I had known about the Walk Out for quite some time now, seeing the campus littered with slips and fliers describing the event. While I do support anyone's right to associate and protest about anything, I have to say this walk-out was blatantly disrespectful and undermined the protester's argument.
Now I was not at the entire protest, as I prioritize class over protests. Yet, I was able to spot members from Tent State University at the protest. It is my understanding that Tent State wants to stop the War in Iraq and transfer the money to higher education. Yet doesn't this tactic of walking out of class prevent the dissemination of a quality education by faculty to students? I was personally disrupted at 1:30 p.m. when an individual got up, packed up their stuff and slammed the door as they left the room. In fact, my friend's class was disrupted by a fire alarm around the same time.
If these protesters are not in class, then how does transferring the money from the War in Iraq to higher education help them at all? It seems their own action does not support what they believe in. Or, they simply cannot see that their tactic of disruption, rebellion and biological warfare of an olfactory nature hurts them more than arguing their case via civil discourse. Their point becomes moot if legislators see students skipping class to protest. What is the point of giving money to higher education if no one can benefit from the funds provided?
I am tired of hearing chants, slogans on posters and seeing a trend of red arm-bands for social identification. A red arm band, for your information, does stand for anarchy and socialism. By the way, the wearing of arm bands is not a new concept. I used to see them worn in old news reels from the 1930's, but I could not understand them because the narration was in German. And I hardly believe these protesters can compare their plight to the plight of Jews during World War II.
Regardless, my pet peeve is the blatant disrespect of fallen soldiers. Whether intentional or not, parading on the Vietnam War Memorial undermines the supposed position of "caring for the troops." Protesting on the memorial trivializes the sacrifice of all troops killed in action, missing in action or have been subject to torture. No, I am not talking about torture at the Abu Ghraib prison. I am referring to starvation, beatings, permanent disfigurement and bamboo shoots used as unconventional manicure instruments - the likes of which John McCain had to endure.
So where do I leave you? I do not care about either sides' messages, signs, slogans or chants. I think the idea that either side can have an impact on national policy is minimal at best. But when someone - including students, student organizations, professors, or everyday people - disrespects a nonpartisan monument commemorating the dead, it tramples on the lost hopes and dreams of America's fallen heroes. And no one can be forgiven for that.
Roger Masi is a Rutgers College junior majoring in political science.
Be the first to comment on this article!