Question about CD as practiced by Soulforce

[Diane Vera]

First, I should state that I do not have a moral objection to nonviolent civil disobedience to counter a school's oppressive policies. If CD is getting positive results, and if there is no better way to reach a comparable number of students, faculty, and administrators at a particular school, then hats off to the Equality Riders for their courage.

However, I do have a question on how Soulforce goes about deciding whether CD is necessary in order to reach the students, faculty, and administrators at a particular school.

Are such factors as the physical layout of the campus taken into consideration?

For example, if the campus is a single, isolated, self-contained geographical unit, with no public roads running through it, and if most of the students live on-campus and rarely venture off-campus, then I can see how it would indeed be necessary to trespass on school property in order to reach the students, if permission to go on campus has not been granted.

On the other hand, suppose that the campus is in two or more parts separated by public roads which many of the students cross daily, and/or suppose that many of the students live off-campus. In these cases, would it ever be necessary for the Equality Riders to go on campus at all? Would it not be sufficient to set up tables just outside the gates (positioned so as to avoid blocking traffic or breaking any other law)? Indeed, it seems to me that it would be possible to reach even more students, faculty, and administrators in this entirely legal manner, because, by not getting arrested, the ERiders could stay there longer. (If the ERiders do get arrested for setting up a table just outside the gates next to a public road, this could be contested as a violation of the ERiders' First Amendment Rights.)

Do considerations like the above figure into Soulforce's decisions on tactics in particular instances? If so, I'll be glad to hear it. If not, then I would like to suggest that they be taken into account, in the interests of both maximizing effectiveness (or so it would seem to me, at least) and keeping law-breaking to a minimum. But I also realize that my own estimation of what would be most effective in particular instances may be mistaken, given that Soulforce has had much more experience than I in this kind of activism.

In any case, I applaud Soulforce's efforts to challenge religion-based bigotry at the institutions which promulgate it.

[revtj]

You raise some good questions and I have been asked these questions by a lot of people who also state that they support what Soulforce ERiders are doing but question if it's the best method. Some have even asked me if it's not counter-productive to our cause.

People opposed to what Soulforce stands for have also accused me of being a part of a group of attention-seeking whiners who just want to get media attention and have fun stirring things up. (That's a nice way of putting some of the things they've said!)

I think that the schools that have actually shown hospitality and listened to the SF ERiders are the ones who benefit the most from this action. What is happening inside these christian colleges is that only one side of the story is being told and no other point of view is tolerated. For the gay student who is attending (I was one myself once) this is an injustice, spiritual violence. For the rest of the student body it is forced ignorance and brainwashing.

The goal of the Equality Rides as I understand it is CONVERSATION. If the schools choose arresting Riders over conversation then that is highlighting their choice to teach misinformation about LGBT people and to do spiritual violence against them within their academic & religious communities.

It is messy to do justice work. You can't subtract human egos from activism. I look back on the group ACT UP from the 80s and I remember thinking they were nuts, carrying things too far, giving us gays a bad name.

Now it is clear ACT UP got the pharmaceutical industry to change their ways--all by handcuffing themselves to the NY Stock Exchange and unfurling a banner that read, "SELL BURROUGHS WELLCOME!" It embarrassed the hell out of them and exposed their greed. Within a year, drugs were affordable for a LOT more sick people.

I think the Soulforce Equality Rides will look like this in retrospect 20 years from now. The faculty, students, administration, alumni and communities will never forget Soulforce's visits. It will definitely influence how they approach the 'gay and christian' subjects in the future.

[Diane Vera]

You raise some good questions and I have been asked these questions by a lot of people who also state that they support what Soulforce ERiders are doing but question if it's the best method.

I think that what Soulforce is doing may well be the best method in at least some instances. I'm just wondering how flexible Soulforce is in considering different tactics for differents schools, taking into account other factors besides just the question of whether the administration has chosen to allow them on campus. Also, it seems to me that there is an advantage to varying one's tactics, for the sake of catching one's enemies off-guard, if nothing else.

[revtj]

I would like for Mel or Jeff to or one of the SF ER planners to field this question...I think these are very good strategic questions...

[Diane Vera]

People opposed to what Soulforce stands for have also accused me of being a part of a group of attention-seeking whiners who just want to get media attention and have fun stirring things up. (That's a nice way of putting some of the things they've said!)

Nothing wrong with seeking media attention -- the lifeblood of any political movement. And that, to me, seems like yet another good reason to vary one's tactics. It seems to me that the media would be more likely to pay more attention to dramatic new tactics than to the same old tactics that a given organization has used a zillion times before. (My suggestion of tabling outside the gates of some campuses could be made more dramatic and eye-catching in various ways, such as using large helium balloons with original and catchy slogans on them.)

I think that the schools that have actually shown hospitality and listened to the SF ERiders are the ones who benefit the most from this action. What is happening inside these christian colleges is that only one side of the story is being told and no other point of view is tolerated. For the gay student who is attending (I was one myself once) this is an injustice, spiritual violence. For the rest of the student body it is forced ignorance and brainwashing.

