TO THE EDITOR:
I was astonished at the column published in Friday’s edition, “Not so activist here at UNC”. The author seems to imply that large protests are goals in themselves: “It’s not that big protests would have necessarily been the best course of action, but rather, it’s happening at other universities: Why not at UNC…?” Am I the only one who finds sentiment like this insulting?
I attended the Roosevelt Institute trip to the University of South Carolina in Columbia, S.C. UNC did not “decline” the invitation like the column stated, but rather decided to leave the individual to decide. I would have indulged my curiosity by staying with them if I had warmer clothes or a sleeping bag, which I did not bring.
When did it become wrong for an individual to decide for him or herself whether to join a protest movement?
The most telling moment is when the author contemptuously asks “Are we simply more moderate?” In today’s dangerously polarized climate, it frightens me that being “moderate” is so readily dismissed as apathy. Based on the column, the author seems to be more in support of groupthink than individual thought: “But if UNC is as committed to social justice … why are students less vocal here than elsewhere?” Has protesting become the only indicator of commitment?
If we have decided that protesting everything we dislike is the indicator of caring, we have a problem. I have nothing against those who do protest because they have made the conscious decision to do so. What I do take issue with is when my intelligence is questioned just because I personally decide that a given protest is not the best avenue for me.
Zuhaib Mahmood
Senior
Political Science
