On Feb. 3, The Advocate published an editorial entitled “Our Views: Skipping class at LSU to thumb noses at Trump looks too much like caricature of liberal loons.”
The editorial is not only an insult to college students and college activism, but it also involves the degradation of a credible news organization to hurling schoolyard insults toward a legitimate protest — the journalistic equivalent of yelling at kids to get off its lawn.
The most insulting assumption by The Advocate editorial board is its gall in stating the protesting students were simply playing hooky.
“Maybe gathering in the evening or on a weekend, when most students are out of class,” the editorial states, “would have revealed how many of the participants were willing to sacrifice their social lives, rather than an instructional session.”
I’m not sure where The Advocate editorial board got the idea that all University students are Van Wilders, looking for any excuse to skip class, but as a University student, I can speak for most students on campus in saying that missing class is a sacrifice for us.
Aside from paying to be in those classes and the drawbacks of missing lectures and potentially graded assignments for the day, some students — believe it or not — enjoy going to their classes.
Implying all University students have nothing better to do than find reasons to skip class belittles the hard work we put into our education. It’s unnecessarily insensitive to insinuate the protesting students were looking to play hooky rather than show support for their friends and fellow classmates, 118 of whom are from countries targeted by the executive order, as reported by The Daily Reveille.
As for the protest itself, the editorial questions how students skipping class will move President Donald Trump to change his views on the travel ban. Besides the obvious misunderstanding on what the role of a small protest like this is, the editorial board also forgot to do research on the protest, failing to mention its main component: a petition.
The petition, presented by three University professors, urges University administration to develop guidelines to protect international students and employees. The petition has gathered more than 450 signatures to date from students, faculty and professors, and its list of signatories are publicly available.
The editorial board finishes the article by stating, “There are better ways to protest a president’s actions, as one might learn in a history course. To grasp those lessons, though, you have to show up for class.”
Perhaps the editorial board should take its own advice and take a class in journalism, as it offers no evidence to prove the protest was unsuccessful and gives no suggestions for better protest methods. Instead, we’re given a piece that reads less like a professional piece of editorial journalism and more like a high school writing assignment, which tries to prove an argument with name-calling and assumed evidence based on an obvious dislike of students practicing their rights.
Political ideals aside, The Advocate should be ashamed to publish something like this under the name of editorial. For a respected media organization that represents the residents of Baton Rouge, and which should be a champion of First Amendment rights, the pettiness of this editorial toward a peaceful and passionate protest is embarrassing. Readers have a right to expect the editorial staff to not sink so low as to name calling of student protesters because they disagree with the protesters’ message.
Jay Cranford is a 22-year-old finance senior from St. Simons Island, Georgia.