Editorial: Punishment doesn’t fit students’ activism

When our administration wants to put a stop to student activism, they should just take a cue from across town and call protesters’ moms and dads.

On Tuesday, 13 USC students decided to make a stand on a noble goal and lobby their university’s president to create stronger restriction on the sale of official apparel made by exploited workers in sweatshops.

And though there was no draft-card tearing or bra burning happening at this protest ““ according to the Daily Trojan and Los Angeles Times, they were simply sitting outside the president’s office, with snacks and sleeping bags ““ the administration decided to come down hard.

With a strongly worded letter and a phone call home to mom and dad.

Administrators threatened to suspend the students and remove them from university housing if, after a not-so-lengthy six-hour sit-in, they decided to remain there longer.

In addition to threatening to suspend the students and kick them out of university dormitories, administrators also reportedly prevented them from using the bathrooms in the building and called their parents.

Of course, the university would drop all charges and forgive and forget if the sit-in disbanded immediately.

Not letting a group of adults pee for six hours and then running to tell their parents about their misbehavior underestimates these students. We are only joking when we call USC the “University of Spoiled Children” ““ these student protesters are adults making adult decisions, and the university should treat them accordingly.

These students do not deserve a response as harsh as being thrown out of school for peacefully exercising their freedom of speech.

Threats of suspension are best saved for actual disciplinary proceedings, rather than being dangled as a bargaining chip so the university gets its way. (Who’s behaving like a child now?)

And if the administration’s plan was to quiet the protest as quickly as they could to uphold the school’s reputation, stomping a giant administrative hammer on these students’ rights will only further feed the media with juicy bad public relations (example: this editorial).

If UCLA’s Acting Chancellor Norman Abrams can meet with a very angry group of animal rights protesters who have actually displayed a willingness to use violence to achieve their means, it is hard to understand why the USC administration cannot sit down with a relatively small and calm group of concerned students.

Hearing about such instances makes us glad for once that we go to a public school because, despite all the state’s red tape and financial issues, our freedom of speech is harder to tamper with at a public institution than at a private school controlled by relatively arbitrary forces.

That said, it is disappointing to see that this group of students was so willing to abandon their cause when times got tough.

Protesters have to be willing to sacrifice to get what they want, whether that means facing arrest, suspension or tear gas and police batons.

Or being grounded because the school calls your parents.

Unless students start taking a stand, administrators will only be more than willing to take advantage of their squeamishness in the future.