I would like to respond to some of Katie Beczak's comments in her editorial piece "Protesting the protesters" (April 7). I think she has a good point in mind, but sadly she misses the mark.
Ms. Beczak's argument starts out solid. I think the image of a janitor cleaning up after the students who rallied on (their) behalf is poignant and accurately portrays the hypocrisy of which many activists should be conscious. Additionally, I think Ms. Beczak is justified in pointing out the fact that organized demonstration seems to be the method employed by all too many student activist groups, sometimes with little forethought.
The argument loses steam, however, when Ms. Beczak focuses her ire in the wrong direction. Attacking the substance of interests such as UBSAS and the Black Student Union is completely ignorant. I think UBSAS is demonstrating for more than just the janitors here at UB. I think they are trying to draw attention to the fact that millions of workers in this country, be they janitors at UB, retail employees at Walmart or McDonald's cooks, are working for wages that are not sufficient to make ends meet. UBSAS is focusing on one particular group because they realize that sudden, sweeping change is not feasible and it is more reasonable and effective to work for incremental change.
Therefore, I think their cause is entirely substantive whether one agrees with their methods or not. Furthermore, if you think discrimination even here at dear old UB is not an issue, I suggest you speak with some of our Black students and ask them about their experience with the Amherst Police Department. You might hear some stories that would change your mind. Using these groups as examples of causes lacking substance is entirely ridiculous to the point of being offensive.
Finally, when you belittle the effects of public protest for any cause, I think you ignore the importance it has had in this country's history. Look at the civil rights movement. I'm sure there were those in that time period who saw it as, in Ms. Beczak's words, "at least a worthwhile cause," but with "zero percent chance of succeeding." Was Dr. King one of those who "just like to cause a scene?" Obviously, I don't think she meant to demean the effects of the civil rights movement. However, I think the movement is a prime example of conscientious public protest and civil disobedience as an effective means of achieving change.
Instead of thumping her chest and decrying the overuse of public demonstration, I think instead Ms. Beczak should have looked for better examples of causes for which protest is not the best avenue for change. Also, encouraging forethought and organization would be much more helpful than cynicism about people "just looking for a reason to attract attention."
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
