In light of reactive responses to discrimination, lack of resources, and hate speech issues that occur on campus from year to year, people are beginning to wonder whether or not the infrastructure of this campus’ minority population are creating an uproar only after major events take place, rather than prior to its occurrence.

Take for instance the hate speech incident in November 2008 when students wrote hate filled slurs across the Free Expression Tunnel. Students on the Campus Culture Task Force committees have actively sought to make the proper recommendations to avoid crude instances of this behavior on public-campus property. However, when students have written racial slurs and stereotyped students based on their sexual preferences, we didn’t raise these issues until they directly affected our population. Even when the noose was hung from a campus facility complex we rallied, complained and demanded action from administration to rectify the situation and console the students scarred by the evoking of a painful, historic past. In response, we got the same results, media coverage, on and off campus, public forums including campus officials and still we have the same problems to reflect upon.

Has anything really changed? Are we taking the possible preventative measures to ensure that future students won’t have to advocate as much for the same exact problems that continue to reoccur. Why must someone be hurt to implement change?

The reactive behavior that continues to plague this campus is what is going to eventually lose its steam. People get tired of the same few people fighting a fight for many. This goes back to prior stories I have written to discuss whether or not our leaders are truly leading and whether or not we are self-serving or serving a greater entity, the entire minority population. We must continue to make our voices heard, but we have to exhaust all of our options. The current student leaders are worn out over worked and in some cases only meeting minimal expectations because of the mental overload they tend to endure, because other students aren’t aiding in the success of these organization or this community. People must realize that it takes an extreme amount of time and effort on behalf of the committees that are formed, and administration that is sought out to implement the change we desire, but it starts with us, not some, but all.

For example, in the last issue, I talked about task force committee updates. It saddened me to only report that fewer than 100 N.C. State students had responded to the link provided by the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and campus leaders who read each of the responses to the tunnel incident. The majority of those concerns were addressed to the tunnel’s further use rather than the true issue, the poor regard for civility amongst a campus of diverse students.

Task force updates were written by the Technician and the Nubian Message, which doesn’t limit the opportunity for students to respond with their suggestions to change the campus legislation to further prevent these acts on campus not simply talk about them. The phrase “talk is cheap” is true in this respect. Many of the same students who submitted bills to punish these students are some of the same students who don’t attend the forum meetings scheduled, respond to the outreach task force site, or even educate themselves on the polities that restrict any punishment deemed by campus administrators. I ask you to be the judge and really think about whether we are truly reactive or proactive in reference to campus-wide issues.