Column: Sit down for what?

Protests on college campuses are a long-standing tradition. It is an act often portrayed as a rite of passage and a means of shaping a maturing identity.

Demonstrations, walk-outs and marches have grown in coverage and frequency in recent years. The Women’s March and #Enough were national movements.

While the protest held Thursday was on a lesser scale, the voices of those involved and the concerns they share are no less important.

They spoke from the heart, uncensored, and were heard by administration and ASO.

Many of the concerns that were expressed are real issues that much of the student body, faculty and administration might agree with.

However, their message may have been lost by bringing up every problem at once.

If there is no clear message, is there one at all?

For an on-looker, it may be difficult to connect with a protest if they don’t have a clear idea of what is being protested. How can they get behind it, if they only agree with half of the message and disagree with the rest?

Administration issues, ASO funding decisions, Wi-Fi, campus materials and prices on campus were just some of the things brought up that covered the campus as a whole.

This is not a problem that is unique to Thursday’s protest. During the protest held on campus following the Presidential election, a plethora of concerns were raised, and some took the opportunity to express their feelings regarding issues that were indirectly linked to the election, like feminism. While those feelings are real, and no less deserving to be expressed, it took away from the overall message.

Thursday, the overall message was that, to put it bluntly and oversimplified, things suck. But there is no one entity to blame. Issues with the district, the campus, administration and ASO can’t all be solved by one group.

However, Thursday’s protest may be the beginning of getting these seen by the eyes that can make a change.