Cesar Chavez Day, 2016

Posted on March 25, 2016 by David S. Meyer

I hadn’t realized that today was Cesar Chavez Day until I arrived at a campus mostly empty and locked.  In fact, it’s not Cesar Chavez Day in California or the United States–that’s next week–but just on campus, so it doesn’t interfere with any other school business.  Some holiday commemoration.   This is a repost for the holiday. 

On my campus, we commemorated Cesar Chavez Day early, yesterday, rather than March 31 (his birthday), by closing.  The state established the holiday in 2000, and six other states have followed suit.  In California, the legislature calls upon public schools to develop appropriate curricula to teach about the farm labor movement in the United States, and particularly Chavez’s role in it.

A campaign to establish a national holiday has stalled so far (The Cesar Chavez National holiday website seems to have last been updated in 2008), but last year President Obama issued a proclamation announcing a day of commemoration, and calling upon all Americans “to observe this day with appropriate service, community, and education programs to honor Cesar Chavez’s enduring legacy.”

Political figures have many reasons for creating holidays, including remembering the past; identifying heroic models for the future; recognizing and cultivating a political constituency; and providing an occasion to appreciate a set of values.  Regardless of the original meaning, the holidays take on new meanings over time.  Columbus Day, for example, is celebrated as an occasion for pride in Italian Americans (e.g.), and commemorated and mourned as a symbol of genocide  and empire (e.g.).

Cesar Chavez’s life and work is well worth remembering and considering, particularly now.  His career as a crusader was far longer than that of Martin Luther King discussed (here and here) and he was far more of an organizer than Fred Korematsu (discussed here).  Chavez’s Medal of Freedom was awarded shortly after his death in 1993, by President Clinton, but many of his accomplishments were apparent well before then.

Dolores Huerta, 2009

As a young man, Chavez was an agricultural worker; by his mid-twenties, he became a civil rights organizer, working for the Community Service Organization in California.  With Dolores Huerta, in 1962 Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers.  Focusing on poor, mostly Mexican-American workers, Chavez’s vision for activism was right at the cornerstone of racial and economic justice.  Establishing an organization, however, is a long way from winning recognition and bargaining rights as a union.

Chavez was a tactician, a public figure, a charismatic, and something of a mystic.  Modeling his efforts after Gandhi’s successful campaigns, Chavez was an emphatic practitioner of active nonviolence.  He employed boycotts, strikes, long fasts, demonstrations, long marches, and religious rhetoric in the service of his cause.  He also registered voters, lobbied, and worked in political campaigns.  He was a tireless and very effective organizer for most of his life.

But holidays are best celebrated with an eye to the future, rather than the past.

On Cesar Chavez Day this year, we can think about the large and growing Latino community in the United States.  The 2010 Census reports that Latinos now comprise roughly 1/6 of the American population, and more than 1/3 of the population in California. This is the youngest and fastest-growing population in America today, and they are severely underrepresented in the top levels of politics, education, and the economy.   The civil rights map is at least as complicated as at any time in American history, but not less important or urgent.  (The struggle about the DREAM Act is reminiscent of the debate about Voting Rights 45 years ago.)  The future of American Latinos is very much the future of America.

And Chavez saw the civil rights struggle as a labor campaign.  When Chavez and Huerta started their campaign, nearly one third of Americans were represented by unions.  The percentage now is now just about 10 percent, and less in the private sector.

And public sector workers, even if represented by unions aren’t doing so well.  The ongoing conflict in Wisconsin is all about weakening unions that are already making very large concessions on wages and pensions.  The campaign in Wisconsin is part of a larger national effort, which is playing out in Indiana, Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere.  Even in states where anti-union forces are weaker, state employees face lay-offs, wage cuts, and increased health and pension costs.  Importantly, we need to remember that you can’t attack teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters without hurting the people they serve: us.

Note: things have gotten worse for organized labor since I first wrote this. Wisconsin has become a right-to-work state, and organized campaigns to follow suit are everywhere. 

Or should I say, US?

