tactics.
Some individuals and groups look for a
more proactive approach, such as strikes
and direct actions, while others favor
working within the system in an effort to
stimulate change. Competing answers to
el participante
rights and privileges of the commoner.
The idea of community, of solidarity
and humanity, of human rights and hu-
man dignity, remains a powerful critique
of neoliberal submission to markets, of
the existing property relations and the
exploitation of labor under capitalism.
In examining the recent appropriation
of the word, and its loose usage in cam-
pus discourse, it is crucial to defend this
ancient expression of human solidarity
and communion.
BY JACOB MATILSKY
these issues have been firmly entrenched
against each other for the better part
of sixty years. The ideological conflicts
between Democrats, socialists, and an-
archists are a mess that our generation
has inherited, and it is paramount that
we address our differences and begin to
work together, because America’s injus-
tices against the world are not ending on
their own.
Another problem rests with the cur-
The ideological conflicts
between Democrats, socialists,
and anarchists are a mess that
our generation has inherited...
rent stupor of formerly active progres-
sives in our parents’ generation. These
old guard activists, from whom we inher-
ited a divided left, appear to be waiting
for students to take the lead in opposing
our nation’s reckless efforts to maintain
global supremacy. Quite frankly, we have
not come close to meeting the task. We
are not equipped to end this war single-
handedly as other generations stand
on the sidelines. There is no draft, and
many of us are isolated from the death
and destruction that US troops bring
to our fellow humans. Our voting and
phone banking may have helped propel
a new congress into office in 2006, but
that congress has been impotent at best.
Our strikes and direct actions have not
enjoyed backing beyond university cam-
puses. When there are major protests,
students always send a contingent, but
the presence of older people has been
abysmal.
Older activists give the impression
that they have done their part with so-
cial movements in the 1960s, however,
january 2008
Marx once observed that philosoph-
ically socialism meant passing from the
“Kingdom of Necessity” to the “King-
dom of Freedom,” in which human be-
ings have the full right of democratic
self-determination over their social exis-
tence. Only in this realm of freedom can
the human ideal of community be fully
realized. As activists, we must be careful
with our words, precise in our meanings,
and wary of assumptions and easy gloss-
es on what is generally accepted.
the legacy remaining from that time is
not purely positive. Much of the divides
and conflicts on the left stem from old
quarrels, and many old activists have not
joined in helping repair existing rifts even
as the work of promoting social justice
continues to increase in difficulty. I ex-
pect former generations to join us when
students do take the lead in calling for
direct action and electoral change. When
we do call a strike, we need full partici-
pation of older activists. When we call
for an antiwar candidate for president,
we need our elders to provide us with a
sane and rational person who they then
actively support.
The problems facing us are very real.
We must overcome our divides and con-
quer the collective paralysis among all
generations. I propose that, as a campus,
we need to unite behind a non-partisan
banner opposed to war and injustice
and employ all methods available to us
to end this war. Our political affiliations
and ideologies only do us harm when we
let them get in the way of action. It is es-
sential that we mark the fifth anniversary
of the invasion which launched this atro-
cious war, by forcing our leadership to
see that we will no longer stand by quiet-
ly as families are obliterated and human
life holds zero value against the dollar.
All campus groups need to come
to the table to end this war. While that
does not mean holding hands around
the campfire and singing Kumbaya, it
does mean developing toleration for the
varying tactics that define each group.
Whether we are shutting down a port that
ships military goods, as SDS has done, or
participating in a nation-wide strike, as
the Columbia Coalition Against the War
has done, or applying pressure to elected
officials, as the College Democrats have
page 6
done, we need to act in unison. As long
as the message is clearly antiwar, and as
long as it energizes those involved, there
can be room to write letters while dem-
onstrating and shutting down ports.
When any group calls for an antiwar
action, we must as a campus answer that
call with resounding force and unique-
ness of strategy; we can recognize our
differences but we always need to re-
member that there are real families who
are wantonly murdered daily.
Calling our senators may not be ev-
eryone’s idea of an effective tactic, but
we need to support it if the message is
antiwar. Not everyone may be comfort-
able stopping traffic in front of Lock-
heed Martin’s corporate headquarters,
but we need to show solidarity if the
Democracy and the University
None of literature produced by the
various students vehemently opposed to
the recent hunger strike focused on the
demands made by the hunger strikers.
