A different view about the student protest at Kelley

On the evening of Nov. 29, student protesters “in solidarity with the Occupy movement” organized a protest that crossed a line of decency and respect at the Kelley School of Business.

While I respect every group’s right to peacefully assemble and protest, the actions last Tuesday in the Kelley School of Business violated University policy, state law and the ethical commitment we have to each other as fellow students to show respect in the academic process.

When we become students at this University, we enter into an agreement not only with this institution but with each other, as well. At the beginning of freshman year, each of us agrees with our signature to abide by the policies set forth in the IU Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct.

Unfortunately, the student organizers of last week’s escapade in Kelley violated that agreement with the rest of us. The student protesters grossly violated a number of the clauses that we as students agree to uphold in Part II, Section H of the Code, which deals with student conduct on campus.

Their clear and immediate University violations include “disorderly conduct, including obstructive and disruptive behavior that interferes with ... university-authorized activity” while simultaneously “intentionally obstructing or blocking access to university facilities, property, or programs.”

Even while they violated these University policies, what’s most disheartening to me is that their actions ultimately deprived fellow IU students from learning more about and possibly pursuing potential career opportunities.

Out of curiosity, following the protest, I decided to seek the opinions of several business students and hear their perspectives. For the most part, I witnessed that business students were more outraged by the protesters’ behavior than the content of their message.

The growing consensus I’ve seen is that the protesters’ actions will have far-reaching consequences for University-employer relations. It seems the looming fear among Kelley students is this may translate into a hindrance of job recruitment for students in an already uncertain economy.

The student organizers of the protest argue that their act was a form of civil disobedience. I argue the contrary and say it was outright disrespectful and selfish to deprive their fellow students of opportunity.

My frustration with this student protest has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the message. Rather, as illustrated above, it is how the protesters went about
delivering it.

Even though I might disagree politically with the Occupy movement’s core message, the movement has the Constitutional right to protest. But it also has the duty to act within the confines of the law as set out by state statute and University policy.

The Occupy movement deserves some credibility for calling attention to some critical contemporary issues of the nation. Our nation’s growing disparity in wealth and exorbitant executive compensation on the heels of taxpayer bailouts for companies are points that most of us can agree need to be addressed.

­— cjcaudil@indiana.edu