Cesar Chavez’s birthday is an opportune time for thinking about Latinos, civil rights, and American labor, and not just the start of Spring. A few California teachers are fronting an effort to end the closed shop/agency fee model here–and across the United States–in a case the Supreme Court heard in January, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Justice Scalia’s death provides a clear reminder that we may have yet one more turning point on the horizon for organized labor.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trumpism and the threat of violence

Posted on March 24, 2016 by David S. Meyer

Although supporters, opponents, bloggers and observers of all sorts throw the word “movement” around to describe Donald Trump’s candidacy, so far it’s been about nothing more than a dyed and bloated real estate magnate. https://i0.wp.com/www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/160223_POL_Trump-rally-feb-22.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpgAt least once, local toughs cited Trump when they beat a homeless man in Boston, but mostly actual violence has been confined to the candidate’s events–at least so far. And, at least so far, it all works for Trump.

A candidate’s event is  a great place for activists to organize to advance their claims. Someone else has already gathered a local audience and the press, and the possibilities for drama and even discussion abound. An activist might be able to ask a question, drawing attention to favored issues, maybe even eliciting a position from a candidate. If not, activists may elicit an unforced error that affects the campaign.  See, for example, Occupy Charleston’s hijacking of a Michele Bachmann event in 2012.

Flustered, Rep. Bachmann left the premises. Senator Bernie Sanders did a little better last year: when Black Lives Matter activists seized the podium at a rally in Seattle, Sanders left the stage and worked the crowd. He then worked over the next months, with some success, to incorporate the movement’s concerns into his message.

The point is that there’s nothing new, unusual, or unAmerican about protests at a political event. A successful candidate, particularly one who claims to want to unify the American people, needs to find ways to deal with dissent at the grassroots. Typically, this involves some combination of policing, keeping protesters far from the stage, and engagement, taking questions and holding meetings with political opponents.

From the start, Donald Trump promised something different. He tagged Sanders’s response to protesters as a sign of the senator’s weakness, promising that he–or “his people”–would dispense with opponents more quickly and vigorously. This is one promise the candidate has kept. Egged on by Trump, both paid security and vigorous attendees at his rallies, have attacked protesters, and Trump’s staff has confined, ridiculed, and attacked (not only verbally) members of the press. Even at the beginning of his campaign, Trump required those who might attend his events to pledge allegiance–to the candidate, not the flag. He himself has pledged that, if elected, to make it harder for the press to criticize people (him) unfairly (not defined). Thin skin has never previously been a prerequisite for the presidency.

But the violence. Much more than specific promises about matters of policy, Trump is selling himself as a man of action. The solution to America’s problems, he promises, starts with a gold T. Both he and his few identifiable advisers have tried to allay voters’ fears by emphasizing that the candidate isn’t committed to anything he now commits to in the heat of the campaign–even populist racist xenophobia. So it’s all his persona and action.

Social scientists know about a campaign based on the promise of exceptional personal characteristics and action; Max Weber called it “charismatic authority” ( for more, you can watch an academic lecture or read Wikipedia). Importantly, social scientists see charisma as contextual, rather than as something that comes from individual characteristics. Charismatic authority is inherently unstable and thrives during turbulent times. The charismatic leader rules only as long as he delivers on the aspirations of those who support him. For this reason, Trump has been stalwart in emphasizing how awful everything is and how dangerous the world is and how stupid everyone else is. Partly, he’s better on the attack than in outlining alternatives or preferred policies. But even more than that, it’s clear that few people would be willing throw in with someone who obviously lacks all of the qualities for the job he seeks unless times were truly desperate. Stoking the threat of terror and enemies without and within all helps candidate Trump.

Violence, and even more the threat of violence, supports this vision of the now. Trump rallies are fun, the candidate promises, because anything can happen. Identifying the enemy nearby, a protester brave enough to hold a sign or scream, or a pen of reporters who claim to care about telling the truth, generates the tension that he needs to offer an appeal. Some supporters attend thinking that they might get a chance to haul off and smack the enemy, but even more come just to see what might happen.

