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.