Why Protests at Columbia University Can't Be More Effective

The recent protests at Columbia University may be powerful declarations of dissent, yet they fall short in effectively reaching the ears of those in power.

The Futility of Protests

Protests at Columbia University, like many other student-led movements, often serve as background noise to the administration and broader public. The current student activists, while passionate and dedicated, are facing significant barriers in making their voices heard. This is largely due to the nature of the protesters and the administration's priorities.

Imagine you are the University President. The student protests might seem like a riot threatening to disrupt the campus, but the reality is, there is little you can do to permanently end a global war. Instead, your focus is on managing the situation to avoid further disruptions and restore a semblance of normalcy. The less naive way to handle the situation is to address the root cause of disruption, such as student dissatisfaction, by engaging in constructive dialogue or restructuring the academic environment.

Historical Context of Protests

Protests against the Vietnam War, a significant part of the 1960s and early 1970s, spanned from 1965 to 1973. This period saw continuous protests—fueled by widespread opposition to the war, anti-war sentiment, and an overarching dissatisfaction with authority. These protests lasted for nearly eight years, which is often viewed as an inefficient use of resources. While passionately held, these protests ultimately failed to change the course of the war in any significant way. The effectiveness of these protests was largely limited by their lack of concrete goals and the broader context of global politics.

Current Protests and Their Impact

Protests at Columbia University today face similar inefficacies. The current student protests are often perceived as mere expressions of frustration without clear objectives. The protests may be organized to bring attention to specific issues, but their effectiveness is stunted by a lack of mature planning, broad societal engagement, and a clear understanding of the broader issues at play. Additionally, the students' understanding of the historical and social context might be limited, which further hampers their ability to influence meaningful change.

Criteria for Effectiveness

The question remains: how can these protests be more effective, and what does "effectiveness" even mean in the context of student-led movements? There are two primary criteria to consider:

More effective in convincing others that their way of thinking is valid: It is unlikely that the current protests, even if peaceful and orderly, will persuade others to change their opinions. People are often more influenced by their personal experiences, education, and social connections rather than random protests. More effective in steering people away from their original beliefs: In this sense, the current protests might already have been quite effective, as they have successfully distanced many undecided individuals from the existing viewpoints.

However, for the protests to be truly effective, they need to address deeper systemic issues and align with broader societal goals. This requires a clear understanding of the issues at hand, a strategy for action, and the willingness to engage in long-term, structured dialogue with those in power.

The Root Causes of Ignorance

Critically, the protests often fail because the demonstrators are not protesting for anything that makes sense. Furthermore, they lack a nuanced understanding of the regions' history and cultural mores. The breadth and depth of their ignorance are stark, and this limits their ability to make a profound impact.

While some might argue that the protests are driven by political agendas—such as those originating from figures like George Soros, the Rothschilds,the Bilderbergers, and homegrown billionaires like Larry Fink and Michael Bloomberg—it is crucial to recognize the broader implications. The protesters often underestimate the complexity of the issues they are addressing and overestimate the power of their actions.

Ultimately, if the goal is to survive and thrive in a complex and increasingly interconnected world, we must address the root causes of conflict and injustice with both empathy and strategic action. Simply calling out public figures may intimidate, but it does little to foster a more equitable and just society.