In the 1960s, students at universities and colleges across the country took advantage of their right to assemble and held protests, fighting for civil rights for African-Americans. They proved that protesting can be an effective way of reaching out to the authorities and administrations. With well-based claims and nonviolent actions, raising awareness about issues can be attainable and supported.
This protesting spirit is not lost, but some of the lessons our predecessors learned seem to have escaped at least one modern-day group of students. Just two weeks ago, New York University (NYU) students involved in a group called Take Back NYU (TBNYU) occupied Washington Square's Kimmel Center for over 36 hours with an extensive list of demands, including the release of the university's budget and endowment and money to repair the Islamic University of Gaza. The students' voices were heard, but lightly considered.
Though it drew national attention and press, the occupation was clearly an irrational series of events that represented opinions of a minority of the student body. The engagement radicalized many important and separate issues and allowed the university to immediately refuse to meet any of their requests.
Afterward, the TBNYU members were in disbelief that none of their demands were considered or met. In actuality, though, their list was unsubstantiated and too varied. With the current economic downturn of the United States, rising tuition and worries of endowment investments, the public release of any institution's budget, whether at NYU or Tufts, would make sense. At the same time, the claims about NYU financing the conflict are unproven, and demanding the rebuilding of Islamic University in compensation is outrageous, representing a group of broadly connected assumptions and biased opinions.
It is unfortunate, though, that NYU rejected all of the demands so quickly, because the protestors illustrated the gravity of the economic and cultural situations present in the world today. TBNYU clearly recognizes the need for transparent funds and positive responses to the Middle East conflict, but went about solving these problems in the wrong way.
At the same time, the protestors believed they should receive full protection from prosecution and punishment, finding their week-long suspensions to be uncalled for and unjust. Their response to the punishments is not only humorous; it truly exhibits their shortsightedness.
To protest for over a day in a well-known public setting — breaking school and state laws, disrupting the public, and causing a riot to break out — and to expect no consequences for their actions reveals a flaw in the group's logic. If the TBNYU was not willing to give up anything to succeed in its cause, why should the university be more willing to yield to them?
The protest presented the world with a group of students arguing a cause unknown to a majority of the population. It is without question that the protest was mismanaged, mixing realistic goals with far-fetched ones and failing to achieve any of them.
