This month, the University has once again become a hotbed for protest. Coincidentally, more extreme demonstrations have occurred in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and in many countries throughout northern Africa and the Middle East. Despite the worldwide explosion of the spirit of protest that could be largely attributed to the ongoing social technology revolution, the University has certainly not become another falling domino. Even recognition from Fox News, for whom the premise of “Beta-gate” seems to resonate more than any previous occurrences on this left-leaning campus, cannot compel one to assume that the level of ardent student activism is unprecedented.

Rather, one could consider the University to be a historical haven for those who engage in the art of engagement, especially in terms of grievances. President Roth indicated in his most recent online post, “Thoughts on Scholarship and Public Life,” that it is a prominent “Wesleyan tradition.” In fact, the ironic target of student anger participated in “more than a little protest and activism” as a student himself.

Therein lies the prominent difference between the student reaction to “Beta-gate” and the more vitriolic reactions elsewhere. University students, no matter what Bachelor’s degree they ultimately earn, will certainly become masters in the art of expressing grievances in an effective way—if they have not done so already. As of yet, the student body has generally used online social networking effectively to respond in a manner that promotes their cause in a respectful manner.

Any language from the student body that approached the extreme appeared on the ACB, Wesleying, and other anonymous online forums prior to the first organized Beta protest event inside Usdan. Such comments included profane diatribes against the administration and a few Tea Party-style slogans, such as “Repeal and Replace!”

Come the first protest, however, little to no noise could be heard. Although recent international protests have been marked by violence and vitriol, the highlight of Friday’s event—and the part that involved the most students—was the mere signing of a petition addressed to the administration. I expected a little more noise from a protest surrounding an issue that has generated a vehemently negative online reaction from the student body.

Then I remembered the harsh language on the blogosphere. The tradition of active engagement is very much alive, but it has permeated another realm: cyberspace.

Online posts pose a creative advantage in that one has the liberty to alter the content to whatever degree they wish before submission. True, submitted messages cannot be erased from digital memory, regardless of whether or not the post is deleted. But it allows the communicator to streamline his or her thoughts with less risk and less intimidation—as we all know, gaffes are more easily made in oral communication.

The trend may not satisfy those who are irked by its great paradox—that we are simultaneously connected and disconnected from one another—which may inhibit protests in the traditional sense. But those who choose this forum to express their views have the liberty to express themselves spontaneously without putting their feet in their mouths.

And this student body has demonstrated a capacity to refrain from extreme, sweeping language under these circumstances. This is understandable, given the argument that the administration’s sweeping language is the main offender. After all, I believe we are intelligent enough not to fight fire with fire.

I sincerely hope that this respectful tone is maintained through future events regarding the imbroglio. The students may channel more energy through noise and signs, but they need to continue to act like adults. The proper response in trying to hold the administration accountable is to embody the notion that, as one protestor’s sign at Friday’s protest read, a University student is “not a child.” Rather, we are mature and can civilly point out flaws on campus and beyond.