As a participant in the Oct. 8 protest, I would like to offer another perspective on the event. “Damn dirty hippies,” the headline of Brian Schroeder’s Oct. 15 op-ed, patronizes a group of activists, setting Schroeder above the rest on the basis of his khaki/collared shirt attire. His disrespectful attitude and effrontery is a cause of dismay.
Schroeder writes that the problem with the protest is that “everyone is angry at something, yet not enough people can find a common ground to unite them all.” On the contrary, the protest itself united them all. All of us, in spite of various interests, rallied around some basic ideas. One is: get Bush out. Marchers held puppets mocking the credibility of the candidates and signs questioning the need for the war in Iraq. Opposing Bush, for whatever reasons, is as unified a motivation as supporting Bush.
The structure of the presidential debates was another unifying factor. Third party candidates, Badnarik and Cobb, marched along with all of us “hard-core nutcase[s]” because we all believe that American democracy would be strengthened if the debates included more than just Kerry and Bush.
Leading up to the march was an all day teach-in at the church on Skinker and Waterman. Political activists, including representatives from The League of Pissed off Voters, ACLU and Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression held workshops open to everybody. The theme, “Raise your voice, expand your choice!” calls for inquiry and activism in society. These events underline the unity, cooperation and comradery of the marchers. While walking in the parade, with passionate drum beats, loud voices, St. Louisans of all ages, I felt inspired. We have committed, passionate people, willing to organize and be heard! In the middle of America, there are radicals, dissidents, idealists and anarchists, and their existence is a very good thing.
The purposes of the march are good for the country and for a healthy democracy. More importantly, it is fundamental for me, and other Wash U students, to break the monotony of the confining Wash U bubble. Participating in the parade was one way to do so.
Too much on this campus is considered weird. The effect is that members of the community are ostracized, and do not feel accepted or stimulated. The recent defense of Greek Life and the fraternity scene attests to this. Op-eds, by Schroeder and Matt Shapiro, present unequivocal defense and praise of frats. Joshua Trein’s commentary on the social atmosphere of the frats have been completely shutdown and belittled.
Schroeder’s condescending tone suggests he is incapable of hearing any question of the frat scene’s large presence. That is the essential problem with Greek Life: it is hegemonic. The social scene is dominated by frats, particularly for car-less freshmen. Everyone must be able to tolerate alternative options and criticisms of the frat scene. The success of a college community hinges upon whether peers are accepting of others’ political expression and social choices.
For those of us bored by the frat parties, there is a huge lack of social organizing. (I wonder how warmly Schroeder would welcome people “dressed in baggy earth tone clothing” at his frat.) At UC Berkeley, for example, there are frat parties, but also co-op parties. At small liberal arts schools, there are no fraternities/sororities. Greek Life is not the one and only way to have fun in college.
Simultaneous attacks on the protestors and defenses of fraternities create a negative atmosphere for everyone at Wash U. This atmosphere denies a diversity of personal choices. There is room enough for the Row to host parties and carry on its traditions and for enthusiastic activists to wear and say what they want.
The intolerance exhibited by some to alternate voices is monstrously dangerous to the potential for a fulfilling college experience for all at Wash U. If the tone of Schroeder’s article is widely supported, I would prefer to leave-in protest.