Aswani on the Tower Records CVS Plan: "I do support seeing a CVS there"

As part of The Hatchet's coverage of the decision to make the old Tower Records space into Foggy Bottom's tenth CVS, newly-elected SA President Vishal Aswani, when asked about his thoughts on the matter, told the paper:

"I do support seeing a CVS there just because as a GWorld vendor - as a partner in the GWorld program - it's just a significant opportunity for students to use their Colonial Cash there at a resource that is kind of multi-purpose," Aswani said.

He added that this CVS would be more convenient than other locations in the area because of its proximity to GW's non-undergraduate population, including law school students and the Marvin Center staff.

"What's going to be a great thing about having that CVS there, because it's a GWorld partner, it will help educate the graduate school population on the advantages of using GWorld," Aswani said.

While I recognize that Aswani represents all students, including law school students, and while I think he is right for praising the GWorld-friendliness of the new store, he fails to address the following:

A) There are two GWorld-accepting CVSs within three blocks of the law school - at 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, and at 1900 K St.

As a visual, here are directions from the Law School (2000 H St. NW) to those CVSs:


View Larger Map



View Larger Map

B) The CVS aside, Aswani makes no mention of the fact that GW administrators bascially dismissed GW students in their comments on the matter:

"Will we actively seek input from the student body? No. Are there mechanisms for student input? Yes." [University Spokesperson Tracy] Schario said." ("CVS may occupy vacant space in Shops at 2000 Penn," The Hatchet, January 28, 2008)

"University spokesperson Tracy Schario said Monday that the CVS would benefit both the campus and the businesses housed in 2000 Penn.

'I think you have to look at the context of that particular space,' Schario said. 'It's in an office building, and while it's in a GW-owned building and in a campus environment, it's a heavy mix of business customers first and students second.'" ("CVS to open in 2000 Penn.," The Hatchet, March 27, 2008)

While it may be too late to do anything about this issue, I am hopeful that in the future Aswani will recognize that in some cases, standing up for students means standing up to administrators.

In the meantime, all those opposed to the construction of another CVS in Foggy Bottom can join the "We Don't Need Another CVS!!!" Facebook group.

Our worst fears realized: CVS No. 10 is on it's way

As first reported by James back in January, as one of the options for filling the empty Tower Records space, GW was considering leasing the building to CVS, making the spot the tenth CVS within walking distance of the GW campus.

Yesterday, word came from The Hatchet's blog that CVS had signed the lease and would be moving into the spot. A story on the deal is expected to run in tomorrow's Hatchet.

Since it was apparent that the school's administration sought no student imput on putting up another CVS, and since many people I spoke with were and still are opposed to the idea (with many more to surely follow once this story hits The Hatchet tomorrow), I propose the following calls to action to counter the "red menace":

1) Join the newly-created anti-CVS in the Tower Records space Facebook group.

2) Write a letter to the editor of The Hatchet and express your displeasure with not only the CVS, but with the GW administrators failure to take student input into account.

3) If and when it opens, boycott the CVS!!!

A Different Approach to Student Activism

There was an excellent article in the GW Patriot this week entitled "STANDing for Nothing". And it finally articulated - in words - a sentiment I have been feeling for quite some time, which is that of disappointment and sometimes even revulsion. 

At what? The so-called trendy activism that seems rampant on college campuses today (and the likelihood of this is magnified at GW being the politically active school that it is, as the article points out). But what is trendy activism? It is activism for the sake of activism, that is, activism without substance, which I think is the worst kind that you get (even worse than activism for a decidedly negative or malevolent cause). 

Patterson, the author of STANDing for nothing, describes it like this:

We're in college, so many feel they have to do the cool thing, and right now it is cool to support refugees and pillaged peoples a million miles away. In fact that has always been cool on college campuses. Holding rallies they will never see, signing petitions they will never read, and having football-field sleepovers in nice warm sleeping bags that they could never afford does nothing to help.

That's right, it does nothing to help despite however shiny and admirable the action may appear. And I do not think the students are aware of this despite their genuine intentions (I'm not of the belief that students don't want to help the world, but I certainly think that they have a skewed view of their own effectiveness). 

I wish that at GW, we would have reached a level of political consciousness that would tell us that in order to truly effect change, we need to learn how to navigate the institutional bureaucracy of the United States let alone the international system rather than hosting makeshift rallies for divestment in the Thurston TV lounge. 

While regrettable, this does not seem likely given the way that trends seem to enjoy such a warm reception at GW. As Patterson attests, the school is one defined by trends:

I realized when I first came here that GW is a school full of trends; Ugg Boots, North Face Jackets, Starbucks (fair-trade) coffee and BlackBerries.

No, but re-read that another time and consider the irony evident in "Starbucks (fair-trade) coffee". Starbucks is the mainstay of the classic GW student who is always sleep-deprived, juggling an internship, classes, a million different student organizations, perhaps independent student activities, maybe Greek life, oh, and of course their image. This student really does not fit the traditional profile of the humanitarian since the humanitarian does not devote time to material impulses and his/her apperance. But this student does appear to favor Starbucks because its coffee is obtained under the pretense of fair trade. But...the student is not really a humanitarian. So how does this behavior work?

By being "falsely active". I hate to say it, but GW is unfortunately full of this person. And a falsely active person it is even more insulting than just a superficial one who does not bother to take the time to cultivate an image of necessarily being politically active. 

I'm sure many students take themselves too seriously, and I probably do many times (I will admit this). I do worry about my professional life way before I will enter the workforce and I admit that I try to "make all the right moves". But I do not approach the world in a totally unrealistic way, as many do, according to Patterson:

There you have the major empty-handed goal of trendy activism. Awareness. It's like these groups care little if you actually do something. All it seems you have to do is buy their wristbands, buy their shirts, sign up for a listsev and spend one night outside and like magic, all the bad things in the world will go away. But alas, you can't dream away the problems of the world.

I have to really express my sincere thanks to the GW Patriot for finally promulgating such a view. It's undeniably true - you can't dream away the problems of the world. I suppose that many students only believe that you can because they view the world in an oversimplified light and don't see reality for what it is, however tragic and depressing it may be. 

But maybe these budding Bonos and Jolies will soon learn that institutions other than the ones that they are trying to craft at GW wield more power over international affairs. And they need not look far. The World Bank, situated on the east end of the GW campus, undoubtedly has more reach than GW STAND. And so when you see this:

You have to ask yourself, "Are they really going to achieve their desired goal? Is this really working?" It certainly doesn't seem so. 

Sorry, but it's true. I just hope that we can acknoledge this reality and then commit to working within the institutional framework that we are dealt rather than attempting to use new organizations that in the end serve no practical purpose other than to allow us to view ourselves as activists when in fact we cannot effect the changes we seek through these channels because they have not yet gained a sufficient amount of legitimacy and credibility for this.