Spectator Columnist Chris Kulawik wrote
that he “could spend pages rebutting
each incongruent, pigheaded and im-
practical demand,” but never did, because
of the “larger, more pressing issue at
hand,” namely “the question of tactics.”
The hunger strikers’ “misguided tac-
tics,” explained their critics, were so ex-
treme that the actual demands made were
irrelevant. The hunger strikers were act-
ing like terrorists—hijacking the debate,
holding the University hostage, drowning
out other voices. One critic even went
so far as to declare that the psychology
of a hunger striker is the “empowering
mirror” of that of a suicide bomber.
Some of these critics even agreed
with the demands—“sounds reasonable
to me,” one of them remarked—but
could not support them because of the
chosen “tactics.” Regardless of what the
demands were, the message from the crit-
ics was clear: “we cannot support institu-
tional change based upon intimidation.”
In lieu of intimidation, these critics
suggested an alternate, proper, legitimate
tactic: engaging with democratic pro-
cesses. We were not consulted, the crit-
ics complained; the hunger strikers nei-
ther represent the views of the student
body, nor do they “represent the student
body in any legitimate form.” Again and
again we were reminded that the strik-
el participante
message is antiwar.
I realize that our divides run deep
and there remain decades of history to
sort through, but we most work through
these differences. I could paint countless
pictures of the atrocities that occur in
our name, but we spend our days turn-
ing our backs on these images and issues
because it can seem overwhelming and
impossible to repair. So instead of in-
voking relevant yet discouraging stories
and images, I point to the moral impera-
tive to end this war, a moral imperative
demanding that all generations use all
relevant strategies to end the bloodshed
in the Middle East.
So many of us think that this war
is wrong. We need action to back these
judgments. Just because it is hard and
BY WYATT FORD
ers were “not elected as leaders of its
student government, nor as leaders of
any recognized campus organizations.”
This emphasis on democratic rep-
resentation and democratic processes is
absurd. Only one of the student coun-
cils on campus, the Engineering Student
Council (ESC), issued a statement cat-
What is remarkable is not the
“anti-democratic” nature of the
hunger strike, but the fact that
democratic processes have no
significant meaning at
Columbia University.
egorically denouncing the hunger strike
for its sensationalist, dangerous tactics.
Dov Friedman, in a critique of the hunger
strike published in Spectator, condemned
the strikers for their “warped conception
of campus democracy,” and then imme-
diately declared the ESC “the hero of the
week.” Perhaps he forgot that the ESC
Executive Board is not elected by the stu-
dents that it alleges to represent, but by
an incestuous internal selection process.
For Dov Friedman, the ESC denuncia-
tion of the hunger strike was somehow
more legitimate than the strike itself.
In fact, the Columbia College Stu-
dent Council (CCSC), which is elected,
issued a statement that was sympathet-
ic to the hunger strikers and declared
tentative support for many of their
demands. Thus, the argument of the
january 2008
the deck is stacked against us we are not
off the hook. We as students need the
help of other activists but we also need
to be a powerful force to overcome the
staggering difficulties facing us. It is not
enough that there is a student contin-
gent at antiwar protests in Washington.
We need our presence to be so massive
that our leaders can no longer ignore
our plea for peace and social justice. We
need to show that when students choose
to strike against this war, America feels
our impact. We play a critical rule in this
ongoing struggle and I call on each and
every one of us to shoulder our burden,
sideline our personal animosities, and
behave as if it were our own families
fruitlessly dying in a misguided war.
critics of the hunger strike is marred
with a paradox: in asserting that the
hunger strikers’ demands do not le-
gitimately represent the student body,
they inadvertently suggest that CCSC,
and the tepid democratic processes
that they so revere, are also illegitimate.
What is remarkable is not the “anti-
democratic” nature of the hunger strike,
but the fact that democratic processes
have no significant meaning at Colum-
bia University. The hunger strikers ap-
pear to understand this reality. They
could have tried to reach out to more
students, in an attempt to establish a
support base that included a major-
ity of students. Instead, they opted to
organize only the critical mass neces-
sary to effect change in the contem-
porary, corporate American university.
