Krystal - I really appreciate you bringing this up, and specifically this article. One of the things that the story really highlighted for me was that everything has a cost. There are good ways and bad ways to protest. This might not have been the way to take a stand on the issue. Perhaps Mr. Chuck could have used a different method and reduced the cost to himself. But regardless, it does highlight that every protest is costly in one way or another. Before deciding to speak up on an issue, it is imperative that one do a cost/benefit analysis. To use a cliche, it is important to "pick your battles".

Let's say that our class decided to launch a protest at Columbia Law School. We think tuition is too high. There are a few ways we could do this: (1) We could storm the dean's office, break down the door, and surround him and yell at the top of our lungs, (2) We could use the three bullet points on a piece of paper approach, or (3) We could all create hotmail accounts and send "anonymous" emails. There are certainly more options, but these are three potential ones. Note that these are only hypotheticals - I do not advocate choosing any of these options.

Each would lead to different consequences, and would potentially lead to different results. If we decided to use Option (1), there is a good chance that the police would be called and we would be arrested. It would make front page news, would spur conversation and might lead to change more rapidly. The cost to us, however, would be quite high. A night in jail, legal fees, and having to explain this to countless people would be costly. As for (2), the cost would be lower. We might have to miss class, and might annoy some of our more conservative professors. We might elicit a response, and we might not. It would certainly generate buzz, but likely much less than violently breaking down the door and surrounding the dean. As for (3), the cost would likely be lowest, but it would also be least likely to elicit a response and actually have an effect.

The reason that I bring this up is that these options (imperfectly) demonstrate the cost/benefit analysis that we must consider when deciding whether to protest and how we should go about doing it. A lot of people aren't willing to pay the costs required for protesting. I certainly don't want to be arrested. Figuring out how to minimize costs is very important. I actually really like Eben's idea in that it seems like a good balance between (1) and (3). No one needs to set themselves on fire to make a point, but at the same time, it will likely at least elicit some response. I'd love to hear what other people have to think about this. I think we all have different amounts we're willing to "pay", and some probably have higher tolerances than others.

-- DavidGoldin - 11 Mar 2010