For the past month, members of The September 29th Movement have waged a public war against the administration of Iowa State.

This war included powerful words and drastic actions, with no apparent response from President Martin Jischke. But, according to Jischke, there was a reason for the administration’s silence.

Both the Movement and the administration were requested by a representative of the Department of Justice to refrain from speaking with the media. The Movement and Jischke are in a negotiation process to schedule a joint meeting between the two parties.

Pascual Marquez, senior conciliation specialist in the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service, offered his negotiation services to the university late last spring, at which time he said he “requested confidentiality.”

“Standard operating procedure is to ask parties to refrain from talking to the media,” Marquez said.

Misunderstanding

However, the Movement decided to speak about the negotiation process with the media on Sept. 22, after “talks had broken down, ” said Milton McGriff, spokesman for the Movement.

The Movement had prepared for a meeting with Jischke and the administration during the week of Sept. 22-26.

They then received a letter, dated Sept. 17, from Jischke to Marquez that stated, “It is unfortunate that Mr. McGriff was unwilling to provide a list of concerns or to meet informally with your assistance to discuss the concerns of the September 29th organization.”

McGriff said he felt Jischke was “lying” about the Movement’s position, and he said Jischke was still “dealing with us as if we couldn’t think for ourselves.”

The Movement also received word from Marquez that the meeting would not take place until later in October. McGriff said this was a sign that “we’re not a priority with Jischke.”

Marquez said he could not meet with Jischke and the Movement during the week of Sept. 22-26 because he would be at a national conference. The only times available to both Jischke and Marquez were the October dates.

By the time this was made clear, however, the Movement had decided to go public. The next day, Allan Nosworthy, chairman of the Movement’s Central Committee, went on his hunger strike.

“We were so close to jumping into this thing, and boom! We have a hunger strike,” Marquez said.

Tongue Tied

The administration did not immediately respond to Nosworthy’s strike.

“We were bound by confidentiality,” said Thomas Hill, vice president for student affairs. “Could you imagine my surprise when I saw [the hunger strike] on Monday?”

In spite of the hunger strike, Marquez proceeded in asking the Movement and the administration to meet.

Marquez requested on Sept. 29 in a letter to McGriff that “The September 29th Movement refrain from using the media during preliminary efforts to convene such meetings,” and he asked that the dates of Oct. 22, 29, 30 and 31 be kept open for a meeting.

The lack of reaction from the administration ensued in accusations of apathy from the Movement.

“It looks like the administration doesn’t care, but that’s not true,” Hill said.

Because of Marquez’s continued involvement in the mediation process, the administration has remained silent, referring specific questions to Marquez, said John McCarroll, director of University Relations.

“We have honored his requests not to play this out in the media,” he said. “That’s why you did not hear the administration respond every time some accusation was made.”

Jischke said he is still very willing to meet with the Movement. In a letter to Marquez on Sept. 17, Jischke wrote, “I continue to be willing to participate in a meeting … with representatives of the September 29th organization to discuss concerns that they have.”

He also said he has “not reneged on any commitment” to the Movement.

“The side that won’t talk is taking a battering,” Marquez said. “They probably think I’m not going fast enough or that the university is stalling, but we’re doing as much as we can.”

Equal Ground?

A central concern of the Movement has been the type of meeting they would have with the administration. McGriff is weary of meeting with Jischke in an informal setting that only utilizes facilitation.

“What I think he wants to do is simply grant us an audience. We don’t find that acceptable,” he said.

In a letter to Marquez dated Sept. 8, McGriff wrote, “The September 29th Movement understands ‘facilitation and discussion’ decision making is unilateral and resides solely with President Jischke. Having no voice in the decision making would essentially render The September 29th Movement powerless if we agreed to such a position.”

The Movement is requesting either a conciliator or a mediator, which to the Movement would mean “a conflict resolution expert,” McGriff said.

The two main services Marquez provides are mediation and conciliation.

Mediation is a formal process in which one of the parties brings a formal “Bill of Particulars” to the other party and a third party makes recommendations, Marquez said.

This process involves “strictly no media involvement,” Marquez said, except formal press statements commenting on the progress of the talks.

Conciliation is an informal process in which two to four representatives from each party are brought together to address issues. In this case, the students of the Movement would bring their concerns and the two sides would work together to come to a mutual agreement, Marquez said.

“This outcome would be a win-win situation,” he said. “Both parties are able to live with the agreement.”

Jischke said in a letter to Marquez that he cannot meet with the Movement “in a setting that utilizes formal mediation procedures.”

He also said he cannot “confer upon [The September 29th Movement] a status of ‘equal to the university,'” because of his position as president of the university and his subordination to the Board of Regents.

Marquez said Jischke, as president of the university, “has the ability to make unilateral decisions,” but he has been willing to listen to the students.

“I’ve talked to Jischke, and he’s saying he wants to meet with the students, talk about the issues and mutually resolve them,” Marquez said. “This has been a good faith effort from the university.”

The Movement informed Marquez that they “would not enter into any discussions that did not utilize formal mediation procedures” and they “would not enter into any type of mediation procedure where they were not considered equal to the university.”

“In the kind of discussions [Jischke] wants, he won’t have to defend his position,” McGriff said.

Marquez said he hopes the two parties give the conciliation process a chance.

“I’ve told both sides that they have so much more in common than they have differences,” he said. “They are all part of one community.”