All I want for Christmas is a day without protests. Instead it seems like Tufts has had Twelve Days of Protests, but no partridge and no pear tree.
It would be nice to walk to the library without being asked to sign a petition, or stroll the academic quad and not see ugly signs hanging from trees or hear the crashing of pots and pans.
There's nothing wrong with being political. There's certainly nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe. But the way most of the protestors on our campus have gone about their business in the past few weeks is frustrating. It's frustrating because they act with the arrogance of someone who speaks for the entire community. It's frustrating because they're in your face, and assume that you have to care about their issue, regardless of what it is.
A review of the most recent protests sheds some light on the aggravating way our fellow students conduct themselves. Beginning with the protests that made the most sense to me, the TSAD and land mine protests, it is clear that some of the actions of the protestors are misguided, despite the soundness behind their beliefs.
I understand the issues involved in the TSAD protest, and I support their plea for a strong nondiscrimination policy. What I don't like is their hanging signs on the academic quad or staging a sit-in. I was thrilled with the recent Viewpoint ("An open letter to the Tufts community," 12/5), which argued that TSAD does not speak for the entire campus, and I am trying to reiterate that point here.
When we hear the word "sit-in," we immediately think back to our hippie parents linking arms in the '60's, singing Bob Dylan songs, and facing arrests for a higher moral cause. The accuracy of this image is unimportant, but it's clear that the 20 or so protestors in Bendetson Hall were a far cry from their 40-year old predecessors.
Back in the '60s, if 20 students organized a sit-in, thousands of their peers would have joined them. They were prepared to face arrest if necessary and many were beaten by police. But they held strong to their convictions. This time around, the 20 Tufts organizers sat by themselves, and their willingness to seriously stand up to authority was questionable - they even passed papers through open windows to be turned in on time to insure that their grades were not put in jeopardy. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing, I'm just saying that times have changed.
The underlying problem is that if 20 students can lock themselves in some building until they get their way, where does it stop. Can I get 20 friends to sit in the gym until they build bleachers that you can sit in for longer than 15 minutes? The University shouldn't have caved in to the protestors' demands and the protestors shouldn't have been there in the first place. A dangerous precedent was set, and I cringe when considering the next group to stage a similar act.
Similarly, I applaud the efforts of the landmine protestors for shedding light on an almost unheard of topic. I'm certainly not pro-landmine, so I agree with their position. That being said, I do not approve of the way they went about it. The shoe pile was a fine touch of symbolism, but I took offense when I saw protestors following students, bombarding them with information as they tried to escape to class. The beliefs are there, but the execution may not have been.
If you want my signature on a petition, I would suggest toning down the message. Stop shouting, but more importantly, stop shouting propaganda. When you only present one side of the story, you're not supplying the entire truth. Give me both sides of the story and let me decide. If you really believe in your issue, be confident that I'll side with you.
While there was considerable thought and compassion behind the TSAD and landmines protests, I can find no semblance of rational thought when I ponder other recent explosions of activism. The three students who staged a protest at the Colin Powell lecture behaved rudely and ignorantly. First of all, someone is to blame for the troubles in Iraq, but Colin Powell isn't the one. Second, it was ineffective and rude to interrupt a speaker who is doing the University a great service by speaking at Tufts. Yes, you have freedom of speech and expression, but if you want anyone to see your side of the story - and I assume that's the whole point - present it in a way that doesn't alienate the other thousand or so students in attendance. I thought that waving a banner that read 'Colin Powell equals murderer' while he presents the first legitimate plan I've heard to help the education system in this country just makes your case look that much worse.
On a similar note, the Social Life protest on the president's lawn showed a horrific sense of political savvy. Again, it's not too hard to get people to agree with your point - what college student is actually against parties? It's just there had to be a better way to get the point across. Getting drunk behind the president's house and chanting "we will drink beer" is not exactly the professional route. It uncovers sophomoric motives and mocks the real issue at hand. You come off as more concerned with the source of your next 30-pack than actual student's rights.
Passing out potatoes at Dewick to prevent the Campus Television Network from placing televisions in the dining halls furthers my point. The problem with this protest is that your issue was not so clear cut and not really that important. TVs in Dewick are not going to interfere with the consumption of cafeteria food. If you don't want to watch, turn your eyes, but don't hand me a potato.
I'm not trying to belittle every political statement made on this campus. I think a lot of the protestors have very good intentions in mind when they get started, but something is lost along the way. My word of advice, coming from an average Tufts student, is don't force things down our throats, don't assume we're all going to agree with you, and don't protest every day.
Jon Japha is a junior majoring in political science. He is a sports editor for The Tufts Daily.