Over the course of the twentieth
century, Professor Neve Gordon of Ben
Gurion University explained in a confer-
ence on academic freedom held at the
University of Chicago last fall, American
universities underwent a restructuring
that has reorganized them in the image
of a corporation. “The university no lon-
ger conceives of itself as an institution
whose primary goal is to reveal truth,”
he argues. “It conceives of itself as an
institution that sells products.” The goal
of the institution, thus, is no longer edu-
cation, but rather selling the diploma—
the university’s main product—at the
highest price that the market will take.
Consequently, the components of
page 7
the American university have become in-
creasingly commoditized. Faculty mem-
bers are seen and treated as producers,
capable of increasing the “market value”
of the university through the prestige
of awards, the production of citations,
new scholarship, patents, earned grants,
and so forth. In order to facilitate maxi-
mum efficiency, the power structure of
the university, too, has become more and
more similar to those of corporations.
Faculty governance has eroded through
the recent ascendancy of administrative
rule. Department Chairs, Deans, Pro-
vosts, are all appointed by the adminis-
tration, which are headed by Presidents
who are “not invested in intellectual
achievements,” but rather “behave more
and more like corporate executives.”
President Bollinger’s humble dec-
laration during Ahmadinejad’s visit—
”I am only a professor, who is also a
university president,”—was a blatant
lie. Although he might once have been
an academic, and still might dabble in
scholarship, his exorbitant salary, fo-
Imagine waking up to the smell
of sewage and looking out your win-
dow to find that the streets are flood-
ed with waste. The power is out, and
food supplies everywhere are scarce,
and, you are out of cigarettes. This
is what Israel calls national security.
Israel controls sixty percent of the
power in the Gaza Strip, the rest being
controlled by both Egypt and Palestin-
ians. The loss of power there not only
endangers places like hospitals, which al-
ready face a severe lack of supplies and
equipment due to a crippled economy,
but the power in Gaza also directly con-
trols running water. Thus at any moment,
Israel has the ability to take away all of
the basic necessities needed for survival
of the residents of Gaza, a control that
makes any chance for peace impossible.
Since the election of Hamas, Is-
rael’s policy towards the Gaza Strip has
provoked a humanitarian crisis through
actions such as the sealing off of bor-
ders, and, most recently, cutting off fuel
supplies to the region. This policy of en-
closure is dangerous because, although
it may be claimed as necessary for the
national security of Israel, it deprives
Gaza residents of the very little that they
el participante
cus on fundraising initiatives, and ac-
countability to a Board of Trustees and
other investors—donors, customers,
athletic events—hardly suggests that
he is merely a professor who just hap-
pens to also be the university president.
In such an environment, Gordon
argues, democratic processes on behalf
of what should be the main constituency
of a university, its faculty and students,
are pushed aside in the interests of the
university’s endowment and purchasing
power, and the unionization of faculty,
staff, and graduates students is rare, if
it exists at all. All this might seem natu-
ral, but the corporate model is not the
only possibility for a university. In Israel,
Gordon explains, all faculty are union-
ized, and democratic processes thrive, as
faculty governance is still quite powerful.
While it is far from perfect, Gordon ar-
gues that the democratic, non-corporate
structure ensures that the university’s fo-
cus remains on education and imparting
knowledge, less distracted by the influ-
ence of capital and other external forces.
Starving Gaza
BY TINA MUSA
have, deepening unemployment, poverty,
and ultimately, hostility towards Israel.
The hubris of Israel has become
so grand that it has no reason to even
feign concern for the residents of Gaza,
and goes forward with this strangling
blockade without any regard for ba-
sic human rights or international law.
Israel has continuously punished
[H]ow are Palestinians
to secure the right to life and
safety for themselves if they are
not allowed to control the very
things that they require for
survival?
the Palestinian people in Gaza because
of a democratic election that chose a
party which Israel and the United States
found to be unacceptable. Israel must
recognize that if any deal or peace is
to be made with Gaza and the Pales-
tinian people, then it must deal with all
parties, including Hamas, which influ-
ences and is supported by a significant
number of Palestinians. Palestinians
cannot have a true state or govern-
ing body if their resources, elections
,and mobility are in the hands of Israel.
january 2008
The hunger strike critics are right
to be worried about the state of democ-
racy at Columbia University, but they
missed the real danger. Alarm should
not focus on the hunger strikers, but
rather on all aspects of the university.
