is protest dead?

a few weeks ago some friends and i quickly organized a protest and boycott-- not in response to the ocean-qway human rights violations we're usually protesting-- but because of a bread-and-butter scandal affecting our university that's gotten lots of coverage in our local press.

the day before, most of the people we handed fliers to in the breezeway were familiar with the issue.

this was a welcome change from darfur activism. it felt empowering to be part of a movement that had palpable potential to cause change. and this change could, for once, be immediate. no UN resolutions necessary.

but then...no one came to the protest, aside from the core organizers and our friends. There were more press than people, their cameras' clicks sometimes louder than our improvised chants. In stead of participating, my fellow students at my commuter school gawked at us in the hallway, framing cell phone photos, and edging by us to slip coins into the vending machines we told them them to boycott.

needless to say, this poorly attended press-spectacle was a bit of an embarassment fo me, one of its organizers. i replayed the past few days in my head looking for mistakes, but could find none: we had publicized efficiently and thoroughly; we had sent mass e-mails and made masses of photocopies; we had garnered the attention of every press outlet in the area.

and yet somehow our protest had alienated the people we had hoped most to inspire: the students of our school.

this led me to question the very nature of protests in general. Do they alienate people who aren't activists, people not used to yelling at causes?



the rebellious romantic in me mourns this. sure phonecalls can be effective but they aren't as adrenaline-rush-inspiring as picketing and marching and sitting-in. In my mind, if activism were a big university, protesting would be its football-- the thing everyone celebrates and cheers at and contests.

(no offense to any sports fans here,) but, like football, is protesting just a big fun spectacle or does it actually get stuff done? And the even more unnerving question i keep asking myself is if we are just alienating potential activists by being so..."in your face" about causes? or would we be defiling the nature and legacy of activism if we got out of everyone's face?

in short, is protest dead?

I just spent the two days at Campus Camp Wellstone, an awesome student activist training camp that teaches the grassroots organizing strategies of Paul Wellstone (the coolest senator ever) and I am pumped to start using what I learned! The camp is geared toward political activists tackling a range of issues from Electoral College reform to the Obama campaign to fair trade to Darfur and focuses on running an effective campaign and effective community organizing. We spent a lot of time talking about the message of a campaign. The message is essentially what we want our audience to know. How do we build an effective message? How do we convey it to our voters or audience? I told one of the trainers afterward that I had found what we had learned helpful, but I still wasn't sure how to apply it to my work with STAND. I said that I do not think that "End genocide" or "Save Darfur" are good messages--although they are useful slogans for conveying our larger, long-term goal--because they are too vague and, let's face it, ending genocide sounds pretty unattainable.
"Well, what is it that you want students to get out of your message?" he asked.
"I guess we want them to see that yes, this is a huge issue, and very complex, but they really can make a difference," I answered, thinking out loud.
"Exactly," he said. "Action is your message. Tell them that by writing this letter or signing this postcard, they can have a tangible impact on ending the genocide."
The message that students can have an impact on state government and foreign policy is central to increasing the level of student advocacy to save Darfur, which Elizabeth blogged about a few weeks ago.

So, how am I going to use this newly-created message? On Thursday, the University of Minnesota STAND will table, but we'll do it differently than we've ever done before. We'll stand in front of the table instead of just sitting behind it, so we better actively engage in our unsuspecting advocates, and tell them they can make a difference, they can end genocide, by writing to their representatives in the Minnesota legislature, who need a little encouragement before they vote to divest Sudan.

Scholarship as Advocacy and Activism

We don't usually think of the Ivory Tower as a catalyst for change. One rarely hopes to effect action through doctoral theses and journal articles. But a session at last month's Genocide Prevention Advanced Leadership Summit at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum got me thinking. Entitled "Scholarship as Activism," and led by Scott Strauss, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the session emphasized the easily overlooked role academics play in genocide and human rights advocacy. It is safe to say, for example, that Professor Strauss's 2005 article on Darfur in the journal Foreign Affairs reaches far more policymakers than my blog entries. Furthermore, the big take-away from the session was that human rights and genocide studies will remain "fuzzy subjects" only so long as talented, dedicated people ignore them. So my thought for the day/week is this: academic work can never replace phone-ins or rallies, letter-writing or meeting with Congressmen. But getting a Ph.D. and writing in journals doesn't mean you can't make a big difference in advancing the genocide prevention and human rights agenda among policymakers, intellectuals, and the public at large. A few programs in this area, if anyone's interested (they're on my Bookmarked list):

Yale University Genocide Studies Center
University of Minnesota Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies
Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy