As many as 100 students and faculty members turned out on Monday afternoon to show solidarity with 12 protesters facing as many as 21 misdemeanor charges, up to 11 years in prison, and restitution fines up to one million dollars for their activities relating to the blocking of a US bank building from January into early March.
On Friday, 12 of them will be arraigned in Yolo County Superior Court. On Monday they rallied, asking the chancellor and the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office to drop the charges. Students and others were signing the letters during the course of the event.

“Starting about 2009, various members of the UC Community started to mobilize to oppose the privatization of the university and the resulting budget cuts and fee increases,” one of the organizers said during her opening comments. “The administration discovered that using violence to combat this dissent was really not going to work – that was clearly evidenced by the international outcry over the beating of students at Berkeley November 9 and of course the pepper spray incident here at UC Davis.”
“So now that they know that violence is not a viable or acceptable tactic, they’ve really turned to litigation to suppress dissent on campus,” she continued. “The result of this is that a great deal of public resources are being wasted to criminalize dissent and these are resources that theoretically could have been spent on public education.”
Muneeza Rizvi read a statement on behalf of friends of the Davis Dozen.
“With the release of the Reynoso report, the world was told what we already knew, there was no legal basis for the suppression of Occupy UC Davis at all,” she read. “The administration with the harsh paternalism that demands absolute control and the fear of resistance that demands silence and stillness did not ask whether a law had been broken that November, but asked what laws could be used to halt our dissent.”
“The events in November were a disgusting example of police misconduct, but really there’s no proper way to stop dissent,” she continued. “As images of Lt. Pike shot across the globe it became belatedly clear to the administration that pepper spraying seated students was not a good way to diffuse resistance.”
She charged that, since then, their movement has been continually monitored and spied on.
“Now 12 people, half of them students that were pepper sprayed in November, are being charged with conspiracy and facing 11 years in jail. They are accused of doing exactly the same thing as those students that were pepper sprayed – sitting in the wrong place,” Ms. Rizvi said. “One of those 12 was recently dismissed and only reinstated after the backlash of an angry sit in and the intercession of his lawyer.”
“The frantic need to stop this dissent drives this action no less than the physical need for repression in November,” she added. “These charges are an abuse of the legal system and a waste of our county’s already limited resources.”
Noha Radwan, an assistant professor of Arabic and Comparative Literature spoke spoke, saying, “I’m very proud of the Banker’s Dozen. I wish I could take credit for having taught them a little bit of what they expressed by their action – to not bow down in the face of power, to speak the truth and to speak their mind and to risk themselves and their careers in doing so.”
She said that when she thinks of the UC Davis Administration, she continually thinks of Shakespeare’s line from Hamlet – “There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark.” She said, “I think there’s something rotten in this whole logic not only the state of California but all of the United States of America.”
“On November 18 the administration ordered the police to go and remove the Occupied Encampment which resulted in the pepper spray of the students in the name of their safety – the administration was very concerned about protecting the female students in the Occupy from fictitious and imaginary predators who might rape the females in the Occupy Movement,” she spoke.
“But when it came time to actually defend the Occupy Movement who were closing the US Bank, they let them go free and left them to the predators who were not fictitious but very real – the US Bank and their support in the court system,” she added. No longer does the university want to protect and defend the students. Professor Radwan added, “The logic completely defies me.”
Professor Radwan argued this was not an action against the US Bank which could have taken place in downtown Davis at that branch and drawn the support of many sympathetic residents.
“The reason the opposition was staged here on campus is that it was also targeting the administration – the administration’s decision to give part of the university campus to the US Bank and claim that this was a neutral act that has nothing to do with the larger context of banking in the United States,” she added.
Scott Shershow, an English professor and Chair of the UC Davis Faculty Association, told the students and others that the DFA has voted to ask the administration to call for the dismissal of charges against the students.
He asked those listening to look around at the university, the buildings, all of which he said were “built out of nothing during the span of a single person’s lifetime and they did it as a gift to themselves and to us because they believed that everyone without exception deserves an education – a free public education.”
“As recently as when I was starting college it was almost free to attend the University of California and we are not going to stand by and allow this university to be sold off to the highest bidder now to become a luxury product confined to the sons and daughters of the rich and the privileged,” Professor Shershow added. “This is our university and we always have to remember that.”
He likened the administration to the proverbial dog that one’s parents says is more frightened of you than you are of it, “They are frightened of us.”
