On Friday, 11/18/11, police at UC Davis doused nonviolent protesters with pepper spray.
The police officer with the pepper spray, identified as Lt. John Pike of the UC Davis Campus Police, looks utterly nonchalant, for all the world as if he were hosing aphids off a rose bush. The scene bespeaks a lack of basic human empathy, an utter intolerance for dissent, or perhaps both. Pike’s actions met with approval from the chief of campus police, Annette Spicuzza, “who observed the chaotic events on the Quad, [and] said immediately afterward that she was ‘very proud’ of her officers.” Clearly in Chief Spicuzza’s mind there was nothing exceptional about the use of pepper spray against nonviolent protesters.
Campus and community response has held otherwise. Chancellor Linda Katehi (the Chancellor is the top administrative officer of a UC campus) sent an email Friday afternoon saying, “We are saddened to report that during this activity, 10 protestors were arrested and pepper spray was used.” Note the Reaganesque passive voice. One might well conclude from that construction that the protesters were the ones using the pepper spray; one does not have one’s attention called to the fact that the Chancellor herself ordered the police to the quad.
A Saturday email from the Chancellor uses slightly stronger language: “Yesterday was not a day that would make anyone on our campus proud”—clearly the Chancellor hasn’t spoken to Chief Spicuzza—“… The use of pepper spray as shown on the video is chilling to us all and raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this.”
But it is clear that the use of pepper spray was not so much chilling as routine for the police officers and also, again, that Chancellor Katehi ordered the police to clear the quad of protesters. Was she then surprised by what ensued? Did she not see what happened at UC Berkeley only a week ago? Based on even a passing familiarity with both recent and more distant history, the results should and could have been predicted; a reasonable person should have known to a first approximation how UC campus police might respond when facing nonviolent protesters, and, most important, a prudent administrator should have given strict instructions on how to handle such a situation.
What is remarkable here is less the error of zeal than the sin of ignorance. Violence is an ineffective response to nonviolent protest, a fan to the flames of community unrest. Those of us who teach the history of the US in the 1960s know this; Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders in the nonviolent Civil Rights movement understood how to capitalize on the pigheaded stupidity of the policemen they faced. Eugene “Bull” Connor, police chief of Birmingham, used fire hoses and Alsatians against nonviolent protesters, including schoolchildren and college students; Jim Clark, the sheriff at Selma, used tear-gas and billy clubs. Their names we know, for these characters are inextricable from major Civil Rights victories: they helped create the indelible images that shocked the world and fostered lasting change in America.
Or perhaps not that much has changed after all. To see the attitudes of segregationist police officers toward civil dissenters recapitulated on our campus is a matter of great shame. As Chancellor Katehi suggests in her statement linked above, UC Davis should be “a place of inquiry, debate, and even dissent.” We cannot fathom how such sentiments can coexist with the callous brutality of Friday. That said, we agree with the Chancellor. Universities should devote themselves to inquiry and learning. Such activities can thrive only in an atmosphere that not only tolerates but encourages rigorous debate and dissent, an atmosphere in which students and faculty feel confident and safe even when they choose to confront the administration with contrary opinions.
Americans have known for decades it is both immoral and ineffective to meet nonviolence with violence. UC Berkeley and its Chancellor, Robert Birgeneau, provided us a reminder of this lesson last week. But we forget nothing and learn nothing. Ronald Reagan, after all, met UC protesters with tear gas. Which can help you get attention so you can run for higher office. But it is no way to run a campus.
—Ari Kelman and Eric Rauchway
The Edge of the American West 
68 comments
November 19, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Vance Maverick
I hope you’ll be sending this to the administration in some vehicle they understand, like a letter to the editor or a mass mailing to the faculty senate. I’d hate to see it ignored for using futuristic 1997-era “blog” technology.
November 20, 2011 at 12:22 am
are we there yet?
I’m sure Lt Pike will say he was only following orders and my immediate question was, “whose orders and what, specifically, were they?” The “who” seems to be answered but what were the orders? Clear the quad? Distract the media away from Penn State? Use up all the old cans of anti-citizen sprays so we can order new supplies?
