<p>If you take the protest out of context, then it seems overboard. However, looking at the circumstances that led up to it, I’d say that I have to agree with this one. And, I was strongly against the preceeding protest of occupying Wheeler. My position on that one hasn’t changed.</p>
<p>The difference here is that the Chancellor ordered the police to just arrest protesters during “Open University” without warning. They were at least supposed to be asked to leave and given the opportunity to do so. It seems like a clear violation of rights with no fault on behalf of the protesters. I mean, usually, I can enter Wheeler hall pretty much any time I like, provided that the doors are open, and if it’s late, I don’t have to leave until the custodian (or other authority) tells me I need to leave. In OU, they wren’t told to leave – it’s good they were all released, but if it was me, that’s a formal complaint. In any case, police should have de-escalated the situation by first asking everyone to leave and then arresting those who did not comply.</p>
<p>So, this led to the protest on the Chancellor’s house. I, just like the ones who were there, felt that the Chancellor and police have committed an act that is just as bad, if not worse, than the free speech violations of the 60s. When the forces blatantly use force in this way, I feel that violent protest is justified. I’m not saying that’s the best way to solve things or even a good idea, but I don’t see anything truly wrong. It’s a wake-up call.</p>
<p>The issue was further escalated when it seems like some innocent bystanders who were just there were arrested. Again, they weren’t asked to leave.</p>
<p>Of course, if there was a protest, I wouldn’t actually be there because I actually have quite a lot of things to do, and being a realist, it isn’t worth my time/effort. However, deep down, I’m hoping for major change in the upper echelons and the UCPD.</p>