Overview
I have been watching what is going on with the Occupy Oakland (“OO”) movement for a few weeks. I have witnessed the Occupy (National) movement grow worldwide, as well as root itself in local communities all across our country. Oakland has become one of those local communities, and in many ways, the poster child for this movement. Ostensibly, the movement started with good intentions: (1) to curb, or at least better regulate, perceived corporate greed on Wall Street; (2) to revise the tax laws such that those richest Americans (the “1%’ers”) would share the fair taxation burden with the rest of the country (the” 99%’ers”); and (3) to stimulate the economy and provide job growth. Oakland, with its high unemployment rate, violent crime problems, health care disparities and foreclosure scandals, would seem then, a convenient and appropriate symbol for what is happening elsewhere in the country, and the world. I get it. People are hurt and angry. They are afraid.
I too live in Oakland. I have lived in this community for more than 15 years. As a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, with its free speech history, and the son of a mother who participated in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, I certainly respect free speech, advocacy for change, and even the right to protest. When, however, I see the pursuit of these aims start to tear down my community I become concerned. I am concerned that these protests have become misplaced, and if not done in a more constructive manner going forward, threaten both the safety of our city and the goals OO claims to be pursuing.
Everyone is Upset
A week ago, in an attempt to bring order to an unruly crowd the Mayor’s office ordered the police to remove the protestors from City Hall. One protestor, a war veteran (Scott Olsen), was badly injured. My prayers remain with Scott and his family. The Mayor then announced that the protestors could only protest at City Hall between the hours of 10 and 6. This position was later reversed, again allowing the protestors to establish an encampment at City Hall 24 x7. Now the protestors are angry with the Mayor and police. The Mayor seems to be off sides with her interim police chief. The police are angry with the Mayor (see the open letter from the Oakland police union to the Mayor in the November 1, 2011, Chronicle). Oakland citizens are angry with the Mayor, protestors, and some, the police. There has even been a movement started to recall Mayor Quan. Whew. That is a lot of anger.
I read that OO is calling for a day of protest, on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 when they will “stop commerce”. They are calling for the closure of every bank, corporation and school. I am not sure how closing down business, in a city badly hurting for both new businesses and jobs advances the aims of OO. I for one am against such a closure. As a member of the city’s Workforce Investment Board, I know as much as many, that our city is on the edge of solvency, and as such, the last thing we need to do is stop commerce. To the contrary, we need to show business that Oakland is a place to locate due to our proximity to colleges such as Berkeley, transportation, the Bay and a skilled workforce. Attracting business will stimulate the economy and provide badly needed jobs. What kind of message do we send to our children, by giving them a day off, to protest a city that is broke when they need to be in class, learning and securing a better future?
I think that we need to take a collective step back. The right question at this time is not whether we should recall Mayor Quan, but rather how we as a collective: City Hall, the police, other leaders like Assemblyman Swanson and Congresswoman Lee, OO, business, labor and the residents of Oakland work together to peacefully achieve the goals outlined above.
Civil Disobedience
There are many views on this topic and its use to drive change. Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK are three leaders on the subject of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau's 1848 essay Civil Disobedience, has had a wide influence on many practitioners of civil disobedience. The driving idea behind the essay is that citizens are morally responsible for their support of aggressors, even when such support is required by law. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War. He writes, "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too”.
Gandhi similarly asserted “the fact is that all non-cooperation is not violent and non-violent non-cooperation can never be an act of violence”. MLK also urged a non-violent approach: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is force to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
It would seem that OO has part of this right. OO, and the others in the Occupy movement more generally, have put a spotlight on the issues raised above. People are listening. The Economist in its latest issue “Rage Against the Machine” states the Occupy movement has re-focused the debate. The world is paying attention. How then do we achieve: (1) better regulation of Wall Street; (2) more fair taxation and (3) secure new jobs? Well if OO is an example I guess it is throwing items at the police (including feces), refusing to engage in meaningful, productive dialogue and, now, planning to “shut down commerce”. These tactics feel a lot more like anarchy to me given that they are characterized by lawlessness, violence and political disorder. MLK further stated that “the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” It appears, to me, that OO has taken the concepts of Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK and bastardized them. Protest is one thing, actions when they detract from an orderly society, is another.
Free Speech and its Limitations
OO may counter the arguments above by asserting that their actions are covered by “Free Speech”. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are, however, exceptions to this protection based upon: obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words (among other limitations). Government may further limit speech with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
Time, place, or manner restrictions must:
1. Be content neutral
2. Be narrowly tailored
3. Serve a significant governmental interest
4. Leave open ample alternative channels for communication
In my opinion limiting the hours that OO may occupy city hall is reasonable. Concerns about riots, public health and sanitation and safety to Oakland residents and its police force are all reasonable justifications. The city has spent well over a $1M on police activities surrounding this protest. These funds are being spent is at the same time when are City is fighting for its financial life and residents are facing yet another parcel tax. I for one, do not want to pay for this kind of activity. I would rather my tax dollars go to fund more police, better schools, public health initiatives and programs that get our residents back to work.
Solutions—How do we Move Forward
I do not claim to have all of the answers, however, below represent a few potential answers:
1. An open forum where the Mayor, City Council, Police Chief, DA, representatives from OO, the business and labor communities and residents of Oakland can engage in a meaningful dialogue around how best to achieve the stated goals.
2. An economic council, made up of business leaders, to help advise the Mayor on creating more jobs in Oakland.
3. A plan to secure additional police officers, as well as support for a strong, autonomous Policy Chief who can drive policy decisions and further develop a plan for a safer Oakland.
4. Reasonable restrictions around time, place and manner of the OO protests.
5. Protection for the businesses of Oakland should this day of protest materialize.
6. Reporting by City Hall, against specific metrics, to show that our City is making the right progress.
7. Voting. Hold our elected officials responsible for reforming the tax laws so that the 1%’ers are paying their fair share and that there exists the proper level of regulation for Wall Street. Put pressure on all members of Congress to achieve these goals and let them know that they are accountable to us.
Thank you for reading. I do not expect full agreement with my views. I welcome meaningful, productive debate. I am deeply committed to this community and its well being, and as such, am happy to be a part of any solution. My hope is that we can filter out the “noise” (recall efforts etc) and put our efforts into those things that can produce tangible results related to those goals set forth above
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
