Fighting Violence by Sitting In

Protests are a nuisance, often disrupting traffic, waking people from their drunken slumbers, and rarely achieving their immediate goals. But they do achieve a very important one: They raise awareness about violence in the world and offer a nonviolent solution.

On Tuesday April 10th two lawyers, immediately followed by 13 students carrying rations for three days, walked into the reception room of President Steven B Sample of the University of Southern California’s office. Prevented from going any further, the students put their stuff down and began to chant, “USC, sweat-free.” The students refused to leave until President Sample signed on to either the Designated Supplier Program or the Workers Rights Consortium, independent factory monitoring agencies.

The DSP and WRC ensure that factories give the people working there basic human rights such as living wages, reasonable hours, a harassment-free environment, breaks during the day, and perhaps most important, the right to unionize. Currently, USC is signed on to the FLA, the Fair Labor Association. However, this organization is a self-policing organization. That means the people on the FLA board are the same people who run the companies that the FLA monitors. That is the definition of a conflict of interest.

After six hours the protesters did not win their campaign. The vice president of student affairs, Michael Jackson, threatened all twelve students, (one was lost because an officer refused to let her return after a bathroom break had been negotiated) with immediate suspension.

Although the protesters did not achieve their goals, they did raise awareness of violence against women and children and provided a non-violent solution. Over 100 supporters rallied around the building, chanting, beating drums, calling for President Sample to “prove his creed” and not give in to “corporate greed.” Students who were onlookers became participants. Participants became hopeful, full of energy, believers in civil disobedience.

The gathering grew. The Los Angeles Police Department came to be sure no violence would break out. As the spectacle grew, a modest sit-in became news worthy. The student’s cell phones rang; the press was on the other end.

The next day the protest headlined the Daily Trojan. The story was picked up by the LA Times, Daily News, CBS, Associated Press and several other publications and including many blogs. Students, faculty, parents, universities, unionized factories in China and Indonesia flooded the administration with phone calls urging President Sample to adopt the DSP.

That is the success of civil disobedience. With a relatively minor infraction, only a few students managed to have their voices heard by hundreds of thousands of people. If only a few more were inspired, it could spark another protest, and so on, and awareness spreads without the use of violence.

Others argue that non-violent protest does not amount to any change. The only change, they say, is the hassle the protestors create for other students for that day. To those who argue that students should not have broken school rules, I say look up the meaning of civil disobedience. Look at the history of civil disobedience. African Americans did not achieve equal rights laws in even a matter of years. They are citizens of this country and it took decades and countless demonstrations. Still they face structural discrimination not more then a mile from the protest.

Eventually achieving labor rights for the third world may be he ultimate goal, but it cannot be achieved by one sweeping move. This protest, as I said, may be the inspiration for future demonstrations, and perhaps after years of building awareness, things will change. It requires great foresight, and great sacrifice.

Gandhi writes, “Violence is a tool for the weak, nonviolence a tool for the strong.” Violence isn’t always overt. It isn’t always guns pointed at people, bullets flying, and buildings being bombed.

I tell you this story because these students recognized that there is structural violence. Violence embedded in the structure of the global capitalist economy, yet masked by popular trends. Subjecting women to harassment is violence. Forcing children to sew clothes in lieu of education (so colleges can slap their logo on them and sell to their students) is violence.

And here we have students who could have taken the easy way out. They could wear the sweatshirts to fit in during football games or because they were on sale and looked cute or cool. But instead, these students chose the road less traveled; embarking on a journey to stand up for basic human rights and for women’s rights; standing up to their university.