Sunaina Maira, an Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, called this one of the most historic struggles in recent UC Davis history.
“One of the things that really pains me is that you all are fighting for the right to education and yet we find so many people who want to distance themselves from the struggle not understanding that we are actually here for the students – this is a university,” she said. “As a faculty member… I believe I am here for students and if there are no students in classes, if they can’t afford to come here you will be driven out of the university – then what is the point of my having a job.”
“One of the things that disturbs me is how the discourse of higher education at a land grant university has been displaced by a discourse of law and order, of campus security, national security, and policing – this is not what the university is created for,” she added.
She said we have gone from a national security nation to a homeland security university. Professor Maira said, “We were Pepper Spray University on November 18 and now I think we’re Repression University.”
Natalia Kresich, a fifth year student, spoke of witnessing many changes during that short time span to UC Davis and higher education overall in California. Student fees when she arrived five years ago were around $8000 a year, and now they have nearly doubled to more than $15,000 per year.
Departments have been cut and entire majors have disappeared, she continued. “I waited in line for financial aid for hours and I had to fight hard to keep my financial aid when it was being taken away,” she said.
“I have seen administrative salaries increase again and again and again and again while our Women’s Resource Center is forced to cut its self-defense program,” she said.
Ms. Kresich spoke, “We have all been told to accept the fate of austerity. We have all heard the rhetoric that tells us that austerity is necessary. That ever-increasing fees and crippling debt are inevitable and normal. For years now we have heard them say there’s no funding, there’s no money; when we called them out on their privatization agenda they say in effect, there’s nothing to see here, take your concerns elsewhere – if they bother to respond at all.”
“There’s a lot of truth to the slogan we say, ‘Behind every fee increase is a line of riot police,’ ” she continued. “Privatization is an agenda and it is brutally enforced.”
She went on to say that for those who fight this repression it is enforced with pepper spray, shot with plastic bullets, jailed, harassed, dropped from classes or expelled from school.
“Or we wake up one morning and find out that the university has asked the county to file charges against us and will attempt to prosecute us to the fullest extent of the law,” she says.
She said that we had to wait for months to learn from a former Supreme Court Justice that the police action on November 18 was unjustified and completely criminal, and that the weapons that they used were illegal and that they were not even permitted to own them.
“The logical conclusion of these findings is that the chancellor should resign and that the UCPD should be disbanded immediately,” she added.
She added that there was no Reynoso report, however, to explore the new charges, which she argued are as repressive as those actions taken on November 18.
Nick Parone, representing UAW 2865, the union that represents graduate student assistants, represents 1600 students on the UC Davis campus and over 10,000 statewide. He spoke, giving an update on what the union was doing to support the Davis Dozen.
They unanimously voted to support the students and faculty being prosecuted and “as a union we’re actively encouraging everyone to get involved in any way possible.”
“This is very serious. The prosecution of students and faculty for peacefully opposing the privatization of the university sets a very dangerous precedent,” he said. “If we are not willing to allow students and faculty members to express dissent on campus then we must question whether or not this institution can truly be called public anymore.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
they create a crisis, they exacerbate the situation, they waste resources of the University and court system and they whine about how the funds could be better spent on education… at least we are all in agreement on that one.
Shakespeare had it right . . .
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3H6qcrvFQow/TvaG1sAS0rI/AAAAAAAAByE/v0sMLIrfgP4/s400/Much_Ado_About_Nothing(261110223618)Much_Ado_About_Nothing_4.jpg[/img]
Matt: At least if you are a 64 year old without kids in college?
[quote]”Starting about 2009, various members of the UC Community started to mobilize to oppose the privatization of the university and the resulting budget cuts and fee increases,” one of the organizers said during her opening comments. “The administration discovered that using violence to combat this dissent was really not going to work – that was clearly evidenced by the international outcry over the beating of students at Berkeley November 9 and of course the pepper spray incident here at UC Davis.”
“So now that they know that violence is not a viable or acceptable tactic, they’ve really turned to litigation to suppress dissent on campus,” she continued. “The result of this is that a great deal of public resources are being wasted to criminalize dissent and these are resources that theoretically could have been spent on public education.”[/quote]
1) The protestors dissent has not done a thing to stop the increase in tuition.
2) The protestors themselves caused the university to spend a boatload of money to quell the demonstrations, which began getting out of hand, and eventually led to a campus bank closure.
