As a sequel, Wednesday’s Day of Action III turned out to be a dud. The event appeared to have minimal participation, and the result was a series of theatrics aimed at the wrong people with little effect.

To be effective, the event would have needed better planning and a single, clear message. The Student Political Education and Action Committee, which helped plan DOA III, argued over what topics should be covered and hastily planned the day’s agenda.

Originally, SPEAC intended to include several student organizations and expand the scope of DOA III to include racism, sexism, a separate NIU governing board and other topics. The first two DOA events were planned in response to tuition increases and were aimed at convincing legislators of the need for more state funds.

The addition of the other topics distorted the message in DOA III and caused some needless argument. The extra topics are unrelated to tuition. Just one week prior to DOA III, the John Lennon Society and members of university minority groups disagreed on whether to include racism as a topic. Minority groups said including racism would lessen the impact of a rally against tuition hikes, and they were right.

The inclusion of Martha Palmer, a former NIU CHANCE counselor whose contract was not renewed, did not appear to be a wise choice for a speaker. Palmer charged last fall that her firing was racially motivated. Since that issue has not yet been resolved, her speech served only to cloud the tuition issue.

The results of poor planning were theatrics such as the distribution of tea bags and no real message. The tea bags were meant to symbolize taxation without representation. They referred to the issue of a student vote on the Board of Regents.

This year’s rally at King Memorial Commons gained a poor response as well, drawing a sparse crowd in comparison to previous rallies. Although the commons appeared to be filled with people, the group seemed to include many passersby and those scheduled to speak at the rally.

The theme of the tuition aspect of the rally was to give the Regents the “shirts off our backs.” Part of the collection of shirts were gathered ahead of time, and only a few people actually bared their backs.

The reasoning behind students giving their shirts to the Regents is questionable. The Regents are in favor of a tax increase for higher education, so protesting against tuition increases at their meeting was ineffective.

The rally resulted in a march throughout the campus and a sit-in at Lowden Hall that had little participation and continued to distort the tuition issue. The 16 students that waited at Lowden Hall to talk to NIU President John LaTourette had good intentions but went about it the wrong way.

If student groups want to talk to LaTourette about tuition or other important issues, they have an entire semester to schedule organized meetings with him instead of protests. But LaTourette also should learn from Wednesday’s protest that some students feel he needs to spend more time personally listening to their concerns.

The DOA protests have some valid arguments that deserve consideration but should not be limited to one day a year. If students are concerned about tuition increases, they should voice their concerns to the appropriate people throughout the year.

Students should target the legislators that are against a tax increase to fund higher education and get their message to them in the form of letters, sending representatives to Springfield and/or voting them out of office.