Consider what we would see if police departments didn’t have access to non-lethal weapons.
November 20, 2011 at 4:43 am
John Emerson
Katehi was 13 when the colonels junta took over in Greece and 20 when they were overthrown. Maybe she learned from them.
November 20, 2011 at 4:48 am
John Emerson
Not excusing Katehi, but often police and military reinterpret their orders once they’re on location. I’ve never read a study, but in many cities I’m familiar with the police are semi-autonomous and have adversarial attitudes toward civilian government. The militarized Wars on Drugs and Terror only exacerbate that attitude. The War on Terror federalizes certain local officers, who are not allowed to share information with their nominal local civilian superiors.
November 20, 2011 at 5:34 am
Bernie
I would like to know what you think the right way to clear out protesters that are breaking the law? Picture a non-violent protest that you don’t agree with, say some group is “protesting” by blocking access to polling places on election day in neighborhoods that tend to vote for politicians they don’t like. What is the proper way to restore access?
November 20, 2011 at 6:57 am
Malaclypse
Picture a non-violent protest that you don’t agree with, say some group is “protesting” by blocking access to polling places on election day in neighborhoods that tend to vote for politicians they don’t like.
Okay, I’m picturing something not even vaguely comparable to what happened at UC Davis. Now what?
I mean, the fact that you put “protesting” in scare quotes in your example does show that even you you realize that what the people are doing there is not protesting, but vote suppression.
November 20, 2011 at 8:21 am
John Emerson
Bernie is a reminder that authoritarianism has increased greatly during the last several decades. I’m sure you could get 5% support for just killing a bunch of them; Ann Coulter has been advocating that for some time. (I’m curious to know exactly what that number is, but I’m not sure that I really want to know.)
November 20, 2011 at 8:23 am
Bernie
Malaclypse, your right, I didn’t want to argue the right or wrong of different causes. I’m asking an honest question, if you decide to remove peaceful non-violent protesters, what is an acceptable way to do it? The particular reason for needing to remove or arrest them doesn’t matter.
November 20, 2011 at 8:41 am
Malaclypse
I’m asking an honest question, if you decide to remove peaceful non-violent protesters, what is an acceptable way to do it?
That’s simple:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
November 20, 2011 at 8:49 am
ari
It’s my understanding, Bernie, that police typically try to talk to peaceful protestors before employing non-lethal force. The protestors, if they are going to be arrested, are offered the choice of either leaving on their own, walking to the squad cars in other words, or being dragged or carried off by the police. In this case, the police have made it clear that they turned to non-lethal force — tear gas — because after they made some initial arrests, the protestors didn’t allow them to leave the Quad. But the thing is, the video suggests that the protestors made only a symbolic line of resistance, that the police could have stepped around or over that line (as they in fact did), and thus that the use of tear gas wasn’t necessary for the reason the police cite.
November 20, 2011 at 8:56 am
Bernie
Doesn’t seem so simple to me. Protesters in the past have shut down, or attempted to shutdown access to banks, abortion clinics, logging camps, legislatures, funerals, hospitals, entire neighborhoods, and highways. Are you saying that as long as there is enough people to peacefully block all the entrances that they should be allowed to stay as long as they like?
November 20, 2011 at 9:04 am
ari
I’m not saying anything of the sort, Bernie. Please don’t put words in my mouth. There are, as it happens, plenty of my words up in the original post. If you’d like to argue with something I’ve actually written or said, please feel free to do so. Beyond that, I’m not getting dragged into a game of hypotheticals. “What if the police had reliable intelligence that one of the protestors had the ability shoot death rays from her or his eyes? What sort of force would have been justified then?” No thanks.
November 20, 2011 at 9:06 am
Malaclypse
Protesters in the past have shut down, or attempted to shutdown access to banks, abortion clinics, logging camps, legislatures, funerals, hospitals, entire neighborhoods, and highways.
Which really does not at all describe what was going on at UC Davis.
