So at the end of the day, after the UVA and UC Berkeley protests, I’m left with this question: what’s the purpose of protest?

Is it about public persuasion, winning over the hearts and minds of the undecided people on any given issue? If so, then a UVA-style protest is the way to go. Most outside observers would read about what happened at the Chemerinsky home, identify with the Chemerinskys, and think less of both the protesters and any cause they’re pushing. This is especially true in the legal profession, which is culturally conservative, i.e., more focused on rules and decorum than many other fields.

I have similar concerns about the effectiveness of pro-Palestine protests that blocked the Holland Tunnel in New York and the Bay Bridge in San Francisco for hours, causing hours of traffic delays. If I’m a commuter—perhaps a working-class commuter, who might be docked pay or fired for being late to my job—will protests like that persuade me that the pro-Palestinian cause is just? Or are they just going to make me angry at the protesters?