Editor,

A conversation at dinner on Monday inspired me to write this letter regarding the recent protest for Bernard Field Station at Pendleton. While I support the protestors’ right to be heard, I am frustrated by the lack of focus and strategy on their part. On the flip side, I am even more frustrated by the apathy and conscious lack of effort by students on the campuses to understand what is going on.

As I sat on the grass at noon on Monday, I heard the cheerleaders rallying the crowd with the phrase, "No compromise." For a struggle that has been as protracted as this one, dating back at least five years, "No compromise" is really a ludicrous position. I wholeheartedly agree with the protestors in their condemnation of the executive powers that be, because they have ignored the opinions of students and a majority of faculty, putting profit above academic integrity. However, the fact remains that the presidents and CUC executives will continue to exert their power. Their decision-making process has been far from democratic, but educational institutions are hardly democracies. Protestors would benefit from a more specific agenda than just "Save BFS." Several people have told me that they asked the student protestors what their demands were, only to hear that they were not willing to negotiate and would only accept an agreement from CUC to "preserve all of BFS for perpetuity." This is not going to happen unless a real alternative to building KGI on BFS is proposed. At this stage, "Down with Keck" is not a practical, productive or feasible alternative.

My greatest concern is that CUC will become desensitized to student protest; that is, knowing that students will have neither specific demands nor the desire to negotiate, CUC will learn to ignore the protests, reasoning that the worst that will come of them will be a bit of bad press. Picking one’s battles and being informed about them are just as important as fighting them.

In terms of student opinion of the protest, there were a few things that alarmed me as I was discussing this issue with friends at dinner. Some said that they wished that the protestors hadn’t taken over a building and had protested less obtrusively. The very essence of civil disobedience is putting yourself at risk for a cause in the most firm yet nonviolent way. Blocking the administrative functions of CUC sends a firm message; blocking a less important building or merely picketing does not communicate the same level of devotion to the cause. Another person expressed the concern that paychecks for college staff would not get processed if CUC were shut down. This would indeed be an ironic and negative consequence of the students’ action, as I am sure they would not want college workers to have their paychecks delayed. Finally, the reaction on campus today seems relatively tame, given that 30 riot police from at least four different precincts and the Los Angeles sheriff’s department were brought in to arrest the handful of students. The drastic and aggressive response of the CUC deserves attention, as do the policies that allow for arbitrary and immediate suspension of students.

Sincerely,

Sahar Rooholamini ’01