Dissent: The Highest Form of Patriotism
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
Since the beginnings of civilization, governments have struggled with the inherent tension between individual freedom and the collective order required for a society to function. While, historically speaking, many societies have responded to dissent with authoritarian rule, liberal Western societies of the modern era adopt a decidedly more open and receptive approach to social discontent. This deeply held philosophical belief in the primacy of the individual is reflected throughout America’s founding documents, cultural institutions and media. It is also particularly relevant when considered in light of the April 14th political demonstration in opposition to President Bush’s visit to Stanford’s Hoover Institution.
The vision of American universities as a venue for creativity and free expression has served as a beacon of hope to those living under authoritarian governments for years. Particularly in science and engineering over the past century, America’s unique ambition and innovation is largely credited to its liberal societal values. Yet, by the same token, when the Constitution declares that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” I do not necessarily see it as a carte blanche to sit down in the middle of the street in order to block a fire truck. As Caroline Martin, one of protestors arrested on Friday, recently explained in an article in The Stanford Daily, “[I] sat down on Friday for my right to be heard as a citizen.”
The leap from “sitting down” in front of a fire truck to the “right to be heard as a citizen” is a difficult argument to swallow. In short, I believe one must be careful to necessarily categorize physically expressed actions as protected speech. The problem lies in the fact that, in this case, the protestor’s speech has moved from the realm of merely being a negative right. That is, Caroline’s perceived boundaries of speech rights no longer mandate that others refrain from inhibiting her actions, bur rather, obliges others to provide accommodations for her actions.
Despite my disagreement with Caroline’s position, in the discussion that ensued following Friday’s arrests, I am heartened to see that these questions have arisen. Indeed, the question of where free speech rights dissolve is not nearly as clear as one might hope. I generally subscribe to the age old motto that “my rights end where yours begin.” This theme is echoed across many cultures and ideologies--from the Christian golden rule, to the Wiccan Rede to the writings of John Stuart Mill. For the most part, it works well as a basis from which to assess public policy. Yet, I also believe that Caroline is on to something when she declares “I do not believe in resisting power for the sake of resistance.”
Though a pure utilitarian may disagree, it seems conceivable that a situation might arise in which arriving at the optimal outcome might demand an infringement of another’s liberty. It is my guess that the arrested protestors see their actions as a means to an end, a justifiable act of civil disobedience. In Caroline’s words, the protest was meant to combat “the very real threat of living in a police state.” Yet, in blocking the road, the protestors’ actions also infringe on others’ rights. Thus, one must delve further in order to evaluate whether an act of civil disobedience may be justified.
In a quotation widely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, he states “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Dissent undoubtedly plays a fundamental role in a democracy. In fact, one might take a close look at the political demographics of the Stanford student body and assess whether we, for all our talk of diversity, truly have a spectrum of “dissenters.” Yet, dissent is ultimately a vague notion, often taken to justify actions that are anything but an exercise of Mill’s conception of individual liberty. I generally see patriotic dissent, and particularly dissent in the form of civil disobedience, as an action which makes a principled, coherent argument. Howard Zinn, who is the actual source of the quotation, is a dissenter by nearly any conceivable definition. In my opinion, the actions taken by three protestors on Friday were not effective dissent. Why? Because their supposed argument did not coincide with their actions. Indeed, those who attended the rally are no more enlightened as a result of Caroline, Claire and Diogo’s decision to sit down in front of a fire truck. If their protest was meant to inform students that President Bush “spreads violence, desecrates the Earth, tramples on civil liberties or disrespects [her] body as a woman,” I would say they failed miserably.
I do not think we are on the brink of a police state and I do not think that the protestor’s actions were justified within any framework. Yet I can also relate on some level, given The Review’s recent experiment in civil disobedience. Of course, The Review’s actions were taken after years of discussion with administrators and the ASSU led nowhere but a tangled mess of bureaucracy. The arrested protestors, in contrast, came across as a bunch of pouting rich kids with a sense of entitlement and little in the way of an intellectual argument. Speaking from personal experience, civil disobedience also requires that those who choose to act unlawfully accept the consequences of their actions, regardless of whether those actions are justified of not. I think that if the protestors truly believe in what they did, they should own up to their actions and accept the consequences. Yet, all in all, I think the stunt was a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of things. I hope for and expect a relatively mild punishment. My one piece of aspiring protestors for next time: write the op-ed before you make your “statement” and get arrested.
