The biggest problem with last week's March 4 Day of Action to Defend Education, which was organized to protest cuts in California's education spending: The event showed how little educators and students value education.
After all, if teachers believed that class time is sacrosanct, they would have scheduled the protests for a Saturday, not a school day.
Of course, on a Saturday, educrats in schools like Oceana High in Pacifica, Calif., or San Francisco's Commodore Sloat Elementary could not have used other people's children as props for their politics. Fewer students would have shown up. So they gave up class time.
Activists have been equally ready to dispense with college course work. Now, I understand why University of California students would be angry at the cuts imposed on the UC system in the face of a 32 percent fee increase in the fall.
What I do not understand is the decision to protest the cuts and fee increases by protesting during precious (and expensive) class time. Ditto, as has happened, faculty and students walking out of classrooms to protest classroom funding cuts.
Whom do these actions punish? Not UC executives. Not Sacramento politicians. They punish only those students who care so much about their education that they don't want to miss a day of it.
As one who worked her way through college, I cannot help but see walkouts and weekday protests as proof that many UC students do not value the jewel that has been handed to them. Students could be learning a language, studying the stars or exploring the chemistry of the human body. Instead, they have chosen to chant and obstruct.
That goes doubly for students who engage in violence or vandalism. If UC administrators had any spine, they would make demonstrators prosecuted for vandalism clean toilets for a semester -- or forfeit the education they blithely undervalue.
The good news, according to the Daily Californian: "the vast majority of students did not participate in demonstrations."
Then I received an e-mail from Oceana High freshman Ian Glazman-Schillinger. He said he was not taking part in protests because he saw "no solutions being offered that will give schools more money. ... It appears to me as if the schools are throwing a temper tantrum instead of protesting." He's not opposed to protests per se, but "there is no money in the already over-stretched state budget to meet the needs of California schools," which take more than 40 percent of the general fund, but nonetheless "are asking for money that isn't there."
Clinton Foundation: Oh, We Made Additional $12-26 Million From Speeches Given By the Former First Family | Matt Vespa
Friday Document Dump: State Department Releases First Round of Clinton Emails (All 298 Of Them) | Katie Pavlich