And you want to tell me these professors are not egging the protestors on? Trying to justify the closure of a campus bank branch? Insinuating the protestors acts were legal, and the acts of the university were illegal, when no such thing has been adjudicated…
[quote]Noha Radwan, an assistant professor of Arabic and Comparative Literature spoke spoke, saying, “I’m very proud of the Banker’s Dozen. I wish I could take credit for having taught them a little bit of what they expressed by their action – to not bow down in the face of power, to speak the truth and to speak their mind and to risk themselves and their careers in doing so.”
…”The reason the opposition was staged here on campus is that it was also targeting the administration – the administration’s decision to give part of the university campus to the US Bank and claim that this was a neutral act that has nothing to do with the larger context of banking in the United States,” she added.
…Sunaina Maira, an Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, called this one of the most historic struggles in recent UC Davis history…”One of the things that disturbs me is how the discourse of higher education at a land grant university has been displaced by a discourse of law and order, of campus security, national security, and policing – this is not what the university is created for,” she added.
Natalia Kresich, a fifth year student, spoke of witnessing many changes during that short time span to UC Davis and higher education overall in California…She said that we had to wait for months to learn from a former Supreme Court Justice that the police action on November 18 was unjustified and completely criminal, and that the weapons that they used were illegal and that they were not even permitted to own them. “The logical conclusion of these findings is that the chancellor should resign and that the UCPD should be disbanded immediately,” she added.
Nick Parone, representing UAW 2865, the union that represents graduate student assistants, represents 1600 students on the UC Davis campus and over 10,000 statewide…”This is very serious. The prosecution of students and faculty for peacefully opposing the privatization of the university sets a very dangerous precedent,” he said. “If we are not willing to allow students and faculty members to express dissent on campus then we must question whether or not this institution can truly be called public anymore.”[/quote]
“1) The protestors dissent has not done a thing to stop the increase in tuition.”
Do we know that? It was interesting that at the higher ed meeting where Katehi testified the subject quickly went to tuition. Tuition of course is only one part of this.
It is also worth noting that there is an increasing backlash both in the legislature and the Brown admin (also the Sec of Education Torlakson) against executive pay increases.
So I’m not sure you can say there is no impact, they’ve definitely raised the profile of the issue.
“2) The protestors themselves caused the university to spend a boatload of money to quell the demonstrations, which began getting out of hand, and eventually led to a campus bank closure.”
UCD already spent probably close to $1 million after their bungled efforts on November 18 and that is on them.
“And you want to tell me these professors are not egging the protestors on?”
Believing that the students’ cause is worthy and the administrative approach over the top seems like a thin reed for egging them on.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt: At least if you are a 64 year old without kids in college?”[/i]
David, I couldn’t disagree with you more. [i]How has the US Bank branch on the UCD campus contributed even one penny to the cost of having kids in college?[/i] If you can provide me even anecdotal evidence that supports that premise I will be very, very surprised. I look forward to hearing any examples you may have.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Tuition of course is only one part of this.”[/i]
David, what are the other parts? I can see Fees, and when I hear “Tuition” I actually think “Tuition and Fees.” What are the other parts and how do those parts relate to the US Bank branch on the campus?
Matt: The issue other than tutition and student loans that most vexes the students is privatization, the implementation of for profit and commercial tactics.
“Starting about 2009, various members of the UC Community started to mobilize to oppose the privatization of the university and the resulting budget cuts and fee increases,” one of the organizers said and privatization is at the core of these protests.
It’s hard for me to believe the District attorney is willing to stick out his already over extended neck any further by prosecuting these student protesters for a “crime” for which they were never arrested. If what they were doing was cause to charge 21 misdemeanors, resulting in as much as 11 years in prison and a million dollars in restitution, why were they not arrested on the spot?
I,m pretty sure that any reasonable jury will laugh the District Attorney out of court, furthering his already growing reputation as an overzealous bulldog, with no interest in justice, interested only in the furtherance of his own career at any cost to taxpayers and innocent citizens.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]Matt: The issue other than tutition and student loans that most vexes the students is privatization, the implementation of for profit and commercial tactics.
