Sit-in held consciously, and strategically
By Eric C. Wat
Since the arrest of the so-called "Murphy 26" on Nov. 17, several students have written viewpoints and letters, both serious and satirical (I am using this word very loosely) attacking the participants of the sit-in. As the instructor of three of the students arrested that evening, I feel the need to respond to some of the criticisms:
First, if those critics had attended any one of the many organizing meetings of the Human Rights Coalition, they would see that the decision to engage in an act of civil disobedience was a result of a long, serious discussion.
Participants were well aware of the consequences. Some of them had even attended a civil disobedience training held in the community.
Precautions were taken to ensure the safety of the participants. Even during the sit-in, participants held independent discussions with administrators and the UC police chief about the effectiveness and the consequences of any act of civil disobedience.
Similarly, protest organizers took as much time in devising realistic demands.
Although Chancellor Charles Young had taken a stand against Proposition 187, there is no guarantee that he or other UC administrators would not comply with the measure. In fact, students were told that the guidelines for implementation would be developed in accordance to Gov. Pete Wilson's recent executive order.
The presence of administrators at previous rallies indicates that the administration had been trying to figure out where and how UCLA students stand on the issue. The actions on Nov. 17 sent a clear and loud message that students would be holding the university accountable in the future. The protest was neither "useless" nor "dumb."
Throughout the quarter, I have been leading discussion in my class about Proposition 187. The students from my class who took part in the sit-in had a thorough understanding of the racist implications of the proposition.
Like their critics, they want a university education so they will have more and better options in the future. And like their critics, they will did not "come to UCLA with the sole purpose of having a forum to demonstrate," and they also worry about their grades and their financial aid.
But this is where their similarities end. The students who took part in the Nov. 17 action do not only want an education for themselves.
As students of color, they understand that any individual success is meaningless if communities still suffer from discrimination and inequities. When access to higher education is denied to their brothers and sisters, these students understand their education carries a larger responsibility.
The Human Rights Coalition has accomplished something at this university that we have yet to see in the larger Los Angeles communities. Social commentator/ community activist Ruben Martinez (who attended the rally) remarked on a radio program how surprised he was to see a collective of Asian and Latino students working so well together.
Of course, other races have to be included. Nevertheless, the Coalition provides a positive foundation and a model for interracial cooperation for future progressive struggles. The protest was far from "immoral."
I wish the critics of the protest could see that the student organizers are approaching this issue with different tactics, a sit-in being only one of them. I know at least one of my students had never participated in a protest before. But this time she saw the importance of taking a stand on this issue.
It is easy to dismiss her and others as "cause-heads" or "rebels without a clue." But the students understand a lot more than their critics give them credit for.
I agree that getting arrested by itself should not be celebrated. However, these students refused to walk in the middle of the road and get run over, and instead took a stand on what they believe in. To mock their courage is simplistic, if not cowardly.
Wat is an Asian American studies major and a former Viewpoint columnist.