<p>@pcalcal - No argument from me on your points. </p>
<p>I admit I am not a protest type of person, but just because I am not that type, I still would defend their right to protest. Please note I was very careful not to say they did not have the right to protest, I said I do not think they gave the right to disrupt the students. That is a debatable point, I understand because there is a difference between disrupting students and patrons and disturbing the peace. Clearly, no one has yet thought they reached the threshold of disturbing the peace, given no authorities have been called in.</p>
<p>I think where we differ and where I still give pause is the president’s office is not a free speech zone and was forcefully entered (although peacefully without resistance). I do not go for that, but that is just me. And the act of doing that does, at least to me, disrupt the running of the college. How can it not? Given that action, I do not have as much sympathy for them. Yet, I still would protect their right to speak.</p>
<p>Question - how would you devise the protest differently if occupying the president 's office was not an option?</p>