“Starting about 2009, various members of the UC Community started to mobilize to oppose the privatization of the university and the resulting budget cuts and fee increases,” one of the organizers said and privatization is at the core of these protests.[/i]
David, “privatization, the implementation of for profit and commercial tactics” brings me full circle back to the questions I posed in a prior thread. Why aren’t the protesters closing down the food service portions of UCD and why aren’t they closing down the dormitories?
What UCD has done is not “privatization” it is pure and simple outsourcing of functions that it is significantly more expensive to staff and deliver with internally generated resources. If UCD tried to run all its food facilities on campus itself, the total UCD budget would expand significantly, and the only way to balance that budget expansion would be to further increase the student fees. Similarly, if UCD tried to staff and run a bank on campus itself, the total UCD budget would again expand significantly, and the only way to balance that budget expansion would be to further increase the student fees.
Do you think UCD shouldn’t be trying to provide banking services on campus to its students? Is it inappropriate for UCD students to be requesting banking services on campus? Is it more appropriate to force UCD students to walk off campus in order to be able to access banking services?
Believing that the students’ cause is worthy and the administrative approach over the top seems like a thin reed for egging them on.
cut the crap. Nohas language is pretty specific…. cannot really be interpreted in two ways.
bockrath: did it ever occur to you that the DA, in the manner in which it is charging them, is hoping for a plea bargain?
As many as 100 students and faculty members turned out….
wow a hundred people! That is so not that many! and not worth losing sleep over!
“Why aren’t the protesters closing down the food service portions of UCD and why aren’t they closing down the dormitories?”
Probably because they don’t view them as the type of targets that will get them the kind of bang for their buck that focusing on the bank that put their logo on student cards and came to embody the new private-public partnership that the student protesters despised most.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Probably because they don’t view them as the type of targets that will get them the kind of bang for their buck that focusing on the bank that put their logo on student cards and came to embody the new private-public partnership that the student protesters despised most.”[/i]
What I hear you saying is that “theatrical impact” is driving the Occupy Movement in Davis. 1) they choose their targets based on the theatrical impact that actions against that target will produce, and 2) they object to the theatrical impact that placing a bank logo on their ID cards produced.
Is that a fair reading?
I think that is an element. In order to be effective, you have to pick your targets well in terms of impact, access, symbolism, etc. But if you are reading my point to suggest the lack of substance there, I disagree. You are talking about a multimillion private-public partnership. One that is largely a one-way benefit.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”You are talking about a multimillion private-public partnership. One that is largely a one-way benefit.”[/i]
You lost me in your statement above. The students benefit by having banking services on campus. The university benefits by getting an income stream that helps offset some of the costs of delivering educational services to the students. The bank benefits by adding additional accounts from students. How is that not a win-win-win equation that benefits all parties?
Do they benefit from having banking services on campus? There is a small degree of convenience that comes with having a bank on campus, but how much more convenience over an ATM these days it’s hard to know.
The primary benefactors are the university that gets their income and the bank who gets a plum deal with a few added accounts and their indecia on the ID card. It seems a very asymmetrically distributed benefit.
The whole thing reminds me of an episode of Daria, a deceptively complex cartoon that was able to make its points well with satire. A high school principal found herself short of cash and decided to go into a partnership with a fictitious soda company. She got her cash, but apparently failed to read the fine print and the amount of promotional rights it gave the soda company to them be able to commercialize the school with saturation advertising. In the end, they failed to make their quota and the principal compelled the students to consume the product. It was only when the football team, overloaded on soda had to forfeit their game and the principal “snapped” that everyone recognized the dangers of selling out.
It’s an overblown example, but I know if I were a student I would have resented the forced commercialization of what is supposed to be a public land grant university.
In the meantime, this move comes at the same time when tuition has risen and the burden of student loan debt has become more onerous.
I have been warning for some time that this is a generation that feels that their future has been imperiled and that the cost of higher education is rapidly moving away from the middle class. This has been brewing for some time.
[quote]they create a crisis, they exacerbate the situation, they waste resources of the University and court system and they whine about how the funds could be better spent on education… at least we are all in agreement on that one.[/quote]
This is the rare time when I agree with gunrock. Part of civil disobedience is facing up to the penalties, and frankly, this was a stupid protest which only hurts the University. I doubt they will serve any jail time but I think this kind of behavior needs to be punished. Its not like protesting in the quad .