November 20, 2011 at 9:11 am
Bernie
Ari, I don’t know enough about the specifics here, you sound like you do and so I assume your right. If the post had made an argument that the removal of the protesters was wrong, I wouldn’t have commented. I read the post as an argument that the tactics used by the police were wrong.
“Violence is an ineffective response to nonviolent protest” and “Clearly in Chief Spicuzza’s mind there was nothing exceptional about the use of pepper spray against nonviolent protesters.”
I’m trying to figure out what people believe is an acceptable means of removing nonviolent protesters once it is decided that the need to be removed. The police that actually do the job of removing people are almost never the ones who make that decision. Given that 1)the police are almost always outnumbered in these situations, 2)non-violent protests sometimes turn violent when the police start grabbing people to arrest them, and 3) the police have human emotions and can overreact when someone resist, I can’t think of a better way to temporarily disable the people who they are trying to remove. I’m wondering if someone has a better way.
November 20, 2011 at 9:15 am
ari
I explained above, Bernie, what I believe to be the generally accepted method of removing non-violent protestors: speak to them civilly before removing them, ask if they’d like to leave on their own or be carried, try not to escalate a tense situation. Beyond that, I’m not interested in taking part in a broad discussion of hypotheticals. Thanks.
November 20, 2011 at 9:15 am
eric
non-violent protests sometimes turn violent when the police start grabbing people to arrest them
Again with the hypotheticals. Nobody turned violent. Nobody here is debating the police’s right to defend themselves against violence.
November 20, 2011 at 9:15 am
randolph lewis (@RandolphLewis)
Ari and Eric: thank you for your very good post. People here in Austin TX, like people all over the country, are shocked by what happened Friday and are hungry for accounts of what happened. I’ve written Pike, the chancellor, and signed petitions, but if there is anything else that far-flung supporters can do, let us know. I spent a lot of happy time on that quad for four years in the 1990s, which makes the sight of this repression even more repugnant to me.
November 20, 2011 at 9:17 am
eric
Bernie, you can read Bob Ostertag, here:
November 20, 2011 at 9:18 am
eric
Thanks, Randolph, for your kind words.
November 20, 2011 at 9:24 am
Vance Maverick
Right, the nonviolent “removal” of nonviolent protesters is a well-trod routine. In this case, you’ve got to wonder whether even the standard approaches wouldn’t have been overkill — what would have been the problem with letting them stay?
November 20, 2011 at 9:27 am
eric
what would have been the problem with letting them stay?
I don’t think that was a judgment made by police.
November 20, 2011 at 9:32 am
John Emerson
Bernie, in point of fact pepper spray is generally not allowed in circumstances like this. In most cases it is reserved for cases when there’s risk to life, and in a California recently people had been wrongly pepper-sprayed won a case and received restitution from the police. I say “generally” and “in most cases” because it’s probably not universal. But the ignorant should be reminded that this is not routine practice.
I can’t think of a better way to temporarily disable the people who they are trying to remove.
I don’t think that you’re trying very hard, Bernie, since the only way you can think of is one that is often officially forbidden. Perhaps you should apply your mind to things that you’re better at.
November 20, 2011 at 9:36 am
Vance Maverick
Agreed, Eric, that judgment was made by the administration, and it was clearly a bad one. If Katehi runs a university where the police don’t know how to move protesters non-violently, she shouldn’t be ordering removal.
November 20, 2011 at 10:12 am
Vance Maverick
(I took the liberty of deleting a comment.)
Or put another way, “you go to war with the army you have” doesn’t excuse the things that go wrong — on the contrary, it indicts the decision to go to war.
November 20, 2011 at 10:44 am
kevin
I’m trying to figure out what people believe is an acceptable means of removing nonviolent protesters once it is decided that the need to be removed.
Seriously? You can’t think of *any* step between just letting them sit there forever, on one hand, and blinding them with pepper spray and making them vomit, on the other? Are you really that simple minded?
How about just picking the protesters up and carrying them to the police cruiser? It’s worked for a few hundred years or so, and as several people here have noted, it’s a common tactic police have used in similar situations. It removes the protestors, but civilly and without violence.
Jesus Christ, I can’t even believe this needs explaining.