If they want to talk seriously about de-
mocracy, the hunger strike critics need
to realize that the lack of viable democ-
racy within Columbia University is far
more important than the fact that the
hunger strikers did not consult them.
The Faculty Action Committee’s
recent statement of concern, which
took Bollinger to task for his failure to
preserve the “core principles on which
the university is founded,” shows that
while many students are oblivious, the
faculty are questioning and challenging
the direction the Bollinger Administra-
tion has led this university. It is up to
students, faculty, and university work-
ers to demand a democratic institution
in which “dangerous” tactics such as
hunger strikes would be unnecessary.
It is beyond the realm of com-
mon sense to believe that the Israeli
stranglehold on Gaza could result in a
just solution. If Israel is seeking peace
with its neighbors and safety for its
citizens, why not fund the building
of a school, or allow Palestinians the
right to control their own resources?
The huge discrepancy of power
between Israel, the United States, and
the Palestinian people is a problem that
must be resolved for any “peace pro-
cess” to succeed. For example, when
Israel began their bombing of Lebanon
in 2006, the United States was very re-
served, conspicuously failing to join the
international community in calling for
a ceasefire or an immediate withdrawal,
rather silently approving the actions of
its ally, Israel. With the two states so inti-
mately linked, and with the United States
acting and proclaiming itself as the ex-
ceptional power in today’s world, it was
evident that the United States had the
power to call on Israel to retreat from
a campaign that resulted in the deaths
of at least one thousand civilians by
conservative estimates. It is evident that
the United States, who recently prom-
ised 30 billion dollars worth of arms
page 8
to Israel, has the leverage to discour-
age and perhaps end the siege of Gaza.
The “collective punishment” of
Gaza, as the European Union has termed
it, has resulted in an international outcry
against the late Israeli action. Yet this
course of action is defended by Israel as
being within the boundaries of interna-
tional law, because, according to Israeli
representative Gilad Cohen, “it is the
duty of all states to ensure the right to life
and safety of its people, especially from
vicious acts of violence and terrorism.”
Yet how are Palestinians to secure
el participante
the right to life and safety for themselves
if they are not allowed to control the
very things that they require for survival?
Because the Palestinians have no recog-
nized state, does that mean they them-
selves have no right to secure their right
to life and safety? Indeed, Israel, the
United States, and the European Union
sabotaged whatever legitimate govern-
ment the Palestinians might have had by
eliminating aid to Hamas post-election.
It is hard to believe that the state of
Israel, a major recipient of U.S. foreign
aid and one that is effectively in control
january 2008
of Palestinian resources, could not em-
ploy different methods to protect their
own people. Furthermore, the Israeli
policy of punitive strangulation through
deprivation of key resources for Pales-
tinians clearly represents a policy aimed
at elimination and destruction, and fails
to provide a peaceful solution for both
peoples. No matter how loud Israel
may proclaim their desire for peace and
a just resolution, their actions are still
speaking much louder than their words.

CCAW Proposal Rejected In addition to our print

BY
The Advisory Committee on Social-
ly Responsible Investing (ASCRI) has
rejected the Columbia Coalition Against
the War’s (CCAW) proposal to divest the
nearly five million dollars which Colum-
bia’s endowment has invested in Gen-
eral Dynamics, Raytheon, and Lockheed
Martin. The Coalition’s proposal clearly
demonstrated that all three corporations
explicitly acknowledged in S.E.C filings
that their profitability and production
levels were dependent upon the con-
tinuation of the war in Iraq, and this
implicated the university in supporting
a war while a moral and political con-
sensus has emerged on campus oppos-
ing the continued occupation of Iraq.
The ASCRI provided two main
explanations in its formal response re-
leased recently. First, they claimed, they
were not clear if was “the war in Iraq
or the operations of these particular
RUDI BATZELL
companies that was being contested.”
