A Sand-Dune Without Each Individual Grain is Nonexistent

I find myself wondering, is standing up for ones rights worth the trouble of challenging authority, when in the end, even if you prove yourself to be right the power people have over you can interfere with justice being served. All systems are designed to succeed, and success is defined by the system at hand’s terms. Therefore, making it difficult to challenge the system. Persistence and effort is required to prove oneself right against a system. Do authorities make the act of challenging their system so difficult to prevent people from doing so, to encourage people that it is not worth the trouble one would have to go through to prove that they are right? What happens when one goes through the tedious steps of challenging a system in order to stand up for their rights and authorities agree that the person has a valid point, but justice still isn’t served because there is no authority over the system to force them to do what is right; comparable to the old phrase “because I said so.” No rhyme or reason is required to justify the actions of those in authority. As a person at the bottom of the system, I am expected to comply with unfair treatment because someone with authority said so. Referring back to my initial question, is it better to comply with authorities rules without validation? Or is it better to stand up for your rights, knowing that the outcome will still favor the ones in the highest position? Awareness of the unfair fact that I have to do what someone else says whether it is right or not, even after proving a point against them, I wonder what are the benefits to challenging authoritative systems? We as people are taught that we always have the right to stand up for ourselves with a valid defense and encouraged to do so. Are we taught this only to give us a peace of mind that our rights matter, or are we taught this to apply it to our lives and challenge injustices? If the latter is true, why is it made so difficult to do so?

I received a wheel lock on my car at MSU. I was told to go to parking services in order to get the wheel lock released. The receptionist at parking services told me that I had to purchase a parking decal in order to get the wheel lock released. I asked her if I could see the rule stating the requirement to release a wheel lock before I purchased the sticker. I have the right to see the rule in writing. I clearly stated that if she could show me proof that I was required to purchase a parking decal, then I would be more than willing to obey the rules without argument. By not asking for proof, how am I to know that the rule actually exists? Am I supposed to take someone’s word about a rule that I have never met before? Parking decals are expensive and there is only a month left in the semester. I find it reasonable to question the rule before I purchase a decal. The receptionist is unequipped to handle the challenge and proceeds to get the manager. The manager tells me that I have to purchase a parking decal in order to release my wheel lock. Again, am I supposed to take his word for this because he has more authority? I still want proof. The manager reads through the policy book and cannot seem to find a statement requiring me to purchase a decal. He then calls the dean of students, who wrote the policy book. After getting off of the phone with the dean, the manager tells me that the dean said that is the rule. So now, because the dean, who is of greatest authority in this situation, said so, I am supposed to comply without written proof of such a rule. I read the rulebook for myself. Related rules stated that all vehicles on campus must be registered through MSU. Never does it say all individuals must purchase a parking decal. My car is registered in the system; if it weren’t there would be no connection to the tickets I have received and my student account. My account has been charged for every ticket I have gotten; therefore my car must be registered in the system. Another rule states that in order for a wheel lock to be released the standard fine must be paid. I paid the fine, but parking services still refused to release my wheel lock.

I challenged parking services. They were unable to validate requiring me to purchase a parking decal. However, because they are the only ones with a key to release my wheel lock, they were able to force me to purchase a parking decal. Systems holding authority do not have to abide by the rules and regulations that everyone else does because, who is to stop them? I had to do what they told me to do knowing it was unjust and knowing that I have proof of the injustice. What benefits did I get by proving myself right and standing up for my rights as a student? None. I spent two hours in parking services arguing my point, and regardless of my valid argument, the final outcome was still in favor of those in authority.

I find myself wondering, is standing up for ones rights worth the trouble of challenging authority, when in the end, even if you prove yourself to be right the power people have over you can interfere with justice being served. All systems are designed to succeed, and success is defined by the system at hand’s terms. Therefore, making it difficult to challenge the system. Persistence and effort is required to prove oneself right against a system. Do authorities make the act of challenging their system so difficult to prevent people from doing so, to encourage people that it is not worth the trouble one would have to go through to prove that they are right? What happens when one goes through the tedious steps of challenging a system in order to stand up for their rights and authorities agree that the person has a valid point, but justice still isn’t served because there is no authority over the system to force them to do what is right; comparable to the old phrase “because I said so.” No rhyme or reason is required to justify the actions of those in authority. As a person at the bottom of the system, I am expected to comply with unfair treatment because someone with authority said so. Referring back to my initial question, is it better to comply with authorities rules without validation? Or is it better to stand up for your rights, knowing that the outcome will still favor the ones in the highest position? Awareness of the unfair fact that I have to do what someone else says whether it is right or not, even after proving a point against them, I wonder what are the benefits to challenging authoritative systems? We as people are taught that we always have the right to stand up for ourselves with a valid defense and encouraged to do so. Are we taught this only to give us a peace of mind that our rights matter, or are we taught this to apply it to our lives and challenge injustices? If the latter is true, why is it made so difficult to do so?

I received a wheel lock on my car at MSU. I was told to go to parking services in order to get the wheel lock released. The receptionist at parking services told me that I had to purchase a parking decal in order to get the wheel lock released. I asked her if I could see the rule stating the requirement to release a wheel lock before I purchased the sticker. I have the right to see the rule in writing. I clearly stated that if she could show me proof that I was required to purchase a parking decal, then I would be more than willing to obey the rules without argument. By not asking for proof, how am I to know that the rule actually exists? Am I supposed to take someone’s word about a rule that I have never met before? Parking decals are expensive and there is only a month left in the semester. I find it reasonable to question the rule before I purchase a decal. The receptionist is unequipped to handle the challenge and proceeds to get the manager. The manager tells me that I have to purchase a parking decal in order to release my wheel lock. Again, am I supposed to take his word for this because he has more authority? I still want proof. The manager reads through the policy book and cannot seem to find a statement requiring me to purchase a decal. He then calls the dean of students, who wrote the policy book. After getting off of the phone with the dean, the manager tells me that the dean said that is the rule. So now, because the dean, who is of greatest authority in this situation, said so, I am supposed to comply without written proof of such a rule. I read the rulebook for myself. Related rules stated that all vehicles on campus must be registered through MSU. Never does it say all individuals must purchase a parking decal. My car is registered in the system; if it weren’t there would be no connection to the tickets I have received and my student account. My account has been charged for every ticket I have gotten; therefore my car must be registered in the system. Another rule states that in order for a wheel lock to be released the standard fine must be paid. I paid the fine, but parking services still refused to release my wheel lock.

I challenged parking services. They were unable to validate requiring me to purchase a parking decal. However, because they are the only ones with a key to release my wheel lock, they were able to force me to purchase a parking decal. Systems holding authority do not have to abide by the rules and regulations that everyone else does because, who is to stop them? I had to do what they told me to do knowing it was unjust and knowing that I have proof of the injustice. What benefits did I get by proving myself right and standing up for my rights as a student? None. I spent two hours in parking services arguing my point, and regardless of my valid argument, the final outcome was still in favor of those in authority.