Emory President Details Events Surrounding Protester Arrests
Decatur Metro | April 27, 2011Cat sends in this very detailed letter from Emory President James Wagner concerning the eight individuals who were arrested on the Emory quad on April 20th. I’ll post the full letter after the jump, but I want to highlight a portion of it here.
What is at stake is the right of members of our academic community to hear from each other, determine the validity of what they hear, and then respond in a way that guarantees that their own response will be respected. That right to come to a conclusion and live by it, even when differences cannot be fully resolved, is violated when one side in an argument insists that only its perspective is correct, and that it is worth disrupting the life of the community in an attempt for its perspective to win out. That represents its own form of coercion, which shouts down every reasonable counter-argument rather than allowing room for either debate or the resolution of debate–even if the resolution is to agree to disagree. Those who employ such coercive practices deny to others the privileges of engagement in the academic community and risk the consequences of losing those privileges for themselves.
I don’t pretend to know many of the details surrounding these protests and the arrests, but you’ll never see me argue with the point made above. To again quote Thomas Carlyle, “The greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none.”.
Full letter below.
Dear Emory Community,
In the wake of the arrest of four Emory students and three students from other universities representing Students and Workers in Solidarity (SWS) on Monday evening, I write out of concern for the spirit of community that has long engaged Emory–a spirit of inquiry after the truth, determination to act on ethical principles, and respect for human dignity and diversity. Above all it is a spirit that treasures academic freedom (including the freedom to dissent) combined with respect for the rights of all members in our community.
Of all the actions that I have authorized in my professional life, the decision to have students removed from tents in the Quadrangle was among the most difficult. No one involved in the events of Monday evening could have felt that the incident was anything but disturbing. On the other hand, for the ninety minutes that preceded the arrests and throughout the rest of the evening, the administrators, campus services staff, and police officers who talked with the students, who first asked for their cooperation, and, in the end, removed them and their tents from the Quadrangle behaved with commendable restraint, respect, and professionalism.
Given these events and the incomplete and sometimes inaccurate information circulating about them, I feel compelled to share with you what transpired. The student group had requested use of the Quadrangle to hold a rally for five hours on the afternoon of April 20. They had followed procedures required of any members of the Emory community wishing to use the Quad for organized purposes, and they had been instructed on and acknowledged the guidelines to be followed regarding use of tents, tables, amplification, and other matters. Many of these guidelines are in place in order to respect the academic classes and administrative activities carried out around the Quadrangle.
The students gathered on April 20 to continue demanding the termination of Emory’s contract with Sodexo, the University’s food service contractor. I had responded to that demand the previous day in a letter available at http://shared.web.emory.edu/emory/news/releases/2011/04/emory-statement-on-food-service-issue.html
During that afternoon of the 20th, some two dozen students, along with members of the Atlanta community, entered the Administration Building and sat in the fourth floor hallway and board room until the building was locked electronically for the evening, as it is at 6:30 pm on every work day. Despite the disruption caused by the group’s presence during more than five hours, staff members on the hallway behaved courteously as they went about their work. At 6:30, the students were informed by a member of the University cabinet that the building was now closed, and that only authorized persons were permitted within; the students were asked to leave. After two repeated requests over some twenty minutes, those who remained were informed that Emory Police would be called to advise them of the consequences of trespassing. When the police arrived, they made three further requests, at intervals, for the students to leave. Only when arrest teams arrived, at 8 pm, did the students gather their things and leave, to congregate on the Quadrangle.
The group set up tents, tables, chairs, and other gear on the Quadrangle last Wednesday night, and some apparently camped out over the weekend. They did not follow the usual procedures for use of the Quad, and they had declared their intention of not leaving unless Emory terminated its contract with Sodexo. In the meantime, on Monday morning, preliminary work to set up for Commencement had begun, and the students’ presence would mean disruption of the University’s regular business in preparing for the end of the academic year and honoring our graduates.
Following the protocol used the previous Wednesday, the students were given every invitation on Monday evening to move their tents and other belongings on their own. A little after 6:30 pm, they were told that they were in violation of the policy that they had previously received when they made their reservation for use of the Quad on April 20 (they were given another copy at 6:30), and were told to leave. It was not until later, after repeated requests for them to leave their tents and dismantle them, as well as declarations that they would be arrested if they did not, that police approached them individually, informed each that it was their choice to leave their tents or risk arrest, and then, at around 8 pm, arrested those who elected not to comply. This was a clear choice on the part of the students who determined to remain in the last tent. In view of preparations for graduation that were under way, the situation needed to be resolved.
Although public arrest as a consequence of civil disobedience has been used historically to raise awareness about many causes, few can be happy about this outcome. Still, it must be clear that at no time was the group’s ability to state its message put at risk. No censorship was involved, no squelching of the claims they wanted to put before the public. Indeed, through many editorials in the Emory Wheel, through public forums and information sessions, and in rallies of various kinds, the message of SWS has had a full, open, and public hearing. Most recently, of course, the students were given extraordinary liberty to occupy one end of the Quad for nearly five days. At least ten times over the past year administrators have met with SWS representatives in dialogue; I myself have met with them twice, most recently last Thursday for an hour.