Additionally, while they acknowledged
that opposition to the war within the
university community was strong, they
felt that there was no “broad consen-
sus within the University community
regarding” divesting from these specific
arms manufacturers which are simply
“conducting business operations ac-
cording to their corporate missions.”
Perhaps ASCRI missed the point,
but the divestment proposal concretely
demonstrated the extensive lobbying,
rotating door between government and
corporate employment, and powerful
influence on foreign policy of these cor-
porations. In this case, simply conduct-
ing business means being part of the
military-industrial complex which sought
to initiate the invasion of Iraq, and now
seeks to perpetuate the occupation.
edition, el participante also
has a blog, http://elpartici-
pante.blogspot.com, which
comments on news both
on and off campus, offers
links to leading publica-
tions of the left, and pub-
licizes upcoming political
events on campus. If you
want your event or group
to be featured, email edi-
tors.el.participante@gmail.
com. The blog aims to be
a forum for the left, just as
the print edition does, but
in a more immediate and
less formal manner.

LUCHA HAS T-SHIRTS!

THE RESPONSE TO LUCHA’S HALLOWEEN EVENT WAS SO
POSITIVE, WE DECIDED TO MAKE T-SHIRTS
FEATURING THE SLOGAN
“PILGRIMS: THE FIRST ILLEGALS.”
FOR PRICING AND AVAILABILITY, EMAIL
LUCHA.COLUMBIA@GMAIL.COM
page 9 el participante
THE CORE: FOUNDATIONS, THEORY AND PRACTICE
Selection from Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks
The nature, purpose, and value of the Core Curriculum at Columbia
have come into sharp focus since the hunger strike. Indeed, this section of el
participante was conceived as an alternative “core” for activists and radicals.
While the call for the inclusion of themes of “colonialism and racialization”
in major cultures is admirable, there was also a tendency to simply dismiss the
curriculum of “dead white men” which the Core offers. Antonio Gramsci,
a leading Italian Communist, wrote his famous Prison Notebooks while
imprisoned by Musolini’s regime. Gramsci was concerned with constructing a
revolutionary culture that could transcend the limits of bourgeois hegemony and
form the basis for proletarian solidarity and socialist society. Rather than ignore
philosophy as an elitest excrescence, those who wish to escape the coercive cul-
tural power of the status quo must attempt to know themselves as “a product
of the historical process to date which has deposited...an infinity of traces, with-
out leaving an inventory,” and engage in a ruthless “criticism of all previous
philosophy” in order to bring to the surface hidden cultural assumptions. From
a Gramscian perspective, the problem with the Core is not so much its content
as its lack of historicity. The texts are treated as totalities divorced from the
social relations of power and the systems of cultural production in which they
originated. Gramsci suggests that it is not by ignoring this canon that we can
shape a new revolutionary culture, but by engaging it critically
and historically, as expressions of concrete material, class, and
cultural circumstances.
It is essential to destroy the widespread preju-
dice that philosophy is a strange and difficult thing
just because it is the specific intellectual activity of
a particular category of specialists or of profes-
sional and systematic philosophers. It must first
be shown that all men are ‘philosophers’, by de-
fining the limits and characteristics of the ‘sponta-
neous philosophy’ which is proper to everybody.
This philosophy is contained in: 1. language itself,
which is a totality of determined notions and con-
cepts and not just of words grammatically devoid
of content; 2. ‘common sense’ and ‘good sense’, 3. popular re-
ligion and, therefore, also in the entire system of beliefs, super-
stitions, opinions, ways of seeing things and of acting, which
are collectively bundled together under the name of ‘folklore’.
Having first shown that everyone is a philosopher, though
in his own way and unconsciously, since even in the slight-
est manifestation of any intellectual activity whatever, in ‘lan-
guage’, there is contained a specific conception of the world,
one then moves on to the second level, which is that of aware-
ness and criticism. That is to say, one proceeds to the ques-
tion: is it better to ‘think’, without having a critical awareness,
in a disjointed and episodic way, to take part in a conception
of the world mechanically imposed by the external environ-
ment, i.e. by one of the many social groups in which everyone
is automatically involved from the moment of entry into the
conscious world (and this can be one’s village or province; it
can have its origins in the parish and the ‘intellectual activity’
of the local priest or aging patriarch whose wisdom is law, or in
the little old woman who has inherited the lore of the witches
or the minor intellectual soured by his own stupidity and in-
ability to act) or is it better to work out consciously and criti-
cally one’s own conception of the world and thus, in connec-
tion with the labors of one’s own brain, choose one’s sphere
of activity, take an active part in the creation of the history
january 2008
of the world, be one’s own guide, refusing to accept passively
and supinely from outside the molding of one’s personality?
