We are currently in the biggest era of protest since the 1960s. That we need to protest is depressing, that it too often misses the point is nettlesome. Perhaps I am old fashioned or just impatient, but I am not happy with the ways and means of student and faculty protest. Sadly, the targets are often missed or they don’t meet the proper ones.
The argument over the online anti-bias training is a serious one. Stated clearly, I am opposed to this video which seems to be aimed at middle school students. Its history is simplistic, and it too closely reflects the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance tendency to equate criticism of Israel with Antisemitism. It was created to find antisemitism in places where it isn’t.
How should we think about protesting it? The war in Gaza is not Northwestern’s fault; the denial of funding is on Donald Trump. What we do know is that the training was given because the federal government ordered it — to refuse to take it compromises NU’s collective future.
Students protesting not only jeopardize their status as students, but also NU’s ability to regain and retain government funding — funding we must get back. As we’ve seen in recent years, demonstrations like these are how local issues become national ones. We must respond locally.
Ask yourself whether your protest only puts your own life at risk. In which case, fine. But today you risk the present and future of NU as a producer of knowledge, much of which is lifesaving. Do you want to contribute to Trump closing down this university?
As the United States government continues on an ugly path, we could ask questions about our foreign policy, limitations of freedom and immigrants at risk. We should be protesting these policies; our streets should be filled with demonstrations.
We must protect medicine through science, freedom of inquiry, free speech and many other critical realities (which are being taken away or run in a non-rational manner). These are critical local issues that affect the population writ large.
Instead, this past week, there were posters advertising a training session on Tech Plaza, and like many of the recent protests, NU seems to be the target. We are responsible for complying with federal orders and protesting the nature of these videos is a reasonable issue. But non-compliance strikes me as a dangerous means of protest.
During the Vietnam War, the left on campus learned that while we wished our campus was non-complicit with the war, Lyndon B. Johnson and the government were the enemy, not then-NU President Rocky Miller. The 1968 sit-in at the Bursar’s office over issues of race successfully negotiated a more enlightened policy on race for our campus to be sure. That was a local issue.
During the War, our local issue concerned NROTC, about which I have some regrets. The occupation of Deering Meadow and Sheridan Road was resolved, as was the 1968 sit-in, through negotiation (despite the National Guard bivouacked at the Central Street ‘L’ station). President Miller did not want to see bloodshed on campus like Kent State. I believe former President Michael Schill did not want that, either.
Some graduate students and faculty are fully into protesting the University and Schill for Gaza as if NU has any say in it. I would support the demonstrations (depending on the slogans), but I beg the protesters to more carefully choose their targets.
I expect to be attacked for being all kinds of things, from being pro-Israel (which I am most certainly not at this point), anti-free-speech (a total insult) and betraying the left (try it, go for it). But what I am asking for is a more nuanced decision on who is attacked and how to build a larger audience. Alas, it seems to me that some recent columns and pamphlets directed at Schill miss the point. None of us know what happens when you face Congress (yes, I read all 150 pages of testimony) and what Mike had to do to save the University. What would you do?
Bluntly, I am asking our protest community to act more maturely, to articulate the real sources of evil power and design their protests accordingly.
Build your movement through discourse and reason and watch your targets and your slogans. We learned that lesson the hard way when we occupied both Deering Meadow and Sheridan Road in 1970, shouting “Hey Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” not “President Miller is evil!”
We gained whatever legitimacy we could through careful rhetoric and straight-forward arguments. I wish I saw more of that on campus today. When punishment is personal, protesting is an existential choice. When it is directed at a large entity such as a university, punishment is collective both within the University and outside.
I know this sucks. But ultimately, blame Trump and the Republicans, not President Schill and the Board of Trustees.
Jeff Rice (WCAS ’72) is a Senior Lecturer in Political Science and African Studies. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.