November 20, 2011 at 11:27 am
John Emerson
This was not standard operating procedure:
Militarization Of Campus Police
Paramilitary Policing From Seattle to Occupy Wall Street
November 20, 2011 at 11:46 am
Pauly Shore
This situation is tragic. But not as tragic as the hole I just found in my underoos.
November 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm
TF Smith
Not only is it not SOP, it is legally questionable, given the “threat level” present – it’s worth noting that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent demonstrators in California has been determined to be excessive where there were less intrusive alternatives. (Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt (9th Cir. 2002) 276 F.3rd 1125.) A summary of that case is here:
http://www.elawreview.org/summ…
Well done, Drs. Kelman and Rauchway.
And both Katehi, and Pike, are disgraces to their positions…
November 20, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Matthew Ernest
“Not excusing Katehi, but often police and military reinterpret their orders once they’re on location.”
If this occurs “often”, then those in an oversight role should anticipate that and have a responsibility to determine where the orders have been reinterpreted in an improver manner and to un-reinterpret them. That is, to conduct oversight.
November 20, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Dale
John Emerson, by my calculation, Katehi was a first-year student at the National Technical University when students there went on strike in November 73 and things started spiraling out of control for the junta. In fact, November 17th is a holiday celebrated at institutions of higher education around the country in honor of the uprising.
November 20, 2011 at 1:04 pm
John Emerson
Dale: So was she part of the strike? Because if she was, she might be experiencing some extra stress. But if she was supporting the colonels, maybe she chose the right place of exile.
If this occurs “often”, then those in an oversight role should anticipate that and have a responsibility to determine where the orders have been reinterpreted in an improver manner and to un-reinterpret them. That is, to conduct oversight.
As they say on Radio Yerevan: in principle, yes. But in fact, the less-lethal authorities often fear the fully-lethal authorities.
November 20, 2011 at 1:25 pm
TF Smith
AP is reporting that Lt. Pike and another officer have both been put on leave, pending investigation. Be good if Katehi joins them.
One thing about the chain of command here; if Katehi truly understood her responsibility as chancellor of the institution, she should have been on the quad working to resolve the situation. The fact she was not is another reason for her to be dismissed.
November 20, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Shennan Hutton
Thank you for expressing the reasoned outrage and the sense of shock at historical ignorance that I am feeling at this moment. I am an alumna of UCD and I work there three days a week. I saw the students and their tents in the Quad, and I am deeply upset by the callous and unnecessary use of pepper spray on non-violent protestors.
Shennan Hutton
November 20, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Pauly Shore
Power to the people! Right? Or is it “Up With People?” I can never remember anything important.
November 20, 2011 at 3:38 pm
erubin
Whoa, how long has this blog been back in commission? Glad to have it back, but let’s just say I wish there were less to discuss…
The video of the UCD incident has been a hot topic on my Facebook feed lately. In fact, I see significantly more outrage from my non-Davis friends than the Davis natives (though there’s plenty to go around). What disturbs me, however, is that there is quite a bit of hyperbole, generalizations, and reactionary responses being bandied about. A few examples off the top of my head include phrases like, “Fuck the police,” and, “Fucking pigs,” as well as comparisons to Kent State. Bernie reveals that this lack of critical thinking can also be found among those with a police-sympathetic viewpoint.
I have my own view of the events, though my opinion is not yet well-formed. Here is a summary of some of my random thoughts:
1) Lt. Pike’s actions were uncalled for.
2) All videos lie. Even the best of them. Perhaps the better (but unduly gentle) way to say this is, “Videos tell a story with a slant.” Broader spatial and temporal context is lost in any video and I think this video is at best a typical example of how context is lost.
3) Being a police officer is one of the most thankless jobs one can have.
4) It only takes a moment of poor judgment to make a situation drastically worse– we’ve all been there. Yes, we expect the highest restraint from officers, but it’s important to remember that behind it all, they’re still human beings.