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The primary benefactors are the university that gets their income and the bank who gets a plum deal with a few added accounts and their indecia on the ID card. It seems a very asymmetrically distributed benefit.”[/i]
But David, the income that the University gets is a pass-through that offsets an equal amount of education-delivery expense, and that means that student tuition and fees income doesn’t have to make up that amount of expense offset. The end result is lower tuition/fees for the students as a whole.
It doesn’t look like there were very many supporters there. Well under a hundred.
When 12 students (and faculty) can’t even get out 100 supporters out of 25,000 UC Davis students, that indicates they do not have the support of the campus community.
J.R. If there are only 100 supporters, it could very well mean that students and faculty are scared to come out. Now the DA has charged multiple misdemeanors and felonies at students that protested in the past to the tune of 11 years in jail.
Many people may support the protesters position, but are not willing to speak up or show up because they are worried about being arrested and given jail time.
This is the point David is trying to make. You can scare people into not talking out, but it doesn’t mean you have convinced them that your position is right. It is just an example of “might” over “right”.
“The end result is lower tuition/fees for the students as a whole.”
Last year they brought in like $160,000, so we would be talking about at most $5 a person at most if money is even getting to students.
Gunrock and Dr Wu
“they create a crisis”
While I do believe that the actions of the protesters have indeed cost the university money, it would appear that we have a fundamental difference of opinion about causation of the “crisis”.
I do not believe that the current protesters had anything at all to do with the under lying crisis which is not minimal damage to a university, or contributing to a bank branch closure, but rather the extreme increases in student costs to attend what is supposed to be a publicly funded university. The gutting of the “public”nature of the UC system is the real crisis that we will be paying for in terms of educational quality as a society.
My basis for saying this ? I have two children, one newly graduated and one in the process of attempting to transfer into UCB. I am seeing this directly in terms of higher costs paired with lower course offerings. Yes, for the individual trying to achieve their educational goals, this is a crisis, and it is not of their making.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
“Last year they brought in like $160,000, so we would be talking about at most $5 a person at most if money is even getting to students.”
David, why is the amount per student being small relevant? The fact is that passing through the $160,000 is a tangible dent in tuition. Why does removing this tangible effort to offset costs make things better?
David,
Thank you for the photos. How do you estimate that there were 100 to show solidarity? Is that the number of people:
a) Who spoke in support
b) Who held signs, or did other preparation in support
c) Who cheered at the speech
d) Who listened for more than 5 minutes
e) Who happen to be captured by the photograph
Personally I am wary of these rally because I don’t want someone to automatically assume that my present means agreement. Could you explain how you come up with the figure? If you could explain it I would feel more comfortable to be present because I won’t have to worry as much that the meaning of my present would be misinterpreted.
Personally I am surprised that I do not recognize anyone on the photos.
———-
About US Bank’s $160,000 to student services:
Could you put that amount of contribution on a scale showing the contributions from other companies? Is US Bank’s contribution really low in comparison?
Such as:
o Davis Food Co-op
o Golden One
o Google
o Intel
o Lockheed Martin
o Microsoft
o Monsanto
o Nuggets Market
o Sodexo
o Starbucks
o Tandem Properties
o Walmart
If you don’t have these figures, would you still comment on what such ranking would mean?
————
There are two main possible objections against the blockade. The first is the fact that it was illegal. The second is the underlying stance against privatization. The following is about the second type of objection because I had previously addressed the lawful alternatives such as passing flyers that inform students which banks are socially responsible, where they should get financial help instead, and what they can do legally to stop tuition hike.
I want to understand your understanding of their stance against privatization. Is it clear [b]to you[/b] what they wanted? (To me, that is not clear.)
Some possible stances:
a) No company or any person who hold management or executive role of a company may donate to the university.
b) No company may donate to the university. A donation must be made by an actual person in the name of a person, not a company entity.
c) No company should be present on campus. If they want to donate, their donations must be anonymous.
d) Companies may donate and have their names listed, but in no way should they attach their name or logo in any campus related items including building names.
e) Companies may donate and attach their names on items that they sponsor.
f) Companies may buy space and advertise on campus
g) Companies may buy space to conduct business on campus
h) Companies may negotiate a contract of monopolistic presence on campus
I understand that not all companies are equal. In that case the word, “Company” above can be substituted by “Disqualified Company”, if the method to qualify a company is explained.
