Opinions

Op-Ed: Appreciation of direct action requires contextualization

In print | November 19, 2009

We would like to preface the following by emphasizing that we do believe in the political power of direct action and civil disobedience, and we commend the members of the heath care action group for their hard work and initiative to act for change.

However, in light of George Lakey’s editorial, we realize that the dialogue around the recent health care direct action reflects the lack of comprehensive understanding of privilege and political action on this campus. We find that Lakey’s analysis omits the dynamics of privilege that plays into who can and cannot participate in civil disobedience and what constitutes meaningful action on this campus.

Race, class, nationality, physical ability, perceived sexuality, gender presentation/identity and state loan status all play into who is able to participate in direct action safely.

There is also something troubling about George Lakey’s invocation of the Civil Rights Movement. To assert that the action carried out by the Swarthmore students is in some way a continuation of the Civil Rights Movement is problematic at best. All of the students from Swarthmore were white, and the nature of this action is different than sit-ins conducted during America’s period of segregation, where basic rights of movement were being monitored and racialized. The Civil Rights Movement is not a finite narrative. People of color still face oppression in this country, including brutalization by the law enforcement and prison systems, and unequal access to education and health care.

The way these issues converge in this action highlights insensitivity to the issue of what it means for a group of students to be in jail. What is their responsibility to those in jail who were not arrested for civil disobedience? People who do not have the protection most Swarthmore students have? There are also dynamics of privilege at play in the prison system. The way in which the health care action has been talked about pushes aside the very real traumas and injustice of our prison system. Who can choose to go to prison and walk out 17 hours later with no charges, and who has simply no choice in the matter at all?

We are also troubled by the narrative proliferated around the action, one which turns nine Swarthmore students into heroes, implying that they went through with the action because they care more than others. However, as was mentioned before, different individuals have different things at stake when considering an action such as this.
Race, class, perceived sexuality and gender identity and able-bodiedness are just a few factors that determine who can get “arrested for a cause” and who simply cannot take that risk.

All of this said, we would like to reiterate that we do not feel that the action should not have happened, rather that there should have been more of an attempt to create open dialogue beforehand and thoughtful narrative afterwards that does not label those students unable to participate as “unpolitical” or “passive.” Health care is an important issue, especially for those marginalized groups mentioned above, which is why it is important to build such a vital movement in a way that is inclusive.

We invite members of the Swarth-more community to engage in critical and open communication about the ways in which privilege can be leveraged for change in a thoughtful manner. We hope that in the future, different communities can come together in our efforts to create true change in this society of ours.

Amelia Mitter-Burke ’12
Hilary Pomerantz ’12
Lauren Ramanathan ’11