Mizzou students won, but should quit while ahead


This week, students at the University of Missouri successfully called for the president of the MU system, Tim Wolfe, to step down over his mishandling of racism on campus. Controversy and tensions had been brewing for months as students on campus protested, professors and classes walked out, a graduate student went on a hunger strike and dozens of football players suspended all football-related activities, including threatening to sit out the upcoming game against Brigham Young University, forcing the president to step down.

Students went beyond standard protests by threatening to withdraw from important university activities. The concrete action sent shockwaves through the community, drew massive media attention and threatened to hit the university where it hurts — in the pocketbook. The final straw was the threat of derailing the football program, which is highly lucrative for Mizzou. As The Atlantic pointed out, canceling the game against BYU would have cost Mizzou and associated businesses millions of dollars. The president had to step down to avoid costly financial losses.

But while the story of the protestors at Mizzou is ostensibly one of success, videos have emerged in the past few days that show activists restricting a reporter from taking pictures of the protest. Mizzou students exercised their First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly in ousting their president. It is deplorable that they would turn around and curtail the freedom of the press.

Mizzou succeeded where other universities have failed because students took action, rather than settling for extended dialogue on the issue. Carrots, sticks and sermons influence action. Students went beyond the sermons of demonstrations, videos, letters, discussions and articles which seem to have little impact on powerful university systems. In fact, Mizzou was so unaffected by student voices that the president pledged to address the issue at a later date and promised to announce a comprehensive plan in April 2016 — well after major sports ended on campus and so close to summer break that students would lose interest in the movement between semesters. Sermons were not working.

Seemingly, it was only the sticks that incited action. Players threatening to halt football operations, which are crucial at Mizzou and other universities, got the attention of the administration.

It is disheartening that only sticks worked in this situation and that sermons are failing in so many others. As these opinion pages have pointed out before, universities, including this one, seem to default to having “a discussion” or creating “a learning opportunity” about race and inclusivity on campus before pursuing concrete action. Universities want to build communal understanding and acceptance through education, rather than enforcing tolerance through punishment. Generally speaking, the former is better than the latter.

There is something to be said for endogenous acceptance — it is better to be accepted or celebrated for who you are because people appreciate other people, rather than being tolerated as different because a university will punish discrimination. But that is of little comfort to students being attacked for who they are. The sheer length of time required to change attitudes on campus means that harmful attitudes, words and actions would harm countless students on campus before the culture shifts. Culture shifts take time, but students in peril cannot wait.

It is also disheartening that student and faculty protesters would then turn on news media after succeeding. The ability of international news outlets to spread the story of the Mizzou protesters amplifies their voice and power on campus. Furthermore, news outlets have a right and responsibility to report on protests outdoors in public spaces, like the lawn at Mizzou. Finally, as the old adage goes, it is never a good idea to pick a fight with an organization that buys ink by the barrel. Targeting the media was a bad move, and it would be a shame if the Mizzou protests were mostly remembered for attempted First Amendment violations rather than the successes the protestors had on campus.

The students at Mizzou should be applauded and carefully exemplified. They showed that bravery, gumption and a willingness to act instead of merely speaking. Words are nice, but serious challenges demand committed action.

1 reply
  1. Natiq Jalil
    Natiq Jalil says:

    Why does this article sounds like a threat? These students/protesters simply didn’t want to be photographed for concern for their safety. And their concern was warranted. We’ve seen the videos of the guys threatening the minority students on campus. We’ve seen the accounts of the death threats. The media seems only worried about sensationalizing stories. The people involved have to worry about their safely after your journalists upload their names, faces, etc to the Internet for all the world to see. Yes. We want to know what’s happening. However, if the person doesn’t want to be photographed/videotaped, respect that and describe your story with words. That’s part of your job.

Comments are closed.