Any strike on a university campus is a big deal. This reality is understood by SEIU Local 715 and Stanford administrators, and most students at least somewhat understood this by the end of the day on Monday, Dec. 12. Last month’s strike, however, was not as major as its supporters perhaps hoped it would be. It was hindered by poor timing that lent itself to student apathy and by negative tactics that irritated many students.

A strike at a major university merits national news because students are likely to support workers and question administrators, and the university has a carefully refined image to uphold. The university wants to keep costs down without alienating the public, and the union tries to use the precarious university position to extract more concessions than would be available from almost any other employer.

We fully support the right of the Hospital and University workers to go on strike. For them, the sacrifice of a day’s pay was more inconvenience than any student experienced that Monday. However, we question the tactics on all sides of the stoppage, especially with regards to the timing.

Let’s begin with the obvious. Striking on the first day of finals is stupid. The leadership of SEIU Local 715 should have read the academic calendar a little more closely and realized that some of its strongest supporters would be unlikely to turn out before their Monday morning exams.

Making early-morning noise outside of student residences (which are next to dining halls) was unlikely to attract sympathy, and threatening to cut services before three-hour tests created antipathy toward the union, not toward the administration of the University. The result: only moderate student support at the rallies throughout the day.

The Stanford Labor Action Coalition also deserves some blame. This group of students should have worked harder to connect the strike to students, instead of merely pushing students to boycott dining halls — a meaningless gesture since the University had already received payment for the meals. As another strike might be necessary in the near future, campaigns should continue to inform students and begin more of a dialogue. Instead of portraying the situation as an “us or them” issue, SLAC and the Coalition for Labor Justice should try to educate students on these issues of retirement, health benefits and outsourcing — issues that are more obscure, but just as important, as a living wage.

Finally, the University should shoulder some blame, though most of its decisions — such as keeping the dining halls open at such an important time of year — were perfectly reasonable.

Dean of Students Greg Boardman has come under fire for representing the University’s views in an e-mail to the whole student body. While Boardman and the administration do have privileged access to all e-mail addresses, students have access to each other and to numerous mailing lists. Boardman could hardly hope that the University line would be forwarded around as widely as that of SLAC. Where Boardman did deserve criticism was in quoting CLJ out of context. But the dean quickly learned that e-mails can be turned right around, as SLAC and CLJ had a response to his message within hours. All those looking for both sides of the issue undoubtedly heard the coalitions’ unfavorable portrayal of him.

Even though this message may have been a bit painful, the administration should realize that more openness reaped rewards. With one Web site for all University information on the labor action, students could find out both sides fairly easily, and the administration seemed like less of a heartless corporation.

Stanford should not take our approval as a blank check. The administration should have good reasons for sending bulk e-mails and should be prepared to take criticism for it.

Most importantly, none of our approval or disapproval relates to the actual content of negotiations. Both the unions and the University have work to do, and no one’s claims are absolutely justified. The development of negotiations in coming weeks should prove informative as to the integrity and rationality of both sides of the issue.