Activism versus Effectiveness

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The eeevil board of trustees at my school has decided to raise tuition 6.5% next year, simply for the reason that this college is not as expensive as its "peer institutions" and is therefore losing out on the prestige. I think this behavior is childish and dispicable, but that's not my concern here. A lot of other people here feel the same way, and staged a protest on Friday against the tuition raise. Did it do anything? No. Was it expected that it would? No. I was saved from trying to make some sort of moral decision about whether I should support this nonsense because they scheduled it during one of my classes. I just had a talk with one of the guys who was organizing it, and he said that even though there was not a chance in hell that anyone was going to listen to us, it was part of our moral obligation to publicly object to it.

Over the past few years I've been here, I've witnessed mass campus protests over things which they could not possibly have any effect on, from the misbehavior of a few local cops (who were summarily punished, but prior to the protest), to drunken louts throwing bicycles off the roofs of buildings. I always thought it was rather amusing, but this issue actually has something to do with me, and it made me think. Do we have a moral obligation to protest things we don't agree with, even if they are guaranteed to have no effect, good or ill?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 896 • Replies: 17

No top replies

You've made me think, rufio. I don't know the answer to your question, but I can tell you my personal, pragmatic gut reaction to this sort of thing. I've always felt that a protest which you know in advance will bring no results is an exercise in futility. It's the adult version of kicking and screaming because you didn't get what you wanted. My approach to a situation which I think is wrong has always been to try and do something about it which (possibly) will bring about change. If I don't like an administration, I don't carry signs announcing how much I hate it; I make sure to vote against it in the elections. In the situation you're talking about, I'd eschew joining a protest demonstartion and start firing off letters to the dean, the trustees, and especially to the ditor of the local newspaper, protsting in no uncertain terms. A large volume of mail is always more effective than a few students marching around with signs.

0 Replies

They KNOW that the march will do no good, and they still do it? Why? To feed their egos? So they can feel suppressed and sorry for themselves? I see no other reason.

0 Replies

Well, I think we can never know in advance if it really won't have an effect, for one thing. I've been involved in a lot of quixotic campaigns/ protests, and several of the ones I thought were most hopeless actually worked.

In a campus environment especially, I think they're very useful. You learn all kinds of things while organizing a protest, even if the protest itself is for something trivial. You learn what gets people's attention (and what doesn't), the balance between leaving enough time for word to get out and not waiting so long that it's irrelevant, HOW to get the word out, what methods work best for getting media attention vs. what methods work best for getting the attention of whomever the protest is nominally directed at (not the same thing -- often the media attention is what creates the pressure more than the protest itself), etc., etc., etc.

And I think public protest can be a very powerful tool, so I'm all for people getting practice and knowing what to do when it's really important.

0 Replies

there is no such thing as 'moral obligation'; there are only your own 'moral/ethical' choices.
and it is my opinion, that your responsibility is to yourself, and involves doing something that will have an effect on the unseemly decision that the school board has made.
if you feel strongly about an issue, you must demonstrate that sense of injustice by a strong personal act including an aspect of self denial.

e.g. solicit a large group of students to declare that if the fees are not recinded, they will all, on masse, leave the school, and go elsewhere for their schooling, making sure the entire 'stand' is well publicized. and if they do not, you all must leave, even to go and pay an equivalent amount elsewhere, if necesary.

to assert your ethical will on society requires that you must put your own well being, and 'status' in the breach!

[if you wish to gain, you must be willing to lose]

0 Replies

True, bogowo. But in a weird way I feel like I should be saying something, even if it won't have any effect. I mean, if there were a more effective alternative, I guess it would be different. Walking out of school is not feasable for about a billion reasons, and even if a sizeable part of the student body did, well, this school may not be Harvard, but it still has a certain amount of prestige, and they aren't hurting for money or anything. They'd fill it right back up with other students willing to pay. There's no win here.

Sozo - news around here gets around pretty quick, and they had the place plastered with posters for a few days. If there's one thing this student body knows how to do, it's organize protests. Razz

Only about 150 people showed up (out of about 1200), apparently, but I think that was probably because they held it when people were at class.

