As the protests over unprecedented violence by the Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement surge in Minneapolis, it’s timely to ask whether political protests matter in changing policy.
You may recall our protest at Dickinson in the Fall of 1966 caused the administration to revise the process for selecting architects and better oversight of design decisions for the campus. Only one day of protest and a few meetings with Rubendall changes the process that continues to the current time.
Nicely argued and I largely concur with your assessments and conclusions. As a prolific Vietnam war protester, I'm acutely aware now that we were alienating at least half of the country, though at least some of that alienation should be attributed to the Weathermen and other radicals using violent means (i.e., the University of Wisconsin bombing) to express their opposition.
This leads me to ask a slightly different question. Would the outcomes of these events have been different if there had been no protests? To be sure, one can't prove a negative, but I would suggest that despite the limited effects of the current protests in Minneapolis and other places, the situation would be much worse with an unleashed Gestapo force on our streets. As to Vietnam, I still conclude that the protests and Congressional action constrained Nixon and shortened the war.
Yeah, impossible to know the outcome if something didn't happen. Although not part of a protest, I did speculate in a Pancake a few years ago ("The dog that doesn't bark") about what would have happened if the junior police officers or some bystanders had pulled Derek Chauvin off George Floyd before he died. So what would be the outcome if the people of Minneapolis or Chicago remained docile? Quien sabe?, though I doubt the deportation efforts would have eased up. Similarly, what has and still might change as a result of two protesters, Pretti and Good, being murdered on video. So long as protests remain peaceful, there is little downside--no effect-- and potential upside.
You may recall our protest at Dickinson in the Fall of 1966 caused the administration to revise the process for selecting architects and better oversight of design decisions for the campus. Only one day of protest and a few meetings with Rubendall changes the process that continues to the current time.
Wouldn't reinforce the finding that protests can be more immediately effective at the local level--hyperlocal in your example? It made a difference.
Hi,
Nicely argued and I largely concur with your assessments and conclusions. As a prolific Vietnam war protester, I'm acutely aware now that we were alienating at least half of the country, though at least some of that alienation should be attributed to the Weathermen and other radicals using violent means (i.e., the University of Wisconsin bombing) to express their opposition.
This leads me to ask a slightly different question. Would the outcomes of these events have been different if there had been no protests? To be sure, one can't prove a negative, but I would suggest that despite the limited effects of the current protests in Minneapolis and other places, the situation would be much worse with an unleashed Gestapo force on our streets. As to Vietnam, I still conclude that the protests and Congressional action constrained Nixon and shortened the war.
Yeah, impossible to know the outcome if something didn't happen. Although not part of a protest, I did speculate in a Pancake a few years ago ("The dog that doesn't bark") about what would have happened if the junior police officers or some bystanders had pulled Derek Chauvin off George Floyd before he died. So what would be the outcome if the people of Minneapolis or Chicago remained docile? Quien sabe?, though I doubt the deportation efforts would have eased up. Similarly, what has and still might change as a result of two protesters, Pretti and Good, being murdered on video. So long as protests remain peaceful, there is little downside--no effect-- and potential upside.