A student is allowing himself to die in order to implement his ideology on Iowa State’s administration.

Allan Nosworthy believes ISU’s policies regarding minority issues are lacking.

He believes the administration has been ignoring minority students and their requests for change.

He may be right. The university is slow to recognize student needs and even slower to admit fault.

I respect Nosworthy’s convictions and his tenacity in pursuing them. I even understand his frustration with the apparent apathy of President Jischke.

However, a hunger strike was not the way to go.

Nosworthy and the September 29th Movement are already battling a student body who by-and-large does not care about these issues.

There are certainly people who support him and the Movement, but most people I know and have spoken with don’t agree with him, or simply don’t care.

This isn’t a reason to stop campaigning for and believing in a cause.

Many important and progressive campaigns went unsupported by the general public. However, hunger strikes don’t fall under the same category as protests and rallies.

Hunger strikes are designed specifically to apply moral pressure in order to accomplish a goal.

In this case, pressure is not only being applied to the administration, but to the student body as well.

Nosworthy came out publicly with his letter to the editor to rouse student support for his cause.

He didn’t go to the administration privately; he informed all of us.

He wants us to feel responsible for what happens to him.

Meron Wondwosen, a member of the September 29th Movement, even said in Tuesday’s Daily that “people on this campus care too much about him to let him die.”

I don’t want Nosworthy to die. But why should I allow myself to be strong-armed into agreeing with Nosworthy and supporting any of his arguments?

I do not believe in one of the key demands Nosworthy has made.

I don’t think Catt Hall should be renamed.

I’ve come to this rational conclusion based on all of the evidence I’ve heard.

Hasn’t the Movement said this is what they want?

Don’t they want people to decide for themselves what they believe?

Do they see the contradiction in this hunger strike?

Instead of allowing ISU students the right to make up our minds, they are appealing to our sense of morality —ÿnot the morality of the actual issues, but the morality of letting someone die.

Nosworthy and his backers are not only telling us what is right, they’re forcing us to support him, in spite of our actual convictions.

This is no better than any university’s policy, any government’s law or any dictator’s decree.

If Nosworthy and the Movement do persuade the university to change its policies, they will have actually accomplished nothing.

Instead of changing people’s attitudes, they will have only won symbols of their fight, simply because people don’t want a student to die.

Issuing these kinds of demands with such a tragic ultimatum would be ridiculous if it weren’t so frightening.

This certainly was not the only thing Nosworthy could have done to further his beliefs.

He and the September 29th Movement, who have championed his cause, have definitely not exhausted all other options.

I went to the first Movement meeting, and I heard about all of their goals for this year and their techniques to accomplish them.

The Movement was nowhere near despairing about the situation. In fact, it seemed they had hardly even started fighting.

So why such a drastic step?

Why does Nosworthy think potentially killing himself is the only thing left to do?

I really hope Nosworthy doesn’t die. And, I hope some of his ideas for change are given serious consideration.

But I won’t be forced into supporting him, and I hope the administration won’t, either.

There have been great causes in our history — many worth dying for. People have martyred themselves for freedom from all sorts of tyranny.

They gave all they had for the cause and for the good of future generations.

So my question is: are Nosworthy’s requests deserving of his life?

Some of Nosworthy’s requests are feasible plans of action.

Renovating Morrill Hall and turning it into a multicultural center is a terrific solution to the problems with what to do with this building, and giving more money to cultural studies programs is always a great idea.

But are these important enough to die for?

---

Sara Ziegler is a sophomore in journalism and mass communication from Sioux Falls, South Dakota.