What is at stake is the right of members of our academic community to hear from each other, determine the validity of what they hear, and then respond in a way that guarantees that their own response will be respected. That right to come to a conclusion and live by it, even when differences cannot be fully resolved, is violated when one side in an argument insists that only its perspective is correct, and that it is worth disrupting the life of the community in an attempt for its perspective to win out. That represents its own form of coercion, which shouts down every reasonable counter-argument rather than allowing room for either debate or the resolution of debate–even if the resolution is to agree to disagree. Those who employ such coercive practices deny to others the privileges of engagement in the academic community and risk the consequences of losing those privileges for themselves.
This has been an unfortunate moment in the life of Emory. It is one, however, that we can learn from as we all continue to seek to act ethically, responsibly, and appropriately in behalf of our community. Those values remain of utmost importance to me and to the entire University.
Sincerely,
Jim Wagner
Latest from Decaturish
I don’t know much about the situation, but Mr. Wagner assumes that students and workers have equal say with the university administration regarding university policy. I can imagine that the students and workers, far from believing themselves to be without fault, view their situation as one requiring civil disobedience in order to level what they perceive as an unlevel playing field.
A good point. And one I thought of shortly after posting my comment.
It’s hard to pass judgment without knowing more of the details. But I can certainly see it going either way: protesters refusing to listen to the practical limitations of a situation or a University claiming a level playing field, when in fact, it is not.
In an attempt to educate ourselves on this issue, here’s a recent op-ed from the protesters in the Emory Wheel. And a quote…
Multiple independent human rights organizations, such as Humans Rights Watch and TransAfrica Forum, have found that Sodexo systematically violates the rights of its workers in its operations here and around the world. On our campus, Sodexo fosters an atmosphere of fear in order to intimidate its workers to prevent them speaking out about maltreatment by management. Many Emory food workers make poverty- level wages and cannot afford adequate health insurance, let alone health care.
Sodexo workers do not have access to the free monthly MARTA cards that directly hired employees receive. It costs Sodexo workers $70 per month to buy MARTA cards on their own, adding up to approximately $850 a year. A two-class system of workers at Emory — directly hired workers placed above subcontracted workers — has been directly condoned by administrators in an earlier meeting. Specifically, SWS wants the administration to end to Emory’s contract with Sodexo, to implement a labor code of conduct and to maintain a President’s Commission on the Status of Labor. A specific step-by-step implementation plan would require knowledge of the inner workings of Emory that administrators have access to and have not released publicly, such as the exact contract that Emory current has in place with Sodexo. Some things — like providing free MARTA cards and parking to subcontracted workers or comparing costs of subcontracting food service and the alternative of doing it in-house — could be implemented immediately.
Our goal is ultimately to correct injustices on Emory’s campus now and help give our friends, the Emory food service workers, the rights that they deserve. SWS believes that as an institution, Emory should live up to its mission statement and ethical values, Emory has a moral imperative to stop these abuses. To the administration we say, in the immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “The time is always right to do what is right.”
exactly, Bryan. very well put. I don’t think that Presidents of very wealthy institutions usually do very well playing the victim card, which is definitely what Wagner is doing here.
The President is making true statements, probably written for the larger community, and to protect the reputation of the University. However I cannot see the students breaking the law unless some fundamental issue was at stake. Unlike some of the commentators here yesterday, I am not going to judge those involved without knowing much more.
I think the problem with the quoted statement in the OP is that the coercion is entirely by and from the Administration, and this is the real issue, regardless of one’s feelings regarding Sodexo. A group protest was allowed to dwindle until it numbered very few people, until it was 8 pm and the campus was basically deserted, and then the police came in. There was no “shout(ing) down every reasonable counter-argument” at that time. Emory saw its opportunity and struck to get rid of an inconvenient and embarrassing display of criticism against its own practices. There has been no argument “to be shouted down” from the President’s Office concerning the treatment of workers.
I disagree with everything you wrote above but don’t feel like continuing this debate online. Just thought it needs to be pointed out that not all readers of DM or residents of Decatur support the students in this situation.
“This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]” — Robert F. Kennedy and another RFK statement that I can only paraphase today is “some people see the world as it is and ask ‘why’, I see the world as it could be and ask ‘why not’.” For the students at Emory I say Thank you.
A good line, but unfortunately that’s not much of a guiding principle. “I see the world as it could be and ask ‘why not'” could be used to describe the thought process of both visionaries and truly horrific people.
As for youth, that’s a more observant statement, though it’s hard to discuss much further without knowing his definition of “world”. Social or natural?
