Student protest isn’t a threat, it’s essential. And when students take their grievances to the streets, their actions are not met with understanding, but with accusations of disruption and threats to public order. Even peaceful student actions, such as the recent pro-Palestinian encampment at UT Austin, have been met with swift and forceful suppression.

Although it’s controversial, these acts of defiance force us to reflect on what’s happening across the U.S. today. In Texas, Senate Bill 2972 (SB 2972) aims to restrict demonstrations on college campuses, limit protest locations and restrict the use of amplified sound and more.

Dismissing calls for change isn’t just ignoring student voices, it’s preventing recognition of their intended message and pushing activists to use bolder methods to call attention to their grievances.

Lewis Raven Wallace, a writer for Truthout, an independent progressive news organization dedicated to social justice issues, explored the core purpose of disruptive protest. He argues, “Disruptive protest — encompassing both civil disobedience and extralegal direct action — does not primarily aim to persuade or to make a message morally appealing to a broad audience. Rather, the intent of disruption is to advance political goals by interrupting, disturbing and creating tension within the status quo.”

Thomas Alter, a history professor at Texas State, believes disruption is a key element to protest.

“It’s inconvenient because that’s what it’s supposed to do,” Alter said. “It’s supposed to draw attention to the plight of those in a war.”

Although the discomfort of protest often leads to immediate criticism, history shows that actions initially villainized, like the foundational defiance of the U.S., are eventually honored. This shifting perception determines how protests are treated.

The American Civil Rights Movement illustrates this pattern. Despite its commitment to nonviolence, the civil rights movement saw isolated acts of property damage that the media amplified, often describing protesters as “criminals” or “rioters.” This approach is what researchers call the “protest paradigm,” a common pattern in social movement coverage. Protest paradigm disproportionately focuses on spectacle over underlying grievances, effectively delegitimizing protesters and
their causes.

So, if protest is indeed a deep-rooted tradition in American history, why does it so consistently get treated as a threat? Maybe it’s because genuine protest, by its very nature, was never about politely asking for change.

Alter points out these actions are consistently seen as a threat to established order.

“It happens because it is threatening to the status quo,” Alter said. “Protests are [almost] always threatening to the status quo, and that’s why you see the clampdowns on them.”

Around the world today, movements are still advocating for urgent causes like anti-war efforts, immigration rights, climate justice and women’s reproductive rights. Consequently, movements that inherently disrupt traditional systems routinely face intense backlash from those invested in maintaining the status quo.

How can we, as a society, truly learn from history and progressively move forward?

Ironically enough, the answer may be the same way we’ve overcome issues in the past: through recognizing the power of collective action, understanding the historical necessity of disruption and choosing to focus on the shared values that ultimately bind us together.

At the heart of this collective force lies a profound courage. Jasmine Franklin, president of the Texas State chapter of the NAACP, describes this as vulnerability.

“Vulnerability is a superpower,” Franklin said. “I feel like vulnerability really sets you aside from others because it allows you to get in touch with the message that you want to perceive. Being vulnerable within a protest shows your emotions. It shows that you’re willing to be there and make that fight for what you believe in.”

For Texas State students, this discussion is intensely personal: it challenges Bobcats — and students around the world — to weigh the risks of speaking out against the historical duty to act as agents for change.

-Briaany Ward is a digital media innovation junior

The University Star welcomes Letters to the Editor from its readers. All submissions are reviewed and considered by the Editor in Chief and Opinions Editor for publication. Not all letters are guaranteed for publication.