5) I see a lot of hate for the police in general over the actions of one or two officers. Ari’s and Eric’s post brings to light Annette Spicuzza’s praise for her officers, though I remain more interested in who issued what orders and when. That Chief Spicuzza attempted to support her officers after they were literally chanted off campus in shame is almost irrelevant to the issue at hand. Judgment should be reserved for those who showed poor judgment, not the institution of the police as a whole.
6) Professor Nathan Brown claims in his open letter to Chancellor Katehi that, “When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats.” I don’t believe it. Or rather, I’ll believe it when I see it. Isn’t it enough to let the video speak for itself without spreading lies?
7) I still support pepper spray as a far less dangerous deterrent than guns or even tasers. It was improperly used here, but I think the use of pepper spray is preferable to the threat of a gun.
8) Perhaps the biggest question is how Katehi fits in with this all. It’s clear from her two open letters (Removed from the UCD website. Can anyone retrieve them?) that she at least had some hand in dispatching the police to disperse the crowd and she was initially almost completely unapologetic about her role in the events (“deeply saddened” is not sufficient– anyone would be deeply saddened by this display). She now appears to be in the process of vigorously backpedaling. Yet as negligent as she may have been throughout it all, I highly doubt she specifically requested that pepper spray be used.
I see some echoes of these sentiments in the above comments as well as some vigorous opposition to them. In any case, I’d like to thank Ari and Eric for a well-written and thoughtful post on the matter. To everyone, regardless of your opinions, I urge circumspection and restraint. Comparisons to Kent State, cries of “fascism”, and other needless equivocation and hyperbole only further distort and detract from what is told by the video.
I’d also like to share an article from The Atlantic on the broader recent history of crowd suppression. It paints what I believe to be a reasonably accurate picture of Lt. Pike’s actions being the result of not one gung-ho officer but instead years of evolving police procedures for dispersing crowds.
November 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Troll of Sorrow
[Editor’s Note (AK): I’m leaving this one alone. “Ari Kelman, UC, Kissinger Studies” is just about the best thing I’ve ever read. I’m going to have that printed on my business cards. Sometimes you’ve gotta admire the art even as you deplore the artist.]
Racist comments on Coach Paterno. Racist, sexist comments on Ms Katehi. A pattern emerges.
Ari Kelman, UC, Kissinger studies
November 20, 2011 at 3:56 pm
ben
I don’t believe it. Or rather, I’ll believe it when I see it. Isn’t it enough to let the video speak for itself without spreading lies?
So you’ve gone from disbelief, to refraining from belief, to certainty that it didn’t happen and an accusation of lying in the space of three sentences?
November 20, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Pauly Shore
All of this is beyond me.
November 20, 2011 at 4:06 pm
erubin
Doesn’t it strike you as implausible, if not outright dangerous for officers to force their fingers into unwilling protesters’ mouths just to force pepper spray down their throats? I don’t believe it without evidence. There is no such evidence in the videos posted (but I will welcome it if you find it). Until someone shows me video of an officer forcing open a student’s mouth and spraying pepper spray down their throat, I will presume that Professor Brown’s claim is exactly what I said it is– a lie.
And if you take issue with my post (which I completely grant you, as I am wrong at least half the time), please evaluate it as a whole and don’t just cherry-pick some poorly-thought out sentences that don’t reflect its broader content.
November 20, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Pauly Shore
I’m glad this post gives me the opportunity to tell you all how much I love and admire you, my Jewish brothers.
November 20, 2011 at 4:28 pm
eric
erubin, the Chancellor’s letters are linked in the post and as of this typing the links are good.
November 20, 2011 at 4:36 pm
John Emerson
All videos lie. Even the best of them. Perhaps the better (but unduly gentle) way to say this is, “Videos tell a story with a slant.”
A better way of expressing this is to say that all forms of communication or non-communication are lies.
That’s Philosophy as deep as Jack Handey.
November 20, 2011 at 4:38 pm
silbey
Yet as negligent as she may have been throughout it all, I highly doubt she specifically requested that pepper spray be used.
And? If she told the police to clear the quad, she’s responsible for understanding the methods that might be used.
November 20, 2011 at 4:40 pm
kevin
Racist, sexist comments on Ms Katehi.
