Random Reminders On Civil Disobedience

No, this is not an analysis of Thoreau’s essay in Walden. Just some quick random thoughts on that venerable protest strategy.

• Thoreau went to jail.

• Mahatma Gandhi went to jail (and worse).

• Rosa Parks went to jail.

• Martin Luther King, Jr. went to jail. 

If you want to join that admirable group and practice civil disobedience, you have my respect and I support your right to do so, whether or not I agree with your POV or stance. You are joining in an honorable tradition – but only if you don’t whine if/when you face the consequences of your actions.

You don’t get to claim civil disobedience AND immunity from the ramifications of your actions. The above-named historical heroes all believed they were on the side of the angels, but, and this is key, they were willing to pay the price of standing (or sitting, in the case of Parks) on the “wrong” side of authority in order to challenge the injustice they saw around them. These masters of civil disobedience actually invited arrest to bring their cause front and center, rather than use cowardly intimidation tactics to avoid any consequence.

You want to grab your gun and march, that is your right. I don’t care what name you want to give your cause or your actions, but you can’t claim civil disobedience. That phrase is reserved for the courageous men and women who stand up for their beliefs without trying to avoid the consequences of their actions.

While it shouldn’t be necessary, let me point out that Thoreau, Gandhi, Parks, & King were non-violent protesters, not gun-toting rowdies. Armed protest threatening violence isn’t civil disobedience, it’s rebellion and insurrection and carries the potential of far more severe repercussions than jail. We had one civil war; it didn’t work out so well for the instigators – and, sadly, the defenders of the country and Constitution who shared the horror of that conflict also paid a steep price. Ironic that so many of the participants are waving flags of history’s losers (Swastikas, Stars & Bars) as they protest.

Rule #23 – Stereotyping Victimizes Both the Typer and the Typee

Here at Lindbergh High School, Student Council elections are in full swing, with lots of posters on the walls touting various candidates. Wit and word play abound. A couple of boys in my AP Gov’t. class created a clever poster playing off the Donald Trump campaign slogan: “Make Lindbergh Great Again.” They have encountered some of the same hostility that supporters of Mr. Trump have, with blasts on social media, posters torn down, etc. While I suspect they may actually support Mr. Trump’s candidacy, I also know, having talked to them, that their poster (see below) also represents a tongue in cheek approach to their campaign. I also expect they will be trounced just as badly as the candidate they used as a model will be (of course, I never would have predicted that he could be the presumptive nominee, so my prognosticator credentials are open to debate), at least in part because they don’t have a vilified opponent.

But it made me think. Supporting Donald Trump’s presidential campaign does NOT make make someone a racist, misogynist, or any other label ascribed to the candidate. Neither does supporting Bernie Sanders make his enthusiasts freeloading socialists looking for a handout. All the calls to put Hilary Clinton behind bars ignore the minor detail of presumed innocence on which our justice system is founded. To demean the supporters of any candidate, to stereotype them in any way, is both insulting and inaccurate. People have valid reasons for their support of their candidate, whomever that is or may have been, and there is no reason to gratuitously insult their thinking.

You want to make snarky comments or post mean-spirited memes about a candidate? Well, I doubt that is an effective strategy, but the candidates knew what they were in for when they started running and I don’t feel any sympathy for them in the least. However, I’m also willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (and, honestly, I DO have significant doubt in almost every case) that they are running because they believe that they can lead the country in what they see as the right direction. They are not evil (well, maybe with the exception of Ted Cruz – just kidding – mostly), but flawed human beings who want to serve their nation. (I even acknowledge that for Senator Cruz.)

This is going to be an ugly election. I’m going to be more thankful than ever for DVR and digital music sources. I’ve made this point before, but I worry about the next 4 years, because whoever becomes President will go into office being, not just opposed, but despised by almost half the country. That’s a bad enough problem without compounding it by transferring that aggression (and we’re not talking micro-aggression here) to the people who are supporting and voting for our eventual leader.

     We must respect the office, if not the office holder; more importantly, we must respect each other. If we lose those pieces, we’re in even bigger trouble than you think we already are, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum. 

Ask Less, Get More

Kevin Horrigan wrote a great article today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It was something I never thought of before.

I know we teachers used to (probably still do) complain loudly and often about how society was dumping all of its problems on our doorstep, that we were expected to be parent, social worker, spiritual advisor (non-sectarian, of course, although I’ve no doubt some strayed outside those lines), sex educator, counselor, etc., etc., as well as teacher. As much as we complained, though, we kind of knew it came with the territory, and we were, more or less, prepared for those aspects of the job. I like to think that the best of us (at least at The Place), for all our griping, embraced and even welcomed those challenges.

Until I read Horrigan’s column this morning, however, I had never even considered the possibility that something similar has been happening to our police officers for many years now. According to Horrigan, and I (obviously) agree, we are expecting police to not just enforce the laws and solve crimes, but to enforce social norms and solve social problems.

With no intended offense to those men and women who are doing a job that I couldn’t handle (I had enough trouble enforcing classroom discipline), I don’t think most of them are suited for the demands of social service in terms of the personality of people attracted to law enforcement vs. those attracted to education or social work. I might be wrong, but I would suggest those who want to do the (important) job of social service are not heading to the police academy but down a different educational path. I do know that when I took the Strong Interest Inventory as a college freshman, my scores for teacher (well, not industrial arts teacher) and police officer were at the opposite ends of the scale.

It is very easy to criticize police officers, but even if, as is true for some teachers, it is deserved, I refrain from doing so because no way could I do that demanding job. Add to the demands the element of risk that cannot be ignored, dumping the thorniest problems of modern society on our police departments is not only unfair but unwise.

Finally, adding a point emanating from my pragmatic bent, it is also economically inefficient. One of the reasons police departments are stretched so thin for money is because we’re asking, no forcing, them to spend their limited resources on tasks that are not, or at least should not be, in their purview.

If we want more, or better, from our law enforcement community, perhaps we should consider asking for less. (I would argue that the same holds true for education, as well.) If you have not read the article, I urge you to do so, and am adding the link again: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/horrigan-in-tribal-america-too-many-problems-are-dropped-on/article_e9e0523d-e6f9-53b8-9e4f-626c86136cbb.html

Before the Ferguson Announcement

The whole Ferguson thing makes me sad.  Some random thoughts before the announcement:

• Just because someone calls you racist doesn’t mean you are.

• Conversely, just because you don’t (want to) believe you’re a racist doesn’t mean you aren’t.

• Just because you don’t see (or understand [or it’s not your problem]) a problem doesn’t mean there is no problem.

• Protests, going back to before the American Revolution, have always been led by “radicals” and have always been opposed by those who favor the status quo.

• It only takes one random act to turn peace into violence. (See the Boston Massacre)

• If you’ve referred to protesters (as a group) in derogatory terms, you might think about the dangers of stereotyping. It damages both the typer and typee, because now both have to overcome preconceived identities.

• Name-calling has never, to my knowledge, helped to solve a problem.

• If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem, like it or not.

Big Brother Just Might Really Start Watching

Smile, you’re on Candid Camera!

We live in a complex society, centered in an increasingly complex world. Anyone, politician or preacher, who offers a panacea, is a charlatan.

That being said, because it would cost over a million dollars upfront, with maybe another half-million annually, I don’t think we’re going to see body cameras become ubiquitous anytime soon on St. Louis police officers. St. Louis County may have a little more money, but I doubt that it has THAT much more. That says nothing about the larger cities, like my own Webster Groves or Kirkwood, Ladue, Clayton, etc. And then we have mini-fiefdoms scattered around the county. I can see it now: “Good news! Bella Villa police now have body cameras. They only had to triple the outrageous number of (trap) tickets they wrote to pay for them.”

Of course, even being able to spend that kind of money would virtually, if not actually, require approval from the local police union. I think you could get better odds on the Cubs winning a World Series than that happening.

Perhaps I’m wrong in that assessment. Perhaps police officers would recognize that there are protections built in for them as well as citizens when they wear the cameras. How many bogus complaints of police brutality and harassment are filed each year? I would think (almost) everyone would like to see the number of complaints filed be reduced, and it seems to me that body cameras might make a significant dent in that number. Given the fact that (so-called) Smart Phones have made almost everyone on the street a potential recorder, if not reporter, I’m not sure privacy claims have any relevance for any of us any more.

But I get their trepidation. As a teacher I’m pretty sure I would have resisted cameras recording every word, every lesson, every movement of mine in the classroom. It certainly would have changed the classroom dynamic, negatively impacted the establishment of relationships with students. I don’t think I ever used it, but when I moved into the guidance office at Hancock I had a recorder at the ready, just in case, because when you close the door to a small office, even one with a vertical window in it, you (ironically) open yourself up to specious accusations from a disgruntled student or parent.

I freely admit that, for better and worse, I had a less active filter than many teachers. Even when my lessons were sort of scripted, there was no telling what might come out of my mouth based on the background noise of either the class or my mind. That was my style; I like to pretend it made me more effective, more honest, more open, and, probably, at least on occasion, more annoying. Still, it was a style that served me well for over four decades; I don’t think I would have been as successful with Big Brother recording every move.

That’s another cost, incidentally, that no one is talking about, at least not yet. Someone (or, in the case of large departments, schools or school districts, or municipal co-operatives, several someones) is going to have to watch, or be available to watch, all this data (the vast majority of which will be mind-numbingly boring). The good news is that concerns about your every move being watched are overblown; no one has the time or resources to make that happen. The bad news is that one person, with skill and proper motivation, can gain a tremendous amount of power over law enforcement (or educational) personnel. The answer to the old question of Who will watch the watchers? will certainly add to the cost, as well.

While it may sound like I’ve almost talked myself out of supporting these body cameras, we cannot ignore the cost, both financial and social, of Ferguson’s current tribulation. However you see either Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson, how quickly might that tragedy have been resolved (or perhaps even prevented) had body cameras been in play and the information immediately available? I’m not sure it would thrill County Prosecutor McCullough, but I’d sure like to see something like that if I were on the Grand Jury. Won’t the overall, and continually rising, price tag of that misfortune be several multiples of $2 million? Wouldn’t ALL of us prefer that? And wouldn’t that expenditure be more worthwhile than an urban tank?