Just over two weeks ago, a group of protesters interrupted a Bank of America recruitment event at the Charles Hotel. The protest ended quickly—Bank of America had wisely placed plainclothes police officers in the back of the event—but not before the protesters succeeded in disrupting the presentation. The protest was misdirected, inappropriate, and disrespectful to students.

The protesters followed up with hyperbole. A letter explaining the protest said students “might as well accept a job digging [their] own graves” as long as Bank of America invests in coal. They claimed that Bank of America’s job offers “make a mockery of our generation.” To the contrary, the protesters made a mockery of the intelligence of the attendees. They chose to interrupt something as innocuous as an information session instead of respecting students’ ability to make reasoned decisions—without theatrics. Their choice to disrupt rather than engage, to block a conversation about students’ futures rather than present constructive alternatives, is shameful.

The clear passion of the demonstrators could have been communicated respectfully. They can and should hold their own events, run their own ads, and even protest. In this case, the protesters failed to choose an appropriate time or place for directing their disgruntlement. They chose to target their peers rather than decision makers.

The protesters’ points about the harms of climate change are not entirely without merit, but ill-considered protests such as this one are counterproductive. Disrupting the event garnered some press attention and perhaps even sparked conversations, but the tactics of debate-by-tantrum hurt the underlying cause. The nature of the protest encourages the leaders of Bank of America to dismiss the protesters’ grievances. The students in the audience who were disrupted probably have a dim view of the protesters as well. Those who take time to read the protester’s letter are probably struck not by the important warnings about climate change but by the lack of reasonable solutions. The authors ignore, for example, what Bank of America’s shareholders might say about divesting from coal. Protesting is a legitimate tactic for change, but this protest was disruptive with no redeeming value.

Perhaps the protesters did not articulate practical solutions in a respectful manner because they have no solutions to offer. They present only a black-and-white vision of the world, where any coal investment whatsoever means that Bank of America is a bad company. A lot needs to change in a world threatened by climate change, but the protesters should start with the realistic rather than the fanciful. Students should choose discussion over disruption.