Longtime readers of this site have probably noticed that I don’t often offer negative judgments of the organizing efforts I cover here. If I’m impressed by a project, I’ll sometimes say so. If I’ve got specific constructive criticisms, I’ll occasionally offer them. If I disapprove, I’ll usually keep my opinions to myself.
There are a few reasons for this. I’m usually observing events at a distance, and I’m well aware of the perils of relying on second-hand data. I also recognize that situations are complex. I’m not quick to judge, even privately, and I figure you’re all capable of making up your own minds.
Having said all that, though, I do want to talk briefly about some of the judgments I do make.
The last three and a half weeks have been an extraordinary moment in the history of American student activism. Buildings have been occupied, and often barricaded. More than two hundred campus activists have been arrested. Police have used violence against students with a frequency and intensity that are deeply troubling.
The fall semester is almost over, but the spring is coming soon, and there’s little indication that it will be a quiet one. We’re most likely going to be seeing some turmoil on the campuses in the months to come, and I’m most likely going to be reporting on it, so I want to make a few things about my position, and this site’s position, clear:
First, I’m morally opposed to the use of physical violence as an activist tactic. I don’t believe in throwing things at cops. I don’t believe in manhandling security guards. Hell, I don’t even believe in pie-ing people.
Second, I think that destruction of property is usually a really bad idea. It’s clear that vandalism is deeply unpopular among students and non-students alike. If an action causes significant property damage, that fact will be used as an effective weapon against other activists. Is destruction of property immoral? Buy me a beer and give me a specific example, and we’ll debate it as long as you like. Is it stupid? In almost every case, yes, I believe it’s deeply stupid.
And if you damage property in such a way as to risk causing physical harm to someone, that’s both stupid and immoral, in my book. If you throw a rock at a window in the course of a protest, you’re telling me that you’re willing to put shards of glass into someone’s face, because there’s no way to throw a rock at a window in the heat of a protest without risking someone getting hurt.
And if you’re willing to take that risk, you and I aren’t on the same side.
Edited for clarity after posting.
studentactivism.net 
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 12, 2009 at 5:41 pm
david
Frankly, I don’t see why you had to make your position clear. I mean this respectfully: I come to this site for the excellent breaking news information and summaries, not for you or your opinions.
That said, now that you have brought up the subject of tactics and ‘violence’: what do you think about student occupations in Greece that often result in clashes with police and damaged property (such as banks)? Or the recent CPE movement in France, which also saw its fair share of projectiles and property damage?
December 12, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Angus Johnston
I hear what you’re saying about my own personal views, and I take it in the spirit in which it’s intended. I do in general prefer to keep my opinions of specific actions to myself. I thought this was a question that was bound to get asked, though, and I wanted to answer it in a considered way.
As for France and Greece, those are both very big movements, and almost everything I know about them is second-hand at best. (I don’t read Greek at all, for starters, and my French is minimal.) As I said in my post, I prefer to deal in specific examples when talking about such questions, and I just don’t know enough about the specifics of those movements to speak coherently about the moral issues they raise.
December 12, 2009 at 6:54 pm
anonymoose
the ‘moral issues’ they raise? there are no moral issues here, there is a civil war afoot and we can’t pause to consider our ‘moral position’ every time someone breaks a planter or a window.
we do what is necessary in every moment as the greek have exemplified through their magnificent actions over the years and currently. if you want to read up on first hand accounts then start here: occupiedlondon.org/blog . if you want to read on the CPE/anti-CPE events then read here: http://www.prol-position.net/nl/2006/07 .
anyhow, that all said, i want to reiterate the first comment. no one comes here for your liberal pacifist opinions. and you are wrong about contextualizing the destruction of banks and rioting in greece as somewhat justified because of their positions in a large movement. it isn’t as though a ‘large movement’ was meticulously crafted and looked out for the entire way of development, with ‘handlers’ like yourself making sure no one over-stepped boundaries for the sake of the ‘movement’ – no, that isn’t what happened. in greece, as well as france, what occurs is a mutual alignment of students and workers AGAINST police and administrators. so even when there is a 10,000 person march in athens and only 100 or so engage in street fighting/rioting, NO ONE CONDEMNS their actions EXCEPT the police mouth-piece: the mass media. there are no condemnations internal to the ‘movement’ because everyone jumps in to the vortex together AGAINST the police and administration. with comments like these you give legitimacy to the cops when the next round of arrests come, regardless of their violence.
you stand in solidarity or you don’t! do you think a movement builds without forcing people to overstep their bounds of comfort? of course not – a revolution isn’t your fucking living room!
December 12, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Angus Johnston
There isn’t a civil war afoot. There wasn’t a civil war afoot forty years ago, and they were a hell of a lot closer to one then than we are now. There isn’t a civil war afoot, and my judgments about what’s moral and immoral, smart and stupid, are grounded in that fact.
I’m all about forcing people to overstep their bounds of comfort, but that doesn’t mean that every act that makes someone uncomfortable is a worthy act. We all draw lines in the sand and say “no further.” You do, I do, we all do. I’m just telling you where my lines are.
December 13, 2009 at 10:23 am
Christiana
I appreciate your post, and that you’re willing to state where your lines are. I don’t get the feeling you’re going to start censoring the news that you cover here, so I’m not entirely sure what everyone’s problem is. If you don’t like a post, censor yourself, don’t read it. I don’t think Angus is going to censor the news he covers so if you don’t care about his opinion I don’t see why it matters.
As far as giving arrests legitimacy, I have to agree with Angus’s comment above. Just because an act makes someone uncomfortable does not make it a worthy act.
December 13, 2009 at 10:52 am
Angus Johnston
Thanks, Christiana. No, I’m not going to censor the news I pass along, and no, I don’t intend to make this sort of finger-wagging a habit, either. In fact, that’s a big reason why I posted this — I wanted to say my piece once, and not get drawn into an endless cycle of defense and/or denunciation.
Policing the boundaries of “legitimate” dissent isn’t a role that interests me, and it’s not a role I intend to play. I wanted to go on record, and I have, and now it’s time to get back to work.
December 13, 2009 at 7:04 pm
kwame
…”you stand in solidarity or you don’t”… Where have I heard something like that before? George W.? If you’re not with us you’re against us? Does this mean unless we’re willing to support the most extreme actions taken for the cause, no matter how impulsive or violent, we’re actually on the other side? I’m confused.