Agreed. But what is the best way to reach the students with the other point of view? It seems to me that there isn't just one answer to this question. It seems to me that the best way to reach the students may vary quite a bit from school to school, depending not only on the school's policies and culture, but also on things like the school's physical layout.

[JacoBison]

Thanks for posting this question. This is a topic I would like to see discussed and I have touched on it in some of my other posts. Having met the Riders a few days ago and talked at length with the PR director at one of the colleges, there are definitely two sides to the story.

I think it comes down to the old debate in activism and protesting of whether you take baby steps and don't push the opposition to do more than they are ready for vs. being more absolute in your convictions.

Some of the media coverage does lead readers to believe that the arrests are more of a publicity stunt than an attempt at conversing with students.

I have not yet formed a conclusive opinion on this, but I will state the obvious: by getting arrested, the ERiders of course lose the opportunity to meet students. You can't have a dialog with them if you are sitting in jail.

[andrewlittle]

... well, after I make some observations.

Observations first, okay?

1. The E-Ride has been planned for months, if not longer, and a great deal of effort has gone into setting a direction and process to pursue. The E-Riders, being mostly but not exclusively young people, are taking courageous steps to actively protest the state of political, theological and social roadblocks for GLBT folks.

2. Not everyone agrees with this strategy, and some disagree quite strenuousy. I feel pretty comfortable making this statement.

3. Self-examination and self-critical assessments are essential to any process of virtually any kind. These can be done throughout the process by those who are engaged in it.

4. External examination and critique are also essential to understanding the outcomes. In a long-range, long-term process, this external criticism (as in reflective and informed analysis) is helpful during the process. It is very difficult, however, in any intense short-term process to be criticized by those who are not actively engaged in it. In short, it can feel like sabotage - even when that isn't the case (and I do not believe it is the case, BTW). Short-term, intense programs like this take a tremendous emotional toll on the participants, and adding the further baggage of criticism during the process can be emotionally damaging.

5. When people who appreciate the committment, courage and sacrifice, which these young people have made, hear criticism of the program while the program is in full swing, defensive emotions are going to be raised, and the reaction will be inescapably laced with defensive posturing for the E-Riders.

Suggestion.

I think the most critical issue here is one of timing. It's not that critical review is wrong, it may just that timing may be off.

It is natural to want to dissect a process while it is being played out, but no matter how much conversation occurs the plan is set and is in motion. If we treat this strategy as a long-term "solution", it deserves critical assessment and re-examination - after this round is completed.

I think we should feel free to discuss future strategies, but the discussion of the E-Ride which is in full swing NOW is going to end up with a lot of emotion attached.

Can we discuss future strategies now, but leave doing the post-mortem on the E-Ride until after this round is done?

This is a ridiculous comparison, but here I go anyway. I would welcome a (medical) post mortem after I was dead (okay, I said it was ridiculous), but I would certainly resist it if I weren't dead yet. If someone wanted to post mortem my loved one before they were dead, however, well then I'd be coming out with guns blaring. As stupid as it sounds, I think that is what has been happening. No matter how you say it, criticizing the E-Ride now sounds like attacking the E-Riders (even when it isn't) - especially to those who are more familiar with their sacrifice of time and energy. I think this is a normal reaction.

I think it is kinder and much more considerate of those who have poured body and soul into the E-Ride effort to wait until it is done before casting aspersions on the strategy and questioning their tactics. After that time, a post mortem would very likely help establish a startegy for the next one - perhaps considerably different, perhaps a little different, perhaps exactly the same - but the process would have benefitted from a critical review nonetheless.

[kara speltz]

Thanks for posting this question. This is a topic I would like to see discussed and I have touched on it in some of my other posts. Having met the Riders a few days ago and talked at length with the PR director at one of the colleges, there are definitely two sides to the story.

I think it comes down to the old debate in activism and protesting of whether you take baby steps and don't push the opposition to do more than they are ready for vs. being more absolute in your convictions.

Some of the media coverage does lead readers to believe that the arrests are more of a publicity stunt than an attempt at conversing with students.

I have not yet formed a conclusive opinion on this, but I will state the obvious: by getting arrested, the ERiders of course lose the opportunity to meet students. You can't have a dialog with them if you are sitting in jail.

There is a reason why the media coverage makes it sound like this is a publicity stunt and that is because they have no idea (for the most part) what this oppression feels like. They sit in judgment with their heterosexual privelege (which they are totally unaware of) and don't understand why the slaves aren't happy. It is important to understand that aspect of media coverage. It definately has a bias, and for the most part that bias is not toward our struggle.

As for your last point, Jacob, you fail to comprehend that not everyone ever gets arrested at one place. They have worked it out so that a few people take the risk of arrest and the rest stay around to be there for the students to talk to. So communication does continue. If you were reading the blogs on a regular basis, you'd see that.

The Riders are trying to help people understand the effects of bigotry, and they are doing an excellent job. They are taking risks that 90% of the folks on this forum would be afraid to take. We need to be keeping them in prayer 24/7 and spending some time looking inward about our own commitment to change.

kara

[Diane Vera]

There is a reason why the media coverage makes it sound like this is a publicity stunt and that is because they have no idea (for the most part) what this oppression feels like. They sit in judgment with their heterosexual privelege (which they are totally unaware of) and don't understand why the slaves are happy.