Now the challenge is whether Republicans who claim to value civility and democracy and recognize the threat Trump represents are willing and able to do something about it. But soon the responsibility is likely to shift to more of us. In the meantime, the people who take protest about this candidate to his rallies are on the front lines.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

How movements win: Seaworld

Posted on March 17, 2016 by David S. Meyer

The new president and Chief Executive Officer of SeaWorld, Joel Manby, announced that the chain of theme parks would no longer breed orcas, and that the parks would stop their performing their signature Shamu shows. Manby also announced a new partnership with the Humane Society of the United States, formerly a SeaWorld nemesis, to develop educational programs and take care of the animals still at the park.

This is a clear win for animal rights activists, but not necessarily because its protests convinced Manby or SeaWorld’s shareholders of the justice of their claims. Rather, SeaWorld made a business decision. The parks’ image had taken a beating over the past few years from protests at the site, the death of a trainer, a powerful documentary (Blackfish), and local government. Attendance, revenue, and share prices had all faltered as a result. The corporate rebooting of SeaWorld (more rides? more education? different snacks?) is an effort to respond to opponents successfully and salvage the business.

Importantly, SeaWorld gave in only after all the other strategies it came up with failed. Remember, SeaWorld had launched a public relations campaign to dispute the charges made in Blackfish, planted paid provocateurs within the animal rights protests, announced reforms in the handling and husbandry of its orcas, and just months ago filed a lawsuit to challenge the California Coastal Commission’s decision to ban captive whale breeding in San Diego. (We’ve covered the SeaWorld campaign before, here and here.) The protests continued, as did the decline in park visitors. The corporation replaced its leadership team, and the new CEO responded to the real facts on the ground, facts that animal rights activists had helped create.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Guns and government: standing down in Oregon

Posted on January 28, 2016 by David S. Meyer

The Occupation at Malheur Wildlife Refuge is falling apart as federal law enforcement picks away at it. On Tuesday afternoon, the FBI and Oregon state police arrested seven Occupiers, and killed another one, LaVoy Finicum, under circumstances that are unclear at this point.

The confrontation took place on Highway 395, some distance from the Occupation, as Occupiers were traveling to a community meeting. I assume they were trying to build outside support for their efforts, an ongoing public relations battle that had, for them, gone quite badly. While the Occupiers hoped that local residents would rally around their efforts to get the Federal government to cede land and control to locals, few of the neighbors were ready to do so–even as they shared some of the Occupiers’ concerns. At town meetings, residents called on the Occupiers to leave.

Counterprotesters had been appearing outside the Wildlife Refuge to demand public access, chanting “Bundys, go home.” Members of the Burns Paiute Tribe announced that the people who were first on the land were Native Americans anyway.

But the Occupiers, fronted by Ammon Bundy, were publicly resolute in their commitment to stay in the fight for local control for the long haul. Finicum, who was accessible and friendly to the press, had announced the cause worth dying for–although it’s hard to think he thought he would have to. (You can see his video blog, One Cowboy’s Stand for Freedom.)

There may have been hundreds of Occupiers at Malheur, but after the arrests, the commitments eroded as demonstrators reassessed the situation. Although the Occupiers expressed confidence in their arms and their preparations to resist the federal government with force, the first crack in their defenses broke their resolve.

Meanwhile, Ammon Bundy, the most visible spokesman, now in custody and speaking through his attorney, urged the Occupiers to leave the Refuge, go home, and hug their families. The fight, he said, had now moved to the courts.

Certainly, Bundy’s fight has now gone indoors, and he’ll be spending most of his time trying to avoid conviction on federal conspiracy charges. I have no doubt that he’ll be able to raise money from supporters for his criminal defense, but an ongoing Occupation is of no help now. Perhaps he is also concerned with the safety of his colleagues, realizing that the first arrests and Finicum’s death, make them all the more vulnerable. Surely, his attorney has let him know that ending the Occupation can only help Bundy demonstrate contrition–or at least rational calculation–in court many months hence.

So, whatever guns and armaments the Occupiers had been able to stockpile in the Refuge were not enough to protect them from the Federal government. I’ve always thought that this argument for gun rights, protecting citizens against government tyranny, was particularly weak–just because the the Feds can always mobilize more and more deadly armaments against any opposition group. In this case, the guns may have made the Feds both more cautious and more committed to end the Occupation.

The arrests punctured an activist fantasy about how change takes place in America.

