Allow me to open by stating I realize the subject of the riots has been debated into the ground already, for that reason I was shocked to read the headline of Tuesday’s paper.

I would like to relate the violent police tactics to the universal applications of social psychology. A basic tenet of social psychology is that of social reactance. This mental process begins when one party makes an assumption about another; for example, allow me to entertain the possibility that Ames police showed up to the first disturbance expecting a riot.

The second step occurs when the primary party treats the secondary in a manner that acts as a medium for their initial assumption. Let me state as a fact that at the initial disturbance, several drunk acquaintances of mine were shoved by officers without the precursor of a threat to violence or even a warning.

Lastly, the fact that the students were treated as “potential rioters” and not students or (heaven forbid) equal human beings was the cause of the riot that later ensued. The police got what they wanted because of the lens they viewed us through. In layman’s terms: They started it, violence begets violence, and you get what you bargain for.

I will close my argument with two key points to why the actions of the Ames police could “possibly” be deemed sound by anyone. There is a positive correlation between the amount of alcohol consumed and an increase in violent behavior. Therefore, the police could have tried more peaceful methods before they employed expired tear gas into a crowd drunk on alcohol and their power in numbers, which is a lethal combination of potential violence.

Lastly, the measures taken by the police only became sound after all the vandalism started to happen. However, we must emphasize “after” in that last sentence because I know from experience that it is anything but sound for a sober and inherently mature officer to throw the first stone.

C. Michael Norris

Junior

Fine Arts