Note I. In acquiring one’s conception of the world one
always belongs to a particular grouping which is that of all
the social elements which share the same mode of thinking
and acting. We are all conformists of some conformism or
other, always man-in-the-mass or collective man. The question
is this: of what historical type is the conformism, the mass
humanity to which one belongs? When one’s conception of
the world is not critical and coherent but disjointed and epi-
sodic, one belongs simultaneously to a multiplicity of mass
human groups. The personality is strangely composite: it con-
tains Stone Age elements and principles of a more advanced
science, prejudices from all past phases of history at the local
level and intuitions of a future philosophy which will be that
of a human race united the world over. To criticize one’s own
conception of the world means therefore to make it a coher-
ent unity and to raise it to the level reached by the most ad-
vanced thought in the world. It therefore also means criticism
of all previous philosophy, in so far as this has
left stratified deposits in popular philosophy. The
starting-point of critical elaboration is the con-
sciousness of what one really is, and is ‘knowing
thyself ’ as a product of the historical process to
date which has deposited in you an infinity of
traces, without leaving an inventory. Such an in-
ventory must therefore be made at the outset.
Note II. Philosophy cannot be separated from
the history of philosophy, nor can culture from
the history of culture. In the most immediate and
relevant sense, one cannot be a philosopher, by
which 1 mean have a critical and coherent concep-
tion of the world, without having a consciousness
of its historicity, of the phase of development
which it represents and of the fact that it contradicts other
conceptions or elements of other conceptions. One’s concep-
tion of the world is a response to certain specific problems
posed by reality, which are quite specific and ‘original’ in their
immediate relevance. How is it possible to consider the pres-
ent, and quite specific present, with a mode of thought elabo-
rated for a past which is often remote and superseded? When
someone does this, it means that he is a walking anachronism,
a fossil, and not living in the modern world, or at the least that
he is strangely composite. And it is in fact the case that social
groups which in some ways express the most developed mo-
dernity, lag behind in other respects, given their social position,
and are therefore incapable of complete historical autonomy...
Note IV. Creating a new culture does not only mean one’s
own individual ‘original’ discoveries. It also, and most particu-
larly, means the diffusion in a critical form of truths already dis-
covered, their ‘socialization’ as it were, and even making them the
basis of vital action, an element of co-ordination and intellectual
and moral order. For a mass of people to be led to think coher-
ently and in the same coherent fashion about the real present
world, is a ‘philosophical’ event far more important and ‘origi-
nal’ than the discovery by some philosophical ‘genius’ of a truth
which remains the property of small groups of intellectuals.
page 10
28 January
“Neoliberalizing Diversity in
Higher Education”
Hamilton College professor Bonnie
Urcioli, joined in discussion by NYU
Professor Arlene Davila, will argue
that “Neoliberal, corporate notions
of diversity have become increas-
ingly prevalent…thereby outsourc-
ing diversity to student groups while
still providing schools with symbolic
capital and drawing attention away
from intransigent racial inequities in
higher education”; 614 Schermer-
horn, 7:30pm.
Sponsored by the Anthropology Scheps
Lecture Series.
29 January
Black Heritage Month Opening
Reception
LeFrak Gymnasium, Barnard, 6 pm.
Organizing, Activism,
Engagement—Then and Now
Get involved this semester! Come
to this planning meeting to organize
an intergenerational panel event be-
tween current student activist and
1968 veterans. All are welcome; 303
Hamilton Hall, 9 pm.
30 January
Iraq—Realities on the Ground
CICR hosts a screeing of the docu-
mentary Iraq in Fragments, with a
discussion to follow; 1302 IAB, 6:30
pm.
Sponsored by the Center for International
Conflict Resolution.
