Over the past three days, the campus has had mixed reactions to the sit-in at Parkhurst. Most of the criticism has focused on specific demands of the “Freedom Budget” and the protestors’ tactics. Yesterday’s opinion pieces in The Dartmouth (“Casler: The Circus in Parkhurst,”April 3, 2014 and “Gil: Erroneous Occupation,” April 3, 2014) condescendingly dismissed the protest as a “circus” that is “wrongheaded and politically inept” and “erroneous.” We believe these responses are too quick to criticize and miss the bigger picture. Instead we challenge students to understand the movement’s underlying goals and acknowledge disruptive activism’s potential impact.
The demands in the “Freedom Budget” could not be realized immediately and were not all feasible. The proposal’s authors, however, were not under that illusion. Rather, they wanted a reasonable response. Yet the administration’s response right before finals week was lacking, only reiterating ongoing projects, such as financial aid for the DOC. If at least to validate the experiences of students who have had a difficult time on campus and respect their months of effort to improve Dartmouth for everyone, the administration could have explained point by point which demands are impractical, which may be possible, and which need long-term plans. Dismissing the whole movement shuts down the opportunity to use the document as a starting point to address long-standing inequities within the College.
We recognize how the protesters’ tactics may have alienated many, even those who agree that Dartmouth has issues. When we take a step back and look at the bigger picture, however, the forerunners of all social movements relied on tactics that disrupt the status quo enough to gain attention. Those who think sit-ins are too radical for Dartmouth forget that our generation benefits from the legacy of radical vanguards who staged “disruptive” protests for women’s suffrage, “disruptive” boycotts for civil rights and “disruptive” sit-ins for disabilities rights. These radicals weren’t well-behaved, and the public often pointed fingers at the few to discount the whole.
All these movements began with seemingly impossible demands that became normal with time. In Dartmouth’s history, student protests have been a driving force. In 1895, The Dartmouth wrote that “those in authority have made the guarantee that coeducation in Dartmouth is a thing of imagination and not a possible reality,” yet thanks to those who pushed for coeducation, it is far from “a thing of imagination” today. By contrast, characterizing the “Freedom Budget” sit-in as “threatening” or “disrespectful” not only distorts a nonviolent act of resistance but ignores the transformative power of sit-ins, protests and larger student activism as a vehicle for questioning structures of power.
We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We may not agree with the specifics, but many can agree that Dartmouth has underlying issues of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism and ableism. Theodore Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.” It is easier to sit on the sidelines than step into the “arena.” We would rather give some credit to these students who are passionate enough to try.
Even those working toward college-wide improvement through other means must recognize the ways in which protest and disruption pave the path for social change. We also believe in working “within the system,” but sometimes it’s frustrating when the change isn’t incremental but negligible. By pushing boundaries, the protesters open the door for others to work with the system. Protest and dialogue rely and play off each other by bringing issues to the forefront of campus consciousness.
Dartmouth should be a place where we question the unjust structures of the world, not mirror or perpetuate them. We challenge our peers to consider this week’s events within the historical arc of progress at Dartmouth. In this light, we believe it’s possible to see the actions of these protesters not as the disruptive tyranny of a few but as the leadership of those who believe that Dartmouth can — and must — be better. Playing by the rules doesn’t always bring change, and it is these important acts of resistance that sustain a culture of active questioning.
Carla Yoon’15 and Eliana Piper’14 are guest columnists.