That may be the saddest attempt at trolling I’ve ever seen. Seriously.
Next time, just fart on your keyboard, it’ll have a greater impact.
November 20, 2011 at 4:41 pm
John Emerson
I still support pepper spray as a far less dangerous deterrent than guns or even tasers. It was improperly used here, but I think the use of pepper spray is preferable to the threat of a gun.
When we’re being hyper-rational, we must also be thorough. It’s also preferable to pouring gasoline on the students and lighting it, and better than throwing them to wild beasts to be torn apart.
November 20, 2011 at 4:44 pm
ari
better than throwing them to wild beasts to be torn apart
Go easy, John. I don’t think now’s the time to criticize my teaching methods.
November 20, 2011 at 4:45 pm
erubin
erubin, the Chancellor’s letters are linked in the post and as of this typing the links are good.
Not quite. Looks like you had one of them, but the other one I was referring to was this one. I think it’s important to have her message to students prior to police intervention. Both letters are still on the UCD website, but they used to be prominently linked on the front page. Thanks for setting the record straight, though.
November 20, 2011 at 4:46 pm
silbey
I don’t think now’s the time to criticize my teaching methods.
But *those* students were talking in class…
November 20, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Malaclypse
When we’re being hyper-rational, we must also be thorough. It’s also preferable to pouring gasoline on the students and lighting it, and better than throwing them to wild beasts to be torn apart.
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
November 20, 2011 at 4:48 pm
erubin
When we’re being hyper-rational, we must also be thorough. It’s also preferable to pouring gasoline on the students and lighting it, and better than throwing them to wild beasts to be torn apart.
I hope you realize that’s completely antithetical to my second-to-last paragraph. These kinds of comparisons at best add nothing to the discussion. Oh well.
November 20, 2011 at 5:08 pm
xaaronx
Your post is antithetical to itself, eribin. You go from “All videos lie” to “I’ll believe it when I see it. Isn’t it enough to let the video speak for itself without spreading lies?” in the same post. At that point I stopped trying to even get a coherent viewpoint from the post.
November 20, 2011 at 5:19 pm
John Emerson
I didn’t take your second-to-last paragraph very seriously, Erubin, in case you’re wondering.
November 20, 2011 at 5:47 pm
eric
The UC has a systemwide president.
November 20, 2011 at 5:50 pm
erubin
I try to say, “Let’s all calm down and get the facts straight,” and I’m ridiculed. Can’t say I’m surprised. Please forgive me for not being as eloquent and thoughtful as the rest of you. Clearly my hypocrisy in a comment on a blog post far outweighs the completely rational assertions that Linda Katehi is a fascist. How silly of me.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go back to watching My Little Pony…
November 20, 2011 at 5:53 pm
eric
the completely rational assertions that Linda Katehi is a fascist
I’m sorry, did you see that said anywhere on this blog?
November 20, 2011 at 6:03 pm
erubin
I’m sorry, did you see that said anywhere on this blog?
Nope, and I’d like to reiterate that I very much liked the blog post itself. John Emerson, however, seems to think that Katehi took lessons from the Greek Junta. The fascism comment came from my Facebook feed. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
November 20, 2011 at 6:14 pm
John Emerson
It was speculation. And I understand that you would like to forbid such speculation, but who are you? Just one more dog on the internet.
November 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm
eric
Nope…. The fascism comment came from my Facebook feed.
Cool. I understand Facebook allows posting and comments, too. There’s plenty of heat already here without setting fire to straw men.
November 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm
erubin
Pfft, I posted it here because if I’d tried Facebook, I’d have been burned alive! (Or worse! Ignored!)
November 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm
big bad wolf
excellent letter, ari and eric. thank you.
November 20, 2011 at 6:38 pm
TF Smith
Yudoff is a day late and a dollar short, isn’t he?
“No one could have expected…” is getting really old as an excuse from individuals in positions of great responsibility.
Better late then never, I suppose.
November 21, 2011 at 3:59 am
wu ming
erubin: xeni jardin of boingboing interviewed the student whose mouth was forced open and pepper spray shot down his throat.
