Protesters’ behavior hurts their credibility

Editor,

Over the past week many articles and letters have been published in your paper condemning President Schmidly’s decision to reject the (un)Occupy Albuquerque protesters’ permit to stay on campus.

I’m shocked to see that no comments have been made concerning the underlying aspects of this whole issue. It is common knowledge that people cannot stay on city property after a certain time — that’s city policy. I understand that because UNM is city property, it too falls under these restrictions.

When a permit was granted for protesters to remain on campus 24-7 I thought it was a nice gesture from the University and to empathize with their cause. However, when protesters marched to Schmidly’s office yelling like children throwing temper tantrums, I personally lost all respect for them and their supporters. Why, you ask? Aside from the above mentioned immature actions of the protesters, when Schmidly did finally meet with the (un)Occupy representatives, I have to say, I support his decision entirely.

I recall reading in the Daily Lobo that his main reason for not renewing the permit was because of the increase of homeless people it drew to campus and the negative impact it was making on the area around Yale Park.

I can agree with this comment, as many mornings I walked by Yale Park and saw potential fire hazards where protesters hung clothes off electronic cooling radiators, clothes balled up in the street on Redondo Drive and countless empty alcoholic beverage containers. Not to mention the eyesore of what the park was becoming. All of this trash was clearly due to the growing mob of protesters.

What made me support Schmidly, though, was the response from the protesters to Schmidly’s concerns. One representative, Ms. Stark, was quoted in the Daily Lobo stating that the unfavorable people their gathering attracted were not their problem. From her quotes it appears to me that she feels any of the concerns of the University would not be their concern, either.

These protesters call themselves (un)Occupy Albuquerque. That makes them a group entity, and any actions of a member of a group are a reflection of the group itself. Allowing these homeless into their group makes them members of the group. Therefore, the inability of these protesters to accept responsibility for their organization and their unwillingness to submit any sort of plan to ensure the concerns of the University were taken into consideration is the reason they were denied access to the park.

It simply doesn’t have anything to do with the denial of any rights of the protesters. Apparently no one seems to see this, or they simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Would a city be comfortable with vandals expressing their freedom of speech with spray paint on the side of a building? No, that’s unacceptable behavior, just like the actions of these protesters to an accepting city establishment. President Schmidly was simply trying to ensure the safety and serenity of the campus.

Andrew M. Jones
UNM student