I read this DM Register op-ed article on VEISHEA written by an Iowa State Student on Wednesday.



"It is important to remember any event is influenced by the context in which it occurs. Thus, we need to recognize that the disruption could have been handled better by law enforcement. We couldn't justify crashing a KKK meeting, pushing members into the streets, indiscriminately pepper spray everyone and then define it a "riot." Neither should the disturbance on Welch have been handled in such a way. The police departments can organize behind their badges, stand at press conferences and say they acted appropriately. These statements are placed in newspapers, and many may wrongly assume the statement "police acted appropriately" is an unbiased account of the night. Students don't have a comparable way to tell their story. . ."



I see. Officers' responding to neighbor complaints about a raucous 350+ person party is akin to "crashing" a private meeting, requesting the party-goers to disperse is like "pushing members into the streets" and the officer's use of tear gas to break up the crowd, in response to being pelted by bricks, bottles and other ufo's by an angry mob that outnumbered them 10-to-1 is synonymous with "indescriminately [sic] pepper spray everyone and then define it a 'riot.'"



One of the things they should have taught you in public relations is not to overplay your hand. You rightly pointed out that the number of rioters only equaled 3.65 percent of the student population, you said that the riots were something that the rest of the students were "ashamed of." These are strong points supporting the premise that VEISHEA itself shouldn't be banned because of the riots, rather the students participating in the riots should be identified and prosecuted. If you had sstopped there, it might have been a nice little piece and made your point well.



Instead you attempt to imply that it was the gestapo-style tactics of the police that caused the riots. They break up a quiet "meeting" and "indiscriminately" tear gas otherwise innocent students in order to justify the label of a "riot." We don't know the real story, because students like yourself apparently have no access to the press to communicate their side of the story. . . . um, yeah. And the article you just wrote doesn't undercut that theory utterly?



In attempting to assign the blame to the police on this one, you also overlook what happened after the tear gas was sent into the crowd. I suppose that then the poor, maligned students had no choice but to inflict $40,000 in property damage on businesses? What, the window at the Pizza Pit looked threatening to them and they acted in self defense?



"All involved should admit their shortcomings in this chain of events and cooperate with campustown establishments to prevent such messes. Punishing all for the acts of a few is not a just resolution."



I see, it's the merchant's responsibility to see to it that they install unbreakable glass so the rioters can't cut themselves when they try to break it out with a brick. Nice try.



Students are not children, they are adults and should be treated as such. I don't agree with the babysitting measures taken by various universities to restrict alcohol from students of legal age. But neither to I believe any special considerations should be given to students who flagrantly violate the law and basic common sense. The city and university have the right to limit activities which endanger the businesses and people of the town. Perhaps if the students would be more concerned about policing their own actions rather than blaming other people in a "now look what you made me do" argument, the request to reinstate VEISHEA would be taken more seriously.