…..Then again, it was the Feds who stood down in the previous confrontation with Cliven Bundy, who still hasn’t paid the money he owes for grazing fees…..

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

God and democracy

Posted on January 19, 2016 by David S. Meyer

The Occupation at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge continues at this writing, and Image result for oregon standoffwhatever local authorities and the FBI are doing to end the moment isn’t obvious or clear to those of us watching from afar. If there’s a plan, I don’t know what it is.

The Occupiers, however, have a plan, and it apparently comes from God.

At least some of them are operating on His direction.

Like the urban occupations in the fall of 2011 (Occupy Wall Street), the dramatic action has sucked into its wake all sorts of people with all sorts of claims. The New York Times reports finding individuals on site strongly opposed to Jews and/or Islam and/or gays, participants in nativist campaigns, anti-environmentalists, Patriot Militia, and gun rights fundamentalists. (The Anti-Defamation League has published a report detailing the political biographies of the known participants at Malheur, and it’s not a pretty picture: pretty much, it’s the full spectrum of the paranoid right, with a strong cadre of veterans from the Cliven Bundy stand-off last year.)

They don’t necessarily agree with each other on much more than antagonism toward the Federal government, nor is it clear that they trust each other much–just more than the government. Visible and apparently successful collective action is a magnet for people who want to be visible and apparently successful activists.

God may not be supporting all of them.

Although there is much talk from Ammon Bundy about securing the rights of the people to use their land, and to stand up for the Constitution, there’s not much clarity about just what these Occupiers want, what people they mean to represent, and how they make their own decisions. There has not been strong support locally, from conservative political leaders, or from other believers.

Unlike the hyper-democrats of Occupy Wall Street, the Malheurites haven’t developed a cumbersome, transparent, and largely ineffective way of making decisions. Divine guidance means that you don’t need–and shouldn’t trust–democracy. The lack of visible outside support just means that others don’t get it–or Him.

At Home of the Brave, Scott Carrier has posted a long interview with Brand Thornton, an Occupier who is forthcoming about how he and his colleagues are taking direction from a deity. People who are open to the Spirit recognize when it moves within others, and readily accede to someone who carries God’s word. Thornton reports that the Occupiers have a militarized surveillance and defense system worked out–and, understandably, won’t share many details. He offers somewhat more explanation of the textual support for their campaign on behalf of the people. Their efforts are based in the Constitution (divinely inspired) and scripture from the Doctrines and Covenants of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Please note that the leadership of the Mormon Church has forcefully and consistently condemned the Occupation. I would NOT call the Occupation an instance of Mormon terrorism, btw.

But opposition from the Church, local residents, or more vigorous readers of the Constitution really doesn’t matter if you feel–if you know–God is with you. With God, democracy isn’t a problem.

But religion and God’s will motivates many activists for all sorts of causes, from Dorothy Day refusing to participate in a civil defense drill in New York City to Eleanor McMullen turning up outside a women’s health clinic to counsel women who might consider abortions–vigorously.

How are we to know who God really supports?

Here’s a clue: since yesterday was Martin Luther King Day, we might recall that King himself was divinely inspired. His check on that inspiration was a steadfast commitment to nonviolence. He was willing to suffer–and die–for his beliefs, but not to kill or threaten others.

At the moment, the Occupiers at Malheur, weapons handy, are demonstrating a little less confidence in the Divine.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Martin Luther King Day, 2016 (repost)

Posted on January 18, 2016 by David S. Meyer

(This is a repost of the MLKing Day holiday note.)

Martin Luther King died young enough and dramatically enough to be turned into an American hero, but it was neither his youth nor his death that made him heroic.

In his rather brief public life, beginning in Montgomery at 26, and ending with his assassination at 39, King consistently displayed rhetorical brilliance (on the podium and the page), strategic acumen, and moral and physical courage.

The effort to honor Martin Luther King with a holiday commemorating his birthday started at the King Center, in Atlanta, in the year after his assassination.  States began to follow suit, and by 1983, more than half celebrated King’s life with a day.  In that year, Ronald Reagan signed a bill making Martin Luther King day a national holiday expressing ambivalence, acknowledging that it was costly, and that King may have been a Communist.

