Normally we are not content to devote this entire space to the lambasting of a particular student group, but fire must be fought with fire. Last week, 11 members of the campus advocacy group Feminism Without Borders humiliated the more mature student body by bursting into President Mote’s secretary’s office and dancing for 15 minutes to Michael Jackson music in order to protest the university’s apparel manufacturing policies. The secretary had to call the police to break up the disturbance, and a student who wouldn’t comply with police orders was arrested. Group member Daniela Vann defended the group’s actions as the only alternative after multiple requests to meet with Mote were refused. “We already tried the rational way, so we feel like this is the only thing we can do now,” she said.
We will not digress much on the senselessness of attacking sweatshops through a university president, nor on the group’s complete incomprehension of the importance of sweatshops as employment hubs in developing countries; previous Diamondback columns and common sense explain these points well enough. Instead, we wish to focus on the less obvious consequence of these childish actions: the inability of other students groups that might really need the attention of the university administration to get it.
It’s a simple principle of politics: In order to get a seat at the table, students must prove they belong there through responsible diplomacy. If Mote took the next 1,000 student complaints with a grain of salt, we couldn’t blame him. The magnitude of this consequence is amplified when context is considered. With the still-unresolved housing crisis, higher-education funding issues and a new Student Government Association administration ready to take office, the need for students’ cooperation with administrators and officials is dire. Further actions like these might do more than shame us – they could hurt us at a time when long-term consequences could include increased tuition and homelessness.
Perhaps most appalling is the group’s assertion that this was the only avenue left to them after other efforts failed. President Mote is not the only administrator capable of handling student concerns. In fact, his demanding schedule probably makes him one of the least appealing officials to target if a group is serious about affecting change in a timely manner. A more effective alternative would be to continue to work with university licensing director Joe Ebaugh, who has stated he agrees with the group’s goal of reducing the use of sweatshops in the production of university clothing but is simply waiting for the appropriate avenue to develop. “It’s important to remember that we all have the same goal,” he said. “It’s our tactics that we disagree on.” This hardly sounds like an official adverse to student concerns, but rather one not willing to jump before he knows where he’ll land.
Fortunately, we don’t have to look too far back into university history to find a reputable instance of student advocacy. When the SGA sought attention for the housing crisis last month, it got it the right way: by tactfully getting the community’s attention through a well-organized, peaceful protest on McKeldin Mall, then maturely presenting its arguments at an arranged meeting with the Board of Regents. If Feminism Without Borders is serious about affecting change, it should employ rationale and responsibility – not the moonwalk.
