February 19, 2007
Sherley Eats
The intended hunger strike was announced at the end of the year last year, and executed in the early days of this month. It's over now. On February 16, 2007, professor James Sherley ended his hunger strike and protest outside of the offices of the MIT president and provost. According to the statement he issued
I am ending this part of my struggle. Starting today, I will in fact break my fast, in celebration of the attention that has been brought to bear on issues of equity, diversity, and justice at MIT and in higher education. Carefully modified from the original, my demands are still on the table. I urge the administration to act in good faith, to openly acknowledge and respond to the lines of communication and negotiation that have been in place for two weeks and to find its way to meet these demands.The fast lasted twelve days before Sherley ended the effort. Though Sherley was not granted tenure as a result of his public protest it's apparent from his statement that he feels he has achieved something. Black History month celebrations are upon us, and Sherley ended his strike as MIT celebrated Martin Luther King Day on their campus. They issued a statement of their own acknowledging Sherley's strike
Professor Sherley's protest has focused attention on the effects that race may play in the hiring, advancement and experience of under-represented minority faculty, and on ensuring that our grievance processes are comprehensive, fair and timely. MIT is fully committed to addressing these issuesThe achieved goal seems to be awareness of the issue. Awareness of race issues in the politics of tenure, and, perhaps as a by-product of public attention, some awareness about Sherley's politics of stem cell research. We also learned that if you're working in the MIT News Office it's best to call it a "fast" and not a "hunger strike" for appropriate spin.
Image of "The Buffet" from flickr user Don Fulano
|
Advertisement: Bostonist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Hunger strikes have a long and honorable history - when you think hunger strike, you think Gandhi. Here, it's one guy who wants a job. To me, this feels a bit like a pissed-off toddler (i.e. "If you make me take a nap, I'll hold my breath until I DIE!") or a petulant jiltee (i.e. "Dump me, and I won't eat anything EVER AGAIN.")
I realize he thinks he's standing up for something larger than himself. But everybody else has denied that the case had anything to do with race. Why isn't anybody else standing behind him? Why is he the only one making these accusations? I hate to say it, but it really looks like sour grapes from here.
Competing for tenure at a prestigious research university has got to be a harrowing experience; all my sympathies to people who end up on the wrong side of the committee. But, in the end, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Sherley says he wasn't expecting tenure to be the end result of his protest. Instead, he was asking for more attention to be paid to the absence of tenured minorities, as Bostonist reported:
www.bostonist.com/archives/2007/02/05/hungry_for_stem_cells_and_tenure.php
But if that was his goal, he seems to have failed, because people are interpreting this as a hunger strike for tenure.