Human rights more important than lawn
With regards to the comments on the protesters ruining the lawn outside Johnson Hall (ODE, April 17), let’s try on a couple different perspectives and decide which seems more reasonable. (1) Protests occur because people want attention and something fun to do. Green, full lawns, placed artfully between smooth, elegant sidewalks are an important part of our enjoyment of the natural world and preserving their beauty is a noble and worthwhile goal. (2) Protests are a useful way of causing change in a slow-moving bureaucratic system, and they help educate the public about important issues. Perhaps our system of government even requires both the conservative rulers and the radical protesters in order to run most efficiently. Lawns are a strange human invention, require enormous effort and resources to maintain and betray the human need to mold our environment to fit our sense of “order.” Does anyone even know what used to grow naturally here before we did a complete overhaul?
I fear that perspective (1) is all too common. Maybe I just have bad memories of mowing the lawn as a kid, but please stop whining about the lawn and learn about the heartfelt concerns of the protesters, protesters who feel that eliminating gross violations of human rights are more important than your visual enjoyment of the Johnson Hall lawn.
Ethan Blansett
graduate student, physics
Protesters hypocritical
Myself, along with countless others I am sure, are wondering about the true stance of some of the protesters who were outside Johnson Hall. One of the main objectives of the Worker Rights Consortium seems to be labor rights, i.e. sweatshops. If one takes a moment to stop and observe the apparel and tents owned by these protesters, they would see many were produced in foreign countries and most likely in these so called “sweatshops.” I myself saw at least eight people who were being very vocal at the time wearing Nike shoes. I am not against the WRC, but the protesters should be more aware of their situation before they chose to take such a stand. This sort of hypocrisy takes away the credibility they are striving for.
Todd Huegli
computer and information science
Students lack respect, power
On April 12, the Emerald editorial board expressed its belief that shared governance is functioning perfectly. Perhaps the editorial board has not been paying attention to recent events. Yes, all parties have recommended membership in the Worker Rights Consortium.
So why did students feel unheard? Perhaps because they had to fight for a solid year to attain the administration’s agreement to sign on with the WRC; this indicates that at the very least the administration failed to adequately communicate to students how it was addressing the issue. Though students do have a voice in the University Senate and University Assembly, these two institutions serve in an advisory capacity only. The senate and assembly have influence, not power, and only in the form of power can they be certain their decisions will have an impact on University policy.
It is degrading to students that the editorial board feels student power is impossible because of our short time here. If it is true, why involve students in University government at all? The protesters are asking for greater student voice, not total control over University policy; there are many other members of the University Senate and Assembly, as well as the administration, to provide continuity if necessary. This is our University; it exists to serve our educational needs and because we pay to attend it, we have every right to have a say — in the form of power, not merely influence — in how it runs.
It is time that students receive the respect they deserve.
Katie Mayer
pre-journalism
Rebecca Wilson
journalism