Just when it seemed all hope was lost, that no one on campus cared about the Associated Students, Inc., elections, a student or possibly students spoke out. Too bad it was in the worst way possible.

Instead of contacting candidates and voicing their complaints, what we will assume was a group of students vandalized the wooden candidate signs in the Library Quad. They used graffiti to write vulgar messages and draw pictures. One of the best was scrawled across multiple signs, asking whether the school will give them “$” and answering with a “Nope.” Obviously, they did not read the editorial on scholarships and grants from earlier this semester.

But that is beside the point. The point is – Hold on, smell that? That is the smell of civil discourse being thrown into a fire and laughed at. The point, in a less dramatic fashion, is this: What happened to civil discourse?

Through civil discourse, people learn from each other and get a better understanding of ideas through conversation. A public debate between political opponents, such as those held for a presidential election, is a practice in civil discourse. A yelling match where the opponents try to discredit each other by any means possible and by trying to yell the loudest is not. Feel free to take a guess in which category defacing the signs in the Quad falls under.

Chris Smith, current ASI vice president of finance, called the vandalism a “childish attempt to create an atmosphere of discord amongst the students.”

He hit the nail on the head with calling it childish. Instead of acting like adults, having a face-to-face discussion where something can actually be accomplished, they pull a stupid stunt. One that was neither well-organized or thought out, and will likely do little to solve the problems presented. To say the disappointment runs deep would be an understatement.

ASI President Terry Martin called the act “completely juvenile” to deface signs the candidates spent their spring break making with money out of their own pocket.

“We’re in college so that we can learn how to effectively voice our opinions in an articulate way,” Martin said.

Essentially, Martin is saying we need to learn how to practice civil discourse.

What is worse is this is not the first time something has happened during an ASI election.

In 2008, a student posted fliers comparing the incumbents, the “Vote ACTION!” slate, to Joseph Stalin and porn stars.

“That was also an embarrassing incident in ASI electoral history,” Martin said, “But you can tear down a poster.”

While Martin has a point, the underlying issue is that it happened at all. Rather than talking it out rationally, the student outright attacked the candidates. While it shows that students actually do care about what is happening on campus, they are going about it all wrong. There are certainly other ways to protest than lashing out and using vandalism. Hold a demonstration, get students’ attention by talking to them, make them understand the issues. Spraying “I want more classes” does not lend credibility and does not really do anything to get more classes. It just makes the tagger look like an idiot, regardless of whether or not the real argument has merit.

Speaking of protests, students are not the only ones on campus who could use a refresher in talking things out. The April 14 on-campus sleep-in was interrupted at about 3:23 a.m. by police in riot gear. The protesters were told to leave or face arrest.

However, after the sleep-in was ended, Sacramento State President Alexander Gonzalez set a good example for civil discourse by meeting with the protesters and discussing the problems they brought up.

The key is to continue using civil discourse. Students need to be like the protesters and Gonzalez, not like those who put up defamatory posters and used graffiti – unless, of course, it was the protesters who defaced the signs. Talk problems out and find real solutions, rather than just angrily scrawling a few complaints that may not make sense without context.

ASI presidential candidate Sarah Couch agrees that this was not an effective way to communicate students’ problems.

“It was a childish way to grab attention to an issue,” Couch said. “I understood the message, but that is not the way to make me pay attention to an issue. Show me your passion and the facts, not a can of spray paint.”

What is the icing on the cake? ASI does not control tuition nor what or how many classes are cut. The candidates are students, too; they are not school administrators. The tantrum was aimed at the wrong people.

Martin said it best when describing what the vandalism really did to the campus.

“It undermines the intelligent, respectful learning environment that our university seeks to create,” he said.

The opinion staff can be reached at [email protected].