The King holiday was about Martin Luther King, to be sure, but it was meant to represent far more than the man.  King stands in for the civil rights movement and for African-American history more generally.  I often wonder if the eloquence of the 1963 “I have a dream” speech winds up obscuring not only a man with broader goals, but a much more contested–and ambitious–movement.

The man and the movement are ossified into an iconic image, like a statue, which locks King and the movement into the politics of 1963-1965.  We accept King’s dream, that little children will play together, and that people will be judged by “the content of their character” (a favorite phrase on the right).

The image, like a statue, is available for appropriation to advocates of all political stripes, and the establishment of the holiday itself represents an achievement of the civil rights movement, winning the holiday if not broader economic and social equality.

Before the transformation of the man into an icon, King transformed himself from a pastor into an activist, a peripatetic crusader for justice.

But the pastor didn’t disappear; rather this role grew into something larger, as King himself transformed himself from a minister into a an Old Testament prophet, one whose primary concern was always the people on the margins, the widows and orphans, the poor and hungry.  In standing with those on the margins, King courageously used–and risked–the advantages of his privilege, pedigree, and education.  He also knew that he risked his safety and his life.

In his writing, King used his education and his vocation to support his political goals.  In the critically important “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he cited both the Constitution and the Bible in support of Federal intervention in local politics to support desegregation and human rights.  (We know that other activists now use the same sources to justify pushing the Federal government out of local politics.)

King explained that he was in jail in Birmingham, Alabama, because he had nonviolently defied local authorities in the service of higher laws, the Constitution and the Gospel.  This was not like making a provocative statement on one’s own [profitable] radio or television show.  There were real costs and severe risks.

King was never less than controversial during his life, under FBI surveillance during his political career, and vigorously criticized by opponents (for demanding too much and too strongly) and allies (for not demanding more, more vigorously).

When he was assassinated outside a Memphis motel in 1968, he was standing with sanitation workers on strike, straying from a simpler civil rights agenda.  He had also alienated some civil rights supporters by coming out, strongly, against the war in Vietnam.  And Black Power activists saw their own efforts as overtaking King’s politics and rhetoric.  By the time he was killed, Martin Luther King’s popular support had been waning for some time.

Posterity has rescued an image of Martin Luther King, at the expense of the man’s own broader political vision.

Ironically, in elevating an insurgent to a position in America’s pantheon of historic heroes, we risk editing out the insurgency.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Keystone XL: what victory looks like

Posted on January 7, 2016 by David S. Meyer

With ice and glaciers melting across the Arctic, at least this one polar bear found a

comfortable place to rest on Pennsylvania Avenue. (Not really, that’s an activist in costume….)

Last November, President Obama (finally) announced a decision on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have connected Tar Sands in Alberta to refineries in the United States.  It was no, and it was a long time in coming.  The pipeline, first proposed roughly a decade ago, had been opposed by activists almost immediately.

Advocates on both sides inflated the importance of the issue, and environmental activists made stopping Keystone the keystone of a political strategy.  Climate change activists focused on Keystone, arguing that the health of the earth was best served by keeping a particularly dirty crude oil in the ground, and moving more quickly to different sources of energy. But most analysts said the practical impact of the pipeline on the production of greenhouse gases would be small. Activists along the route protested about the environmental fallout and disruption of largescale construction.

Refiners and producers supported the pipeline, which would speed the transport of energy to the United States. It would, they said, create thousands–even tens of thousands–of jobs. After construction, other analysts said, 50 might be a better estimate.

But the focus on Keystone was good for climate change activists, and writer and organizer Bill McKibben and 350.org realized this early on. While global climate change, international treaties, and long and complicated environmental processes are hard for most of us to get a handle on, new construction is tangible and seemingly tractable. Keystone became the non-negotiable demand around which all kinds of activists and Image result for Keystone protesters arrestedcampaign could unite. Activists lobbied on Capitol Hill and campuses, and protested along the proposed route and outside the White House. Leaders of environmental groups and celebrity activists got arrested, protesting Keystone, and scientist James Hansen made it a central point in his own campaigning.