November 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm
erubin
Thank you for that, wu ming. I quote from your link, however, “Someone said they saw him spray down my throat intentionally, but I was so freaked out, and I was blinded by my hat, so I can’t verify.” That is in contrast to your account that his “mouth was forced open and pepper spray shot down his throat” and even the student is unsure of what happened in those moments. If his mouth was forced open, surely there is video evidence of it.
I still just see an officer who irresponsibly used pepper spray from too close a range on nonviolent protesters. Reprehensible, yes, and he should resign. But forcing open a student’s mouth to force pepper spray down his throat is a whole different can of worms.
In any case, I enjoyed the article and found the student’s account to be surprisingly even-handed, considering what he’d been through.
November 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm
ari
surely there is video evidence of it
Stop it, erubin, please. There’s no reason to believe that there’s video evidence to support such contentions. Which contentions, by the way, you seem to realize aren’t central to the argument that the police used excessive force and escalated a non-violent situation into a violent one. Beyond that, you’ve already said that you don’t trust video evidence, so I’m not sure why you’re belaboring this point.
To be clear, I’m not asking you to stop commenting. You’re a long-time friend of this blog, and I don’t want you to think otherwise. But this line you’re pursuing is a dead end, I believe, and likely to engender bad feelings at a time when there are already plenty of bad feelings to go around.
Let me suggest that the pertinent facts are clear: the Chancellor sent the police to the Quad to remove the protestors; the police used excessive force in the course of completing that task; as a result, a relatively minor situation turned into a national outrage; more important than that, young people were harmed for no good reason. Unless you dispute any of those facts, I don’t think there’s much more to say about the particulars, including speculating about the veracity of details that are, again, peripheral to the central story.
November 21, 2011 at 2:06 pm
erubin
Point taken, ari. In case it isn’t obvious at this point, I don’t mind people being upset with me. I do not dispute any of the facts you have listed and I think there are very good reasons to be outraged here– but let’s be outraged for the right reasons. All I wish to do is encourage a healthy dose of skepticism and rationality. Successful or not, I think I’ve done all I can. This conversation has run its course and I’m not at all upset with the spirited discussion we’ve shared.
November 21, 2011 at 2:10 pm
ari
That sounds good, erubin. Thanks.
November 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Michael H Schneider
“Violence is an ineffective response to nonviolent protest, …”
But. I’m undoubtedly making a fool of myself disagreeing with real historians, but there strikes me as something very wrong with this sentence.
Yes, the violence in the south helped persuade northerners and others to federalize the civil rights issue and to pass the Civil Rights Acts. However, most of the north, and most of the country, had decided nearly 100 years earlier that even black people are still people and should be treated like people – that had been done when the 13th – 15th Amendments were passed.
Whenever you use a word like “ineffective” I have to ask: ineffective at acheiving what goal? Ineffective for whom?
For Eugene Connor I’m not sure the violence was ineffective. He undoubtedly was seen as a hero to those whose opinions he valued, and he went on to suffer apparently no political, personal or financial penalty (best as I could tell from Wikipedia). To him, those things may well have been far more important than the fate of the civil rights acts. He was, to himself, undoubtedly the hero who stood with his finger in the dike, no matter how hopeless his sacrifice.
I remember after the Kerner commission came out I was thinking “surely this will lead to better police training and supervision, and we will fix this problem.” But I don’t recall any of the people involved sufferred any personal or political penalty, and nothing changed.
The examples of Clark Kerr, Ronald Reagan, Ed Levi, the NYC Republican convention of 2000 (2004?) and the recent examples of Seattle, Oakland, NYC, Berkely, London, and dozens (hundreds?) of others suggest that state sponsored uniformed violence to suppress dissent is *not* ineffective, at least from the point of view of those perpetrating it.
November 22, 2011 at 5:43 am
John Emerson
Lawless violence kept white supremacy dominant in the South for about 60 years, 1900-1960 +/-, and Constitutional principles, the two-party system, and Congressional rules kept it almost unchallenged during that period.
Then at a certain point it stopped working.