Student activism is always met with mixed reactions on college campuses. Often there are communication failures across the quad and students antagonize one another, activists are unsure why anyone wouldn’t be with the cause and others aren’t sure why there’s a fuss unless the cause is clearly defined. There is no forum wherein each group can explain itself, and so dialogue becomes difficult to engage in. Student activists adopt a stereotype as being misinformed and rowdy for the sake of being rowdy. They’re told to either stop being so angry or to just transfer. Why would passionate students who care about the future of their institutions just transfer?

I think there’s a misunderstanding about what student activists want. They don’t hate their schools; they don’t want anarchy; they don’t want to simply make noise; and they definitely do not want to transfer. They want to be at the best version of their school that they can be and they believe in the power of collective action. So why not just join student government? That’s just about as organized as student collective action can get!

I wrote in a previous article “Life On a Leash: Are Student Governments Effective?” about how student governments can be corrupted by administrative interests. Student governments are often filled with incredibly capable and well-intentioned students who truly do want the best for their school, however they can only go as far as they are allowed to. To an activist, if this institution isn’t given the freedom it needs, this is a no-go in terms of voicing his or herself. It is important to have students in both groups who are passionate, progressive, and strategic so that collective action can be more encompassing. One group alone can only be so effective, and if one group were to transfer out some serious strength is drained from the movement. Social movements are empowered by coalitions of distinct interest groups.

In "Politics of Protest," David Meyer writes:

“Most commonly, committed members of an organization are responsible for promoting—or avoiding—changes in the organization’s agenda or tactics. The establishment of any organization requires a tremendous commitment of resources and/or effort. Frequently one individual or a small group of people has to dedicate itself tirelessly to build an organization; unsurprisingly, it feels a sense of ownership about its creation and has a difficult time adjusting to ceding or sharing governance of that organization with others.”

Activist groups often want their schools to be driven by their constituents, the students. Student governments want representation and direction in administrative allowances and a unified student voice. If these groups don’t work together, they may end up “ceding or sharing governance” of the organization by default of student voice. As the main source of income, students have a powerful voice in how their schools should be run. It is therefore of utmost importance that these groups strategically work together –– not transfer for being too rowdy.