The other day, I learned that Brandeis University has a weight lifting club-who knew? The club consists of a very committed group of students who unfortunately are missing some crucial equipment for safe lifting. Which is why, while sitting in Sherman Dining Hall, I was asked to sign a petition. If the club obtained a certain amount of signatures, the Student Union would fund its expenditure. I eagerly signed their letter (and also wondered if I should join them. Maybe I could fulfill my dream of competing in ESPN's "World's Strongest Man" competition). I've always thought that petitions are great; what better and truer form of democracy can there be? Here's a situation where the people say what they need, rally support and get it. It is an example of a system that is run by the students, for the students. It may be one of the best ways for students to, quite simply, get what they want.

But a few days before my World's Strongest Man fantasy/democratic experience, I read a piece online that told quite a different story-one in which students are clearly not getting what they want. Apparently, the University of California regents approved a 32-percent hike in tuition-more than a $2,500 increase. For the first time in its history, UC will cost more than $10,000 per year. The whole situation is quite troubling, a clear sign of the challenging economic times. (The university is facing its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.) But for me, the poorly planned student reactions that followed were even more disturbing.

Students from all of the UCs-including Santa Cruz, Berkeley and Los Angeles-decided to take over buildings and block administrators from entering and exiting. As one man who had voted for the tuition hike left the campus, over 100 students crowded around him and repeatedly shouted, "Shame on you!" Students created tent cities in protest, picketed and held up signs that read, "R.I.P. our education" and "Fare hike, we strike!" They barricaded libraries, and many students caused enough trouble to get arrested (and, in some cases, beaten). The highlight was in Santa Cruz, where students presented the university with a list of 25 short-term and 11 long-term "demands," including repealing the 32-percent tuition hike, ending all campus construction and offering complete amnesty for all of the protesters.

But after reading these demands, one has to ask: What do these students actually think they are going to accomplish? Is this really an effective way to protest? Will the administrators suddenly look at the massive chaotic scene and say, "Oh, now we get it. They have a point. We were totally wrong. Let's not raise tuition!" While I understand that this situation is extremely difficult-maybe even depressing for some-the students mistakenly treated this situation like the university was out to get them, as if some terrible injustice had been done to them. They painted themselves as the victims.

But really, this situation is just as bad for the administrators who have to make these difficult decisions. Faculty members are being laid off. The average university worker is taking a pay cut of 8 percent. And many other universities are beginning to heavily recruit the famed UC Nobel laureate professors, who may find it impossible to continue teaching under these conditions. The university is struggling to stay afloat, and many of the professors and university workers are literally sacrificing their well-being in order to ensure that students can keep learning.

I think the UC students could have learned a lesson from our own weight lifting club. You see, there are times for civil disobedience protests. But there are also times for civil obedience protests. There are times when the university and the students have to work together, jointly acknowledging the unfortunate situation. Perhaps they could then uncover the real problem here: massive state budget cuts. Then, instead of beatings, arrests and chaos, something might actually get done. Sometimes, we have to play by the rules to get what we want.

But there is an even greater point here about protests: Civil disobedience can and should be used when students actually have a plan-a viable plan-to change the way things are run. That's exactly what Brandeis students did 40 years ago on Jan. 9, 1969. It was on that date that approximately 70 members of the Brandeis Afro-American society took over Ford Hall. They renamed the building Malcom X University and made 10 demands for African Americans at Brandeis. These students were facing terrible injustice and in their desperation had to take a stand. They presented the University with a realistic picture of how they should be treated. True, the majority of the Ford Hall students' demands were not met. But really, civil disobedience is not about winning or losing. It is about showing the public who is at fault and rallying support for your cause.

The UC students failed in this regard. They displayed a poor understanding of what is fair and just. These protesters na'vely demonized their own institution-which was, in no way, at fault. They painted their university as the perpetrator when really state budget cuts were the real criminal.

Here's the point: Disturb the peace and complain about your university when you really think that you could run the school differently if you were in charge. Otherwise, you just end up causing a lot of needless trouble, while simultaneously making yourself look incredibly uninformed.