This sort of information is necessary for me to understand the principles behind the blockade to decide whether I should support. I follow these principles:
a) Support only causes that I understand
b) Support only groups that behave in a way that I agree
c) If I don’t understand a cause, it is my responsibility to explain what I don’t understand, but it is the advocate’s responsibility to explain it.
d) If I do not support a cause, it is my responsibility to clarify my stance whenever my presence could be misinterpreted.
——–
About the US Bank logo on the back student ID cards:
Have everyone seen that logo? I have seen that logo. It is at the lower corner of the card, after a block of text saying that the card can be used as a cash card if the student banks with US Bank.
I do not understand whether this is common knowledge or why the actual back of the card is seldom (if not never) posted in a discussion so that people who are not students or have never seen the card would know exactly what the protesters are talking about.
David, could you post such a photo? If not I think I will post it.
Fight Against Injustice said . . .
[i]”This is the point David is trying to make. You can scare people into not talking out, but it doesn’t mean you have convinced them that your position is right. [b]It is just an example of “might” over “right”.[/b][/i]
Fight, can’t the same exact thing be said about the sit in around the bank entrances? Isn’t that every bit as much an exercise of the protesters’ might over the right of the students who have accounts at the bank and the employees who work at the bank?
medwoman said . . .
[i]”While I do believe that the actions of the protesters have indeed cost the university money, it would appear that we have a fundamental difference of opinion about causation of the “crisis”.
I do not believe that the current protesters had anything at all to do with the under lying crisis which is not minimal damage to a university, or contributing to a bank branch closure, but rather the extreme increases in student costs to attend what is supposed to be a publicly funded university. The gutting of the “public”nature of the UC system is the real crisis that we will be paying for in terms of educational quality as a society.
My basis for saying this ? I have two children, one newly graduated and one in the process of attempting to transfer into UCB. I am seeing this directly in terms of higher costs paired with lower course offerings. Yes, for the individual trying to achieve their educational goals, this is a crisis, and it is not of their making.”[/i]
I completely agree medwoman. That is indeed the crisis and targeting the branch of the bank does virtually nothing about the underlying causes for the true crisis.
With that said, why does that crisis exist? Said another way, why have university costs gone up so much? Is the UC system unique in its cost escalation, or are costs going up in similar increments at other universities and colleges?
Is this situation really the result of poor past decisions? Were the past tuition levels at UC unrealistically low? Has the system finally sagged as a result of the accumulation of many many years where costs exceeded revenues, and the only reason the budgets appeared to be balanced was subisidies from non-University sources?
Are today’s students and parents really asking, “Why did the prior students get an unrealistically low tuition and fees burden, but now we aren’t?
Is this really a parallel to this country’s healthcare system where we have had year after year after year where we promised ourselves more than we can afford . . . in effect mortgaging the future? If that is the case, what do we do about the reality that the future is now?
To Edgar Wei,
Thank you for one of the very best posts I’ve ever read on the Vanguard. Beautifully said. Beautifully.
Explanation on responsibility:
This explanation applies to a person who does not understand the cause, but has no bias on whether to support or oppose the cause. From that perspective, if an advocate speaks about a concern, it is under the principle of community that every member should at least listen and acknowledge the concern (if time and priorities permit).
If the member does not understand the cause, it is the advocate’s responsibility to explain because they should already know why they support their cause the moment their role becomes advocate (instead of a reporter or investigator).
(If the advocate deescalates into an investigator, then the member may offer to take part in that investigation, because at that point, the community collectively has an unknown, so research is not an obvious waste of time.)
If the responsibility falls on those who understand, that would just be inefficient because the answer should already be there. If the advocate fail to explain, that is a sign that the advocated cause is either unjustified, or that the advocate does not care about the support from those who don’t currently understand their cause.
In both cases, those who do not understand the cause are relieved of their responsibility, if they had made it known that they do not understand the cause and are ready for an explanation.
Edgar, I can’t believe my dyslexic fingers misspelled your name. I apologize.
Matt Williams: You are correct that the students blocking entrance to the bank is “might over right.” And if it is illegal, I do not condone it. But there is a huge difference in the amount of might! I do not condone the amount of punishment that the district attorney is proposing. The punishment should fit the crime.
Scenario 1: I can’t go into my bank today without crossing a line–this causes one to feel uncomfortable or inconvenient for a day or a very short time.
Scenario 2: I am facing 11 years in jail and lots of money in fines–this will completely destroy my life.
Do you see what I mean about throwing “might” around. This is overkill.