| | In class today, I was reminded of Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (available here for those who have not read it before: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html), which I read at the beginning of last semester in conjunction with Walker v. City of Birmingham for the first assignment for Civil Procedure. In Walker, the Supreme Court upheld contempt charges against protesters who disregarded an injunction preventing them from gathering to march or conduct civil rights demonstrations without a permit. The protesters, believing that the injunction was unconstitutional, disregarded it so that they could hold long-planned demonstrations on Good Friday. The court's holding evinces the concern for stability and order that some were alluding to in class today. It suggested that individuals who seek to challenge a law they believe to be unjust must do through the procedure of the courts; challenging an unjust law by disobeying it is not socially acceptable.
King's letter takes a pointedly different view. I would encourage everyone to read it who has not already done so because I would do a disservice in trying to paraphrase, but the main premise is that there is a difference between unjust laws (any law that degrades human personality, any law that the numerical majority compels the minority to follow but does not follow itself, a law out of harmony with moral, natural, or eternal law, any law that is inflicted on a group denied political representation) and just laws (any law that uplifts human personality, that the majority follows, that is in harmony with moral, natural or eternal law). One has a "moral responsibility," King says, to disobey unjust laws. He further states that "one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty...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." | | | -- ManuelLorenzo - 29 Feb 2012
Like Daniel, I have a little bit of trouble figuring out how to think about John Brown's violence and means to his ends. Ultimately, there are some things (like slavery) that it's easy for us to call extremely morally wrong. And so looking at Brown's actions as struggle for a moral and objectively right cause, where there was no effective internal political process to make changes in a nonviolent way, I agree with Thoreau's speech and find Brown to be inspiring and valiant. However, there are things that are less objectively moral, and means that are going to be less objectively reasonable. Can we really let one man be the judge and jury of what morality in our society is? As brave and inspiring as we can call Brown's actions now, I still have a hard time saying that we shouldn't still punish someone in his position. He can be judged through the court of public opinion and history, and through that medium his message can be heard and the social change he sought can be effected. It seems to me any "radical" operating outside the confines of the system to such an extreme extent (involving killing) still needs to be dealt with through the system and that the positive effects of their actions occur after/separate from these system-specific consequences. I admire Mr. Brown a great deal and support his actions completely. But I can't justify giving so much power to one man, and so in such circumstances I don't think punishment should be withheld just because the actor is in the right. | |
>
> | --Main.JohnBarker - 29 Feb 2012
I wanted to revisit this thread to add Sandra Fluke into the mix and see how the conversation in class today might have influenced people's ideas about acceptable and effective types of social action. My reading of the posts over the past week and class discussion is that two initial issues that arise if you accept the premise that we, as people and as aspiring lawyers, have a moral obligation to act against injustice: the first issue is whether there is a universal understanding of what makes a law or social regime unjust such that action is warranted; the second is how then we ought to act to do justice. Assume that Dr. King's definition of an unjust law (I referenced it in the first post) is sufficient as an answer to the first issue. I recognize that it probably is not and that we would want to work toward a more comprehensive or clearer understanding of what he means. This is a conversation I would be interested in having but I am trying to avoid here for brevity's sake. The more interesting question to me presently is the "then what," or what it then means to do act to do justice.
I am frustrated because I don't feel like I understand what doing justice actually means in a tangible way (I have been fixating on this to avoid the thornier question of courage, but I doubt I can avoid that for much longer). Like Daniel and John, I'm broadly uncomfortable with the concept of violent action to counter injustice, but I recognize it has a place where the state is marshaling violence as part of policy to keep its people in a state of oppression. Slavery is obvious example, but so are present conditions in Syria, and, I would argue, China's actions in Tibet. A hundred or so "Free Tibet" concerts have not, in fact, served to do so. But violence is probably not an acceptable response to a particular act of legislative injustice - for example, Arizona's SB 1070, which sanctions racism and which I feel strongly is an unjust law by any definition, or a piece of legislation that allows a group of employers to systematically deny women access to contraceptives (getting around another piece of legislation which would have required all employers to include it in their coverage), which is what Ms. Fluke was testifying about that led Limbaugh to call her a "slut" and a "prostitute." I'm skeptical about the responsiveness of the political system to those of us without SuperPACs? and I'm skeptical that politicians care about what is right when they have reelection, fundraising, and the party line to be concerned about. Another option is organizing a social uprising, like an Occupy Wall Street or a Tahrir Square. Those types movements can be successful, particularly if they leverage new platforms to communicate information about goals and strategy as Kirill mentioned, but they require sustained energy and street-level passion. They also fail, it seems, more frequently than not: they loose focus or aren't focused enough; they get co-opted and branded; they fall prey to city zoning and a populace that wants fewer bongo-playing sessions at 3 a.m. or is content with stability at whatever cost or is scared of retribution. Then there are the courts. I would be redundant of Holmes and Cohen to spend time evaluating their shortcomings. You can also go after the money, which is what the people who are trying to get advertisers to pull out of Limbaugh's show are working at. That might eventually limit the potential audience of a misogynistic megalomaniac and would strike a moral tone of correctness (the evildoer getting his comeuppance), but it doesn't clearly translate to getting women access to health necessities - to the justice need.
So my question remains - even if you have the courage, then what?
-- JessicaWirth - 06 Mar 2012 |
|