Because the pipeline crossed national boundaries, the US State Department had the responsibility of weighing in, and it took years to complete a review. President Obama repeatedly delayed making a decision, trying to keep Keystone from becoming an election issue in 2012, and his opponents kept returning to it, using the delay as an opportunity to make their case, that the president’s environmental concerns were damaging the economy.

While Obama stalled, the world changed. Oil got cheaper, as did solar panels, the environmental movement got stronger. He waited to decide whether to take an umbrella to work until the rain had slowed to a trickle.

I don’t know if anyone thought Obama could delay a decision all the way up to 2015, after the price of oil had fallen, and after demand for the Tar Sands oils had cratered, but he did. The economics of the new pipeline were so unfavorable by November 2015, that approval would probably not have spurred drilling and construction anyway. The company behind the pipeline, Transcanada, appealed for a delay, when its circumstances and its markets might be more favorable–and someone else might be president.

When President Obama finally announced his decision, he emphasized that Keystone itself was not that important–to the economy or the environment–except as a symbol. Rejecting Keystone, he said, was a way for the United States to demonstrate international leadership on the issue.

Activists claimed victory, even acknowledging that some circumstances beyond their control, like the effect of increased fracking on bringing down energy costs, helped their case on the pipeline. They also emphasized how much more there was to do. (See McKibben’s comment on the victory in The New Yorker.)

At this point, it’s clear that keying on the pipeline was smart politics for the movement. It made the issue of climate change concrete. It was stoppable, a clear focus, and with obvious targets for influence and protest, and the prospects of political accountability. There may have been many projects that would have had a great environmental impact, but it’s hard to find a sharper focal point for organizing.

Today, TransCanada filed a claim against the United States for $15 billion in damages that it suffered by losing the pipeline. Maybe this will resurrect the Alberta Tar Sands as a business prospect or Keystone as an electoral issue–but maybe not.

Victories are always partial and usually contested. Keystone XL provides a clear and unambiguous example of what a win looks like.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another kind of Occupation: What do you mean “we”?

Posted on January 6, 2016 by David S. Meyer

Occupation of public spaces to advance a political agenda is nothing new to us, nor to anyone who watched Occupy flash across American politics in 2011. The ongoing Occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon is a little different. Most notably, these occupiers are brandishing weapons (beyond moral commitment) and threatening a more vigorous and violent resistance to removal.

This occupation grew out of a rally protesting the jailing of Dwight and Steven Hammond, who set fire to public lands next to their ranch. They say they meant to protect their land from invasive species; federal prosecutors say they meant to cover up the illegal slaughter of deer. Last Saturday, the Hammonds’ last weekend before returning to prison, protesters showed up, took over a park welcome center and promised to stay. The Hammonds have announced they want no part of the protest, and have turned themselves in, but these Occupiers are still committed.

Calling themselves “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom,” and often pointing to pocket Constitutions, the protesters have been clear that they have larger aims than standing up for the Hammonds.  It is, according to Ammon Bundy–probably the most visible protester, about protecting the Constitution and protecting the people from the government.  Vox reports:

We’re out here because the people have been abused long enough, really…Their lands and their resources have been taken from them — to the point where it’s putting them literally in poverty. And this facility here [the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters] has been a tool into doing that. It is the people’s facility, owned by the people. And it has been provided for us to be able to come together and unite, and making a hard stand against this overreach, this taking of the people’s land and resources.

Ammon Bundy and at least one brother, have staged such an occupation before, in support of their father, Cliven Bundy, and his long campaign to avoid paying fees to the federal government for grazing his cattle on public lands. But dad is sitting this one out. And while the Bundy brothers are not alone, they haven’t generated much local support for their effort. So who are the people?

Activists routinely claim to be acting for a larger group. Occupy Wall Street meant to speak for the 99 percent, and the Tea Party for regular Americans. Politicians virtually always define their policies as supporting a vaguely defined middle-class–or working Americans. Even the founding fathers announced their commitments in the preamble to the Constitution.

Of course, the drafters of the Constitution weren’t just like the people they claimed to represent: much wealthier, much better educated, and of course, no women, Native people, or slaves participated in the deliberations.

When we talk about “the people,” we always imagine people who will agree with us–or at least, should agree with us. We learn to be careful about those who would claim to look out for the people.

But the claim was about the public good. Surfing the language of the Declaration of Independence, the idea was that “governments are instituted among men” to secure rights, that, in effect, the government holds lands for all of us, builds roads, looks out for the quality of air and water, licenses the airwaves, and inspects meat. All of it costs money, which the government prints and takes in taxes. And all of it can be a huge inconvenience.

Far from rural Oregon, my life would be easier if I didn’t have to file tax returns, pay to park at the beach, and observe traffic laws. The ranchers would have an easier time if they didn’t have to pay grazing fees or observe restrictions of any kind on their activity. It’s an incredibly understandable–if juvenile–politics: to take whatever advantage we can of government, hoping that others won’t do the same–and to protest any incursions on our autonomy at the same time. (Recent reports have made much of the fact that Ammon Bundy has benefited from rather large subsidized federal loans.)

One measure of success is the extent to which outsiders rally to the cause and imitate the claims and tactics. Thus far, that hasn’t happened–at least not much. The Republican presidential hopefuls, all champions of state rights against the federal government, have distanced themselves from these Occupiers, even if acknowledging sympathy with some of their aims. They were all more careful here than they were with the initial Bundy protest.

But how long can they stay? Comparing how authorities treat these white men with guns with how police treat young unarmed black men are all over the internet, but it’s a little misplaced. (See Jamelle Bouie at Slate.)

These Occupiers have thus far refused to respond to calls to stand down, even from Ted Cruz. The FBI, far better armed and trained, than this militia, could surely evict them, but at what cost? Remember, the mostly urban occupations of 2011 stayed in far more visible locations for around 10 weeks.

How would the people respond?

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Does the student campaign spread?

Posted on November 19, 2015 by David S. Meyer

Activists copy things that seem to work, but the recipe for success in one place doesn’t always translate elsewhere.

Of course, students around the United States found inspiration and encouragement from the Missouri students’ successful blitz of their university president.  There were student protests, a hunger strike, a clear statement of a central demand, and the support of the football team–and its coach and athletic director.

Some of this translated to Occidental College in Los Angeles, where student activists were also concerned about the racial climate on campus and the under-representation of Blacks and Latinos in the student body and on the faculty. Student activists unified behind a first step by demanding the ouster of their own president, Jonathan Veitch.

Activist students, clear demand, but that’s not always enough. President Veitch isn’t as vulnerable a target. He has a long record of academic scholarship and administration. This means that he’s quick to call a meeting. The  Occidental Tigers haven’t lined up against him, and Division III football teams can’t throw around as much weight anyway. Most important, Occidental is a private school, and Veitch answers to a Board of Trustees who don’t have to answer to any elected officials.

President Veitch announced that he’s not resigning, and that he’s eager to talk with the students to start working things out. The Trustees announced that they would stand behind their president.

Now the students are holed up in an occupation of an administration building, maintaining their call for resignation and publicizing other demands as well (the list and responses here): more Black faculty and students; more funding for Black student organizations; a Black Studies major; demilitarizing campus police and taking bullet proof vests from them; and new training and new staff to support diversity.

Each demand starts its own conversation, with committed supporters and skeptical opponents (except for the vests: the campus police are more than skeptical). It’s tougher to get the rest of the world to focus, and easier for opponents to pick away at the details.

It’s not over, but university presidents are harder for students to dismiss than the Missouri events would have us believe.  This administration is responding, creating new administrative positions, moving some money around, and stepping up efforts to diversify the faculty. But scoring responsiveness to student demands is tricky, especially when Occidental promises efforts and commitments to consider.

Meanwhile, I’ve been thinking that the campus reforms of the past twenty years, where administrators have been encouraged to treat their students as customers rather than charges, creates a circumstance in which administrators have to take every demand seriously.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Mizzou moment: Student activism beyond Missouri

Posted on November 13, 2015 by David S. Meyer
NARCH EUO

Protest at Ithaca College

When activists see a tactic that seems to be producing results, they’ll imitate it. Innovation spreads ideas that seem to work. The ousting of University of Missouri Timothy Wolfe signaled student activists across the country about new possibilities. We’ve seen a run of discussions of race, protests, hunger strikes, and targeting administrators in the last few days, and I don’t think anyone knows just what happens next.