31 January
Columbia Climate Center:
Focus the Nation Teach In
A campus-wide teach in about cli-
mate change, where students can en-
gage with over eleven experts from
various disciplines. Pizza will be
served; 1501 IAB, 5 pm.
Sponsored by the Columbia Climate Center.
1 February
“Challenges of the Broader
Middle East: Toward a Long-term
Strategy in the Enduring Tradi-
tions of American Foreign Policy”
Delivered by Zalmay Khalizad, US
Ambassador to the UN. Seating lim-
ited; 1501 IAB, 12 pm.
Sponsored by SIPA and the Saltzman
Institute of War and Peace Studies.
Want to see your event listed? So do we! Email us upcoming event information, at editors.el.participante@gmail.com.
el participante
upcoming events
1 February
Columbia University, Harlem,
and the World
Kazembe Balagun, Thulani Davis,
Bryan Mercer, Mark Rudd, and other
present and past student organizers
at Columbia, will discuss their expe-
riences, in hopes that lessons from
this rich history might suggest strat-
egies for moving forward in the cur-
rent political climate; Brecht Forum,
7:30, $6/$10/$15.
Sponsored by the Brecht Forum; see
www.brechtforum.org for directions.
4 February
“Statecraft in the Middle East”
Ambassador Dennis Ross from the
Washington Isntitute for Near East
Policy, will deliver a lecture seek-
ing to determine whether the Bush
administration, in its final year, will
have any foreign policy success in
the Middle East. Ross will argue that
past “lessons” have much to teach
about the Middle East; 707 IAB, 4
pm.
Sponsored by the Saltzman Institute of War
and Peace Studies.
6 February
Can the United Nations Meet
the Challenges of the
21st Century?
A screening of “The Story of the
United Nations through its Secretar-
ies—General,” followed by a panel
discussion; 1501 IAB, 6 pm.
Sponsored by SIPA’s UN Studies Program.
8 February
Immigration Discussion with
Students from Prince William
County, Virginia
In Prince William County, Virginia,
the immigration debate has created
a tense atmophere of racist antago-
nism. Students from Freedom High
School, a school in the county, will
engage in a dialogue sharing their
firsthand experiences regarding race,
immigration, family, and hope. Their
teacher Patrick Garland, who is also a
local attorney, will then share insights
on the situation facing the county
and the broader implications for the
nation; room TBA, time TBA.
Sponsored by Student Organization of
Latinos.
january 2008
12 February
“Institution Building in the Tran-
sition Following Independence in
Kyrgyzstan”
Harriman Institute presents a lecture
delivered by UC Berkeley Professor
Nina Bagdasarova; 1219 IAB.
13 February
Franz Boas Seminar
Professor Webb Keane will deliver
a lecture entitled “Freedom and
Blasphemy: On the Press”; 963
Schermerhorn Extension, 4:10 pm.
Sponsored by the Anthropology
Department.
18 February
“Peacebuilding in the Balkans:
View From the Ground Floor”
Harriman Institute presents this lec-
ture by College of William and Mary
Professor Paula M. Pickering; 1219
IAB, 12 pm.
Sponsored by the Harriman Institute.
19 February
Ukraine In Light of Turner’s
“Frontier Thesis”
Harriman Institute Visiting Scholar
Ihor Chornovol examines Ukrainian
history through Frederick Jackson
Turner’s famous “Frontier Thesis”;
1219 IAB, 12 pm.
Sponsored by the Harriman Institute.
20 February
Kraft Programn Series: The Lan-
guage of Race in America
This panel discussion will focus on
what is not being said in today’s
society about issues of race and
the future of diversity. Panelists in-
clude Law Professor Kimberle W.
Crenshaw, Political Science and His-
tory Professor Ira Katznelson, and
Asian-American Studeis Professor
Sandhya R. Shukla; Low Memorial
Library Rotunda, 5:30 pm.
Sponsored by the Kraft Family Fund for
Interfaith and Intercultural Awareness..
27 February
“Market, Morality, and Modern
Economics in Late-Imperial and
Republican China”
A WEAI brown-bag lecture deliv-
ered by Louisiana State Professor
Margherita Zanasi; 918 IAB, 12 pm.
Sponsored by the Weatherhead East Asian
Institute.