You must have meant, "why the slaves aren't happy."

It is important to understand that aspect of media coverage. It definately has a bias, and for the most part that bias is not toward our struggle.

Yep, and I think we should try to be prepared to correct the erroneous impressions that people may have based on media coverage.

As for your last point, Jacob, you fail to comprehend that not everyone ever gets arrested at one place. They have worked it out so that a few people take the risk of arrest and the rest stay around to be there for the students to talk to.

Where do the rest of them stay around, in most cases? Just outside the campus near the main gate?

So communication does continue.

I'm glad to hear this. Thanks for explaining this.

The Riders are trying to help people understand the effects of bigotry, and they are doing an excellent job. They are taking risks that 90% of the folks on this forum would be afraid to take.

Indeed they are.

[u-dog]

Yes. I said it. Andy is right. We need to declare a moratorium on critiqueing the current ride until the E-riders are finished with their action. If people want to have conversations and debates on "non-violent strategies in general... fine. But while the Riders are in the field this needs to be a place that supports them 100 percent.

Dave

[andrewlittle]

Yes. I said it. Andy is right. Dave

Dave, you said I'm right - again. I must be doing something wrong.

Okay everyone - don't panic. Just put your heads between you legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

[kara speltz]

Yes. I said it. Andy is right. We need to declare a moratorium on critiqueing the current ride until the E-riders are finished with their action. If people want to have conversations and debates on "non-violent strategies in general... fine. But while the Riders are in the field this needs to be a place that supports them 100 percent.

Dave

Actually I don't agree. Sorry Dave & Andy:disagree: . If the Riders had time to check the forum, it would be a different situation. But I can tell you that no one on the West bus has had time to do that, and the East bus is facing huge challenges, so I suspect that no one on the East bus is either. But I do agree that people need to be respectful towards these young courageous Riders and remember that Gandhi said it was better to intervene even violently in an injustice then to sit back and say there's nothing we can do.

Kara

[Diane Vera]

Yes. I said it. Andy is right. We need to declare a moratorium on critiqueing the current ride until the E-riders are finished with their action. If people want to have conversations and debates on "non-violent strategies in general... fine. But while the Riders are in the field this needs to be a place that supports them 100 percent.

Makes perfect sense. However, may I suggest that the above rule be applied to all parts of the board except for one designated sub-forum? After all, while the Ride is in progress is precisely the time when this board is most likely to get visitors from the colleges that have been visited by the ERiders. And some of those visitors will inevitably have mixed feelings (JacoBison being a good example). So, it would be desirable if there were a sub-forum where those visitors could go and voice their feelings, both positive and negative, without offending those people who have a need not to run into any critiques of the ERide. So, I would like to propose that a new sub-forum be created for that purpose.

[andrewlittle]

My comments above where not meant to suggest instituting some kind of legislated or moderated moratorium, just to make a suggestion about how best we go about having these discussions.

I'm not much for rule-based enforced niceness, so I am just suggesting that some specific critiques of E-Riders may be best voluntarily withheld until after the ride is done. If this doesn't occur, there will likely be emotional engagement.

[Diane Vera]

I'm not much for rule-based enforced niceness

In my experience as an owner and moderator of other forums, "rule-based enforced niceness" can work quite well, provided that there are sufficient safety valves, such as requiring it in some sub-forums but not in others.

[Daniel]

Forgive me for banging on my little drum regarding the notion of Right Speech which I posted on the "Morality....etc" thread in reply to this topic of discussion. Rules, or no rules, sub-catagories or not, the concept of Right Speech may seems a bit archane (the Buddhist connection expecially), but I believe it has practical value if one looks closely enough to appreciate it.

I hope we will not forget that the roots of nonviolence do not simply originate in Christian perspectives and practices. King looked to Ghandi, and Gandhi developed his ideas from more than one philosophical/religious perspective.

At the age of 18 on September 4 1888, Gandhi went to University College London to train as a barrister. His time in London, the Imperial capital, was influenced by a vow he had made to his mother in the presence of the Jain monk Becharji, upon leaving India, to observe the Hindu precepts of abstinence from meat, alcohol, and promiscuity. Although Gandhi experimented with adopting "English" customs – taking dancing lessons for example – he could not stomach his landlady's mutton and cabbage. She pointed him towards one of London's few vegetarian restaurants. Rather than simply go along with his mother's wishes, he read about, and intellectually embraced vegetarianism. He joined the Vegetarian Society, was elected to its executive committee, and founded a local chapter. He later credited this with giving him valuable experience in organizing institutions. Some of the vegetarians he met were members of the Theosophical Society, which had been founded in 1875 to further universal brotherhood, and which was devoted to the study of Buddhist and Hindu Brahmanistic literature. They encouraged Gandhi to read the Bhagavad Gita. Not having shown a particular interest in religion before, he read works of and about Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and other religions. He returned to India after being admitted to the bar of England and Wales, but had limited success .