Your first point is very well taken. As for me, I try to be skeptical of all political statements, but often do not succeed. As a “never get old” 65 year old male, I can get over excited. The second statement was from a speech I heard him make at Ebenezer Church in 1968, just before he was killed. He was talking about social conditions in the poor black ghetto.
By no means would anyone assume such a position on a blog known for long arguments with varying viewpoints.
I think there are two arguments here: the Sodexo/Contract workers argument and a separate argument concerning whether or not arresting members of the student body was appropriate.
I’ll just say in closing, since “you don’t feel like continuing this debate online,” that it’s troubling when the head of an institution, one that uses the phrase “Where Courageous Inquiry Leads” in its mission statement, has dissenters arrested while peaceably demonstrating.
“Some things — like providing free MARTA cards and parking to subcontracted workers or comparing costs of subcontracting food service and the alternative of doing it in-house — could be implemented immediately.”
“Our goal is ultimately to correct injustices on Emory’s campus now and help give our friends, the Emory food service workers, the rights that they deserve”
As an Emory employee I have several comments. Firstly, I don’t know enough about Sodexo to know if the workers are being mistreated or not.
Emory employees must pay $600 a year to park, we don’t get that for free. We do have access to free MARTA cards if we chose that as a commute alternative. Sodexo employees are not Emory employees, and any issues that they have with benefits should be addressed through Sodexo. The bigger point, I think, has yet to be mentioned which is this: if Sodexo’s contract is terminated by Emory, what happens to the Sodexo worker’s jobs? I don’t think one can assume that Emory would hire them or that another food services vendor would. There are costs associated with brining food services in house (that is not a core competency of Emory), and providing the other benefits being demanded by the students. Are they willing to pay higher tuition in order to pay for those benefits? I believe that this group of students have their hearts in the right place, but I think they’re naive to the realities of what they’re asking for.
Dex – as a student involved in the protest, I think I can address your questions.
The number one condition of any change in policy is that the workers currently employed through Sodexo do not lose their jobs. Ideally, Emory would bring food services in house and hire the workers back themselves.
Whether and to what extent terminating the Sodexo contract would result in higher costs to Emory is an open question. The contract is not public, and the relevant information necessary to make that determination is probably known only to the Emory administration.
I think you are correct to identify this as a problem, and I think it is at the core of the dispute between those who support terminating the contract and those who do not. However – and I think this is the key point – the administration has not been engaging in discussion on those terms. The administration’s position is not “it would be too expensive to terminate the contract.” It is “subcontracted workers are not Emory employees.”
Students and workers have voiced concern about the working conditions for subcontracted workers on campus. If we take those concerns at face value, there are three questions that must be answered. First, would terminating the Sodexo contract increase expenses; second, if so, by how much; and third, what are we willing to sacrifice to cover the extra cost?
The solution may be higher tuition, or it might be cutting costs in other areas. Universities constantly make decisions to reallocate money to various parts of their budget based on what they value. Consequently, we as a community should have a frank and open discussion about what we value, and prioritize spending accordingly. That’s not happening now, because the Emory administration has not seriously engaged in the discussion. If they did, they would be raising the same concerns you are raising. But the conversation has not even reached that point, and that’s why there’s student protest.
Hi Emory Student – Excellent post, you are a credit to Emory
I certainly have no knowledge about the terms of the Sodexo contract, but being aware of the cost of human resources I think that I can safely say with a great deal of assurance that bringing food services in house would indeed cost more. Universities and companies outsource for one reason – it’s cheaper and easier than doing it yourself. Employees come with costs that go well beyond salary. Benefits and fringe add a substantial percentage to the overall cost per employee. Add to that the additional back line staff that would be required to do things that Sodexo now handles internally (food contracts, management, etc).
Outwardly, it sounds as though the administration has met to address the protester’s concerns. Right or wrong, it also sounds like they’ve come to the conclusion that there aren’t any abuses going on that warrant changing food service providers. Universities do reallocate money in budgets all the time, but the key word there is budget. The University goes through a budgeting process each year, and it’s not always as easy as it sounds to simply reallocate in mid-stream.
I would also encourage you to consider the working conditions of regular Emory employees as well. I would point you, specifically, to the custodial staff at Emory. These individuals are often underpaid, work long hours, do not have enough staff on hand (there were large layoffs in campus services several years ago), and deal with hazardous and nasty working conditions all the time. Budget cuts from previous years have left some employees to do the jobs of three or four people. Some employees have not received even a cost of living increase in three years.
There are injustices of all kinds everywhere in the world. Do I think that Sodexo’s wrongs rank highest on that list? No, I do not – not by a long shot. But, that being said, I encourage you to always direct your energy and intelligence toward making the world a better place.
Dex – As an Emory employee who does use MARTA and does not park on-campus, I can confirm that subsidized MARTA cards do exist:
http://transportation.emory.edu/transportation/public_transit/index.html
(headwhack) For some reason, I inserted the word “not” into your statement about employees getting cards. Please pardon the unnecessary commentary.