I think it's terribly ironic that the atmosphere here is so liberal, but the administration is so totalitarian sometimes.

0 Replies

Re: Activism versus Effectiveness
If the decision is bad enough,if it is important to your life, than you must protest in public.
The idea that a protest does not change anything is most of the time wrong. It doesn't change immediately and by itself. But is a step, that must be followed by other steps, isolating those you are fighting.
In 1972, when my country, Portugal, was a fascist dictatorship, I was involved in several public demonstrations, protests, and other activities. Of course, any of those activities was not enough to change things. No one would expect that after a large demonstration, the dictator, would say: "well you are right, let's make free elections and stop the war in Africa". But those public actions created a huge raise in the number of opponents to the regime, isolating the President and the Prime-Minister. Two years later, the dictatorship was over. And years later I did the same in the courageous fight of the socialist party against the attempt of the comunists to take power by force. And, again, we whon.
The idea of immediate result is wrong. We must fight, persist, make the power weaker and weaker.
But, of course, it all depends of the importance of was is the situation we fight.

0 Replies

I'll be back to this!

0 Replies

Wonderful post, Val.

0 Replies

Protests aren't effective in stopping the problem.

But they are advertising for the issue and get new recruits.

0 Replies

And are sometimes effective in stopping the problem.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

And are sometimes effective in stopping the problem.

In what way?

0 Replies

Any of a number of ways. Galvanizing public opinion; changing the mind of someone whose mind needs to be changed; enabling someone who becomes known via the protest to gain a measure of power to oppose the original problem or implement ways of eradicating the problem; etc., etc., etc.

Not always, mind you. But not never, either.

0 Replies

Re: Activism versus Effectiveness

val wrote:

If the decision is bad enough,if it is important to your life, than you must protest in public.
The idea that a protest does not change anything is most of the time wrong. It doesn't change immediately and by itself. But is a step, that must be followed by other steps, isolating those you are fighting.
In 1972, when my country, Portugal, was a fascist dictatorship, I was involved in several public demonstrations, protests, and other activities. Of course, any of those activities was not enough to change things. No one would expect that after a large demonstration, the dictator, would say: "well you are right, let's make free elections and stop the war in Africa". But those public actions created a huge raise in the number of opponents to the regime, isolating the President and the Prime-Minister. Two years later, the dictatorship was over. And years later I did the same in the courageous fight of the socialist party against the attempt of the comunists to take power by force. And, again, we won.
The idea of immediate result is wrong. We must fight, persist, make the power weaker and weaker.
But, of course, it all depends of the importance of was is the situation we fight.

absolutely!

[you end up obviously representing the 'right' (even if it is left) choice.]

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Any of a number of ways. Galvanizing public opinion; changing the mind of someone whose mind needs to be changed; enabling someone who becomes known via the protest to gain a measure of power to oppose the original problem or implement ways of eradicating the problem; etc., etc., etc.

Not always, mind you. But not never, either.

Uhhh, I thought I pretty much covered all those by saying advertising and recruiting... Those aren't directly changing the situation. They're causing other people to change the situation, i.e. like advertising and recruiting does.

But yeah, I get your point. I'm not saying it's useless I'm just saying without someone to actually make the change a protest does nothing. The best use of a protest is to get someone who will make the change on to your side.

0 Replies

No, I said changing the mind of someone whose mind needs to be changed -- by that I meant someone who is in power. I've been involved in protests that were very linear. Someone in power says A. Protestors say B, and lay out why, and make a stink. Someone in power says, fine, geez, B if you'll leave me alone already.

That's pretty direct.

But direct or indirect, it's causing change. As you say in your last sentence. (I agree.)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

...Previous posts...

Yeah I can agree with that. I guess they are sometimes effective in and of themselves to a certain degree.

0 Replies

Yes, Val and BoGoWo, protest has at least minimallly the effect of showing that a government's legitimacy is not endorsed by everyone. It empowers and enboldens critics to know that their dissent is shared by others.

0 Replies

Activism versus Effectiveness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know