In all cases, neither the grievances nor the activism is new. But there is more energy and far more attention in the wake of Mizzou.

At Ithaca College, POC at IC (People of Color at Ithaca College) has called for President Tom Rochon’s*  resignation. The students are angry about the racial climate on campus, including the small number of Black and Latino faculty, but they cite many other grievances, often tied to his management style (he doesn’t consult, they say), the school’s ties to business interests, and budget priorities. A large group of faculty has endorsed the call for a no confidence vote, amplifying those concerns and adding their own (read the “open letter.“) The Trustees have endorsed Rochon, who has named a new administrator charged with diversity issues, and announced curricular and training reforms. The students (and faculty) aren’t close to backing down.

former Dean Mary Spellman at Claremont-McKenna College

At Claremont-McKenna College, Dean of Students Mary Spellman resigned her position yesterday, responding to student protests and hunger strikes calling for her ouster. The straw that stirred this drink was an unfortunately phrased email Dean Spellman sent to a student, offering to talk, and pledging her commitment to help students who don’t fit the “CMC mold.”

But the students had long-brewing grievances about the racial climate on campus, noting insensitive and offensive comments from classmates, as well as vandalism of the offices of minority student organizations. Students complained about the lack of alternative perspectives in some of their courses and about hurtful comments from professors. Before Mizzou, the activists had already provoked the resignation of their Junior Class president. The students asked for a space to organize and broader attention to their concerns. President Hiram Chodosh announced new administrative positions to address issues of diversity. Expect the new Dean of Students to vet emails more carefully; maybe proofing the correspondence will be a new administrative job.

Amherst College protest

Meanwhile, at Amherst College the Mizzou fallout intensified a campaign not only against an administrator, but also targeting the school’s mascot, Lord Jeff. He’s a stupid mascot, and a ready target. (Lord Jeffrey Amherst was known for promoting the distribution of blankets from small pox patients to Indians.) Students have demanded that President Biddy Martin denounce Lord Jeff by 5:00 tonight, and purge his image from the campus and all associated paraphernalia. Or else?

There are 10 other demands, starting with a call for apologies from the president and the Chair of the Board of Trustees to

students, alumni and former students, faculty, administration and staff who have been victims of several injustices including but not limited to our institutional legacy of white supremacy, colonialism, anti-black racism, anti-Latinx racism, anti-Native American racism, anti-Native/ indigenous racism, anti-Asian racism, anti-Middle Eastern racism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, mental health stigma, and classism. Also include that marginalized communities and their allies should feel safe at Amherst College.

Meanwhile, here at the University of California, Irvine, two groups of students seized the moment to protest high tuition–and tuition altogether. Attending the University of California was once just about free, and now students commonly go deep into debt to finance an undergraduate degree. (I’d add, many many students work many many hours while in school, seeking to minimize that debt; they work enough to make getting through school and learning something much more difficult.) The Black Student Union used the Mizzou moment to stage a protest reiterating its demands for more academic and psychological support on campus, and calling for a zero-tolerance policy for racism.

The point: the apparent success of the student movement at the University of Missouri inspired campus-based activists who shared similar concerns to seize the moment, adding local issues, targets, and approaches. (Thankfully, hunger strikes are far from universal.) And college students have plenty of reasons to feel aggrieved, although replacing a campus leader and creating new administrative positions can’t come close to addressing most of those complaints.

Indeed, the proliferation of administrative positions is one of the factors driving high tuition. (But faltering state support is far more significant.)

There will be plenty of discussion about the justice and wisdom of each of these demands, about the obstacles students from underrepresented minorities face on college campuses, and the difficulties universities have in navigating academic, social, and financial pressures.

Right now, we can thank the student protesters for raising those questions.

*Full disclosure: Tom Rochon and I edited a book together a long time ago. Although we haven’t stayed in touch, I think of him as a great scholar (irony alert: of social movements), a decent man, and a friend.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments