Big Sky Cairn

In 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. penned one of the most powerful modern soliloquies in his Letter from Birmingham Jail. The subject was injustice and civil disobedience as a response to injustice. Undoubtedly, one of the students that staged a sit-in at the University of Montana read a rah-rah version of this letter in their “Activism for Dummies” handbook.

At first glance, it seems like a perfect match. Martin Luther King talks about sit-ins to challenge injustices. It’s his entire justification for why he’s sitting in Birmingham Jail writing letters. He is even analytic enough to provide certain steps - goals set forth - for civic disobedience.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

So far so good, right? For MLK, sit-ins were a means to an ends, in this case forcing negotiation with a dominant party that was refusing to come to the table. The sit-ins weren’t designed to get a press hit, they were designed to spark dialog.

But the similarities begin to fade with closer examination.

Andrew Hammond was the first to question the necessity and the effectiveness of the UM sit-in. He observes that the target of their sit-in - the man with the power to enact the changes they want - was on the other side of the world in China. More important, their target had a track-record of welcoming their negotiations when they brought them to the table. So in order to invent a situation that would meet the criteria MLK set forth to justify civil disobedience, the UM Martyrs actually avoided asking for reasonable negotiation. They created a conflict in order to justify escalation of tactics.

In point-of-fact, the sit-in probably had the opposite effect from what MLK would have staged a sit-in for. While MLK wanted to force negotiation where there previously was none, the UM martyrs probably made good-faith negotiation less likely where previously it was open.

But why do I bring this up now? I’m bringing it up because of something else that MLK wrote in his letter:

I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Mahatma Gandhi, the modern father of civil disobedience said something similar about accepting the consequences.

If our rulers are doing what in their opinion is wrong, and we feel it is our duty to let them hear our advice even though it may be considered sedition, I urge you to speak sedition-but at your peril, you must be prepared to suffer the consequences. And, when you are ready to suffer the consequences and not hit below the belt, then I think you will have made good your right to have your advice heard even by the Government.

And so, when the lefty grass-roots start rallying to make their heroes exempt from the same rules that everyone else would have to abide by, I think to myself how far from the noble foundations of these tactics they have strayed. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the actions the UM Martyrs took, it is wrong to suggest that their actions shouldn’t have consequences. Doing so cheapens their convictions and worse, undermines their cause.

[…] Cody at Big Sky Cairn says it much more eloquently than I can.  I’ll defer to him on […]

Ah, yes, the modern conservative position: the absolute defense of authority figures exercises control over the commoners.

Didn’t conservatives once believe in limited government power? Fascinating that you’re willing to give this kind of disciplinary power over to a quasi-state agency.

[…] love it when right-wingers quote liberals in an attempt to undermine other liberals. They do this through sheer spin and twisted, […]

First, let me say that I whole-heartedly respect all of those protesters for standing up for what they believe in to the degree that they do.

I agree that there should be consequences for the protester’s actions, however I am not sure I understand why the University is pressing criminal (trespass, I assume) charges AND attempting to suspend them. Their actions have absolutely no bearing on their academic standing, and from what I understand there is no precedent of academic sanctions imposed on students who participate in civil disobedience.

Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi are absurd and pathetic characters that only rise to historical importance among the historically unimportant people of the earth. The only reason the powers in control promote them as role models to the lowly masses is to dissuade them from using effective means to accomplish revolutionary change. Like Christianity, civil disobedience is a counter-revolutionary philosophy. In short, it is only for losers.

Power flows from the barrel of a gun. –Mao

Oh — and MLK didn’t try to get press hits?

That’s hilarious and boldly false.

DC Kidd — If you are being sarcastic, that is not a very good job of it, if you are being serious - God help you.

As for the penalty handed down, I suppose it is fair. A University has a right to academically punish students for violations of its rules - much like it can reward students like Kendra who are active around the University. Two sides of the same coin in my book.

My only lingering question, does anyone know the labor standards in the factories which produce Griz gear now? If someone could fill me in on the details I would appreciate it.

MLK didn’t break the law to get press hits - he did it because he didn’t have an alternative. The UM Martyrs had an open door and invented a villain in order to generate press. There’s a rather important distinction.