The Harmless Hunger Strike of Princeton Students Demands Critique

Princeton University has witnessed a series of vocal protests led by students seeking to advocate for divestment under controversial circumstances. This article delves into the situation, providing a critique of the methods and effectiveness of the hunger strike campaign.

Ethical Concerns and the Nature of Hunger Strikes

The idea of students at Princeton initiating a hunger strike to push for divestment from companies tied to Israel raises several ethical concerns. A hunger strike typically implies a willingness to suffer and sacrifice one's health for a greater cause. The nature of the strike undergone by these students, however, appears more akin to a temporary fast or even a diet, which is notably lacking in the severe health risks often associated with prolonged starvation.

On May 3rd, the first wave of hunger strikers began their campaign. By the 8th, they were already voicing concerns regarding the health monitoring provided by university officials. This indicates a lack of commitment to the full extent of such a radical action. During the duration of their protest, the health of the student participating in the strike deteriorated significantly; eventually, this led to the group's reduction in numbers. A smaller, rotating group of hunger strikers was then established in an attempt to meet their demands. This process calls into question the sincerity and resolve of the participating students.

Health Concerns and Criticism

The health of the students during the hunger strike is under scrutiny. During the initial five days, one student became ill, leading to the cessation of the hunger strike out of health concerns. This is a strong argument against the legitimacy of the actions taken by the students. A proper hunger strike should involve individuals willing to endure substantial health risks for their cause, not merely discomfort for a few days.

The ethical implications of demanding the delivery of essential services such as food and water are also pertinent. Similar methods have been observed at other institutions, such as Columbia University. Here, a student known for her advocacy in leftist and progressive causes complained that the university should provide food to students who had barricaded themselves inside the building. This demand suggests that the hunger strike is not truly about the cause but appears more like manipulation for personal or activist gains. The use of such tactics undermines the sincerity of the movement and raises questions about the motivations of the students involved.

Ethical Comparison and Critique

The comparison between the self-proclaimed activist and the broader issue of ethical activism is telling. Calling for divestment due to religious or political affiliations is a form of selective moralizing. It is argued that this is no different from an intolerant act aimed at people based on biological traits, such as the historical persecution of Jews. The comparison between these two actions highlights the problematic nature of the students' campaign, as it appears to be based on similar misguided and unhealthy principles.

One cannot ignore the ethical responsibilities involved in such actions. Students at Princeton and Columbia demonstrate a lack of understanding of the seriousness required to wage a hunger strike. The commitment and reverence typically associated with such a protest are notably absent, rendering their actions ineffective and potentially harmful.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current hunger strike campaign at Princeton is flawed in both its execution and its intent. The students involved appear to lack the necessary resolve and health consideration to properly conduct such a serious protest. The use of tactics like taking over buildings and demanding services highlights a lack of genuine commitment to the cause. The comparison to other historical and modern examples of unethical actions further underscores the need for a reassessment of the methods employed by these students.

It is crucial for future movements to learn from these experiences and focus on more effective and responsible methods of activism. The ethical ramifications of the current actions at Princeton should serve as a reminder to all activists of the importance of not only advancing a cause but doing so in a manner that respects human dignity and well-being.