Students should e-protest responsibly

College students are notorious for standing on their soapboxes. Unlike our 1960s predecessors, who relied on pen and ink and physical protests in the streets, we find ourselves in a world where anyone can spread their message without leaving the comfort of a dorm room. E-mail, Facebook and the blogosphere

allow us to communicate freely and instantly. We can mobilize an army or respond to any threat at a moment’s notice. Unequivocally, modern technology grants the individual the power to accomplish what once took a horde of people to do.

But as modern means of communication have allowed us to easily share our thoughts, we seem to sometimes forget the value of a unified group message. The recent row over KPRC Local 2 News’ sensationalist pseudo-expose demonstrated this issue. Letter writing campaigns may be as old as the postal service, but the ease of e-mail allowed students to quickly, and often angrily, react to Amy Davis’ inaccuracies without considering the potential consequences or working to develop a unified message.

Just because we can send e-mails for free does not mean that they come without a cost. The flood of e-mails addressing Davis provided an impetus for her airing last Friday’s even worse follow-up to her original misleading story.

Given Davis’ apparent history of distorting quotes and misrepresenting situations, we should have paused to consider the potential consequences of our e-mails and thought of better alternatives. The University’s statement had already deflected much of Davis’ assault. And if we really wanted to fight back, an organized letter writing campaign or a unified message on behalf of the student body by way of the Student Association could have sharpened down the chaotic flood of e-mails into a single, serious attack. These steps might have led to a more favorable outcome for the student body and the university.

Personally, I do not think that the initial story even called for a dignified response outside an administration press statement. Just because we could directly respond to Davis does not mean that we had to. The best route may have been simply to let the issue die.

But despite all this, I think we should be happy to see usually apathetic Rice students mobilize en masse, using tools like Facebook to raise awareness and opposition to an injustice. But perhaps an even better use would be to inform and organize about world plights like Darfur, AIDS, and sexual violence, rather than fight other, more personal and distinctly less important battles. Sensationalist groups often act as static that make it more difficult for real issues to come to the forefront.

Over the past two weeks, Rice students showed that they could get riled up over an issue they care about. But if we don’t use the resources available to us properly, we may have to face consequences.

Stephen Rooke is a junior and Hanszen College president.

Back to top