Protest properly pursued

In a recent column, WORLD Opinions Managing Editor Andrew Walker rightly focuses on the complexity of the emerging situation in Minnesota, particularly as it relates to the death of Alex Pretti. Walker argues that despite the constitutional right to protest, citizens like Pretti “should never have been in those situations in the first place.” If they had been wiser or more discerning, protesters would avoid clear “danger zones.”

Protest in highly charged environments like those we have seen recently in Minneapolis and across the country in the past is neither a simple nor safe affair. This is especially true when the protests involve direct engagement with law enforcement and armed government personnel, who are there either to maintain peace during protest or are themselves the object of the protest. Anytime there are large numbers of people who are animated by strong emotions there is the possibility of violence. Crowds are by nature dumb and potentially dangerous. And so Walker is quite right to interrogate the wisdom of intentionally heading into such a crucible, especially when ill-prepared to act wisely in fraught moments.

And it does seem that Pretti was warned ahead of time and cognizant of the risks. As Pretti’s father tells it, the message the parents imparted to their son amounted to: “Go ahead and protest, but do not engage, do not do anything stupid, basically.” These are words of wisdom from parents to a beloved son, and they should have been heeded.

It is also true that rights that can only be exercised when there is no danger are not really worth the respect we accord them in law and morality. If civil courage is a virtue at all it must involve some element of risk and sacrifice. And whether or not we agree with the purpose of a protest, we should acknowledge that the right to assemble peaceably to protest and to air grievances about government behavior is a long and esteemed right. More than a right—or perhaps entailed by its status as a right—such assembly and protest is actually a duty and a responsibility of a virtuous citizenry. And it is a duty and a right that predates our Declaration and Constitution. It is a responsibility that is attested to by the deaths of five colonists on King Street in Boston on March 5, 1770, in the Boston Massacre. Time and again since then, Americans have stood up for what they believe is true and marched for justice.

But the proper employment of protest is no excuse for its abuse. Americans have not always marched for justice in a responsible fashion. We only need compare and contrast events in Los Angeles in 1992 or Kenosha, Wis., in August of 2020 or Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, with annual events like the March for Life to see the difference. If Alex Pretti’s right to protest while carrying a concealed weapon was and is constitutionally protected, nevertheless it may have been unwise and imprudent to do so especially when engaging directly with ICE personnel. The justness of the proposed ends of a protest does not justify any and all means employed in their pursuit.

It is this insight into the importance of nonviolent protest that provided the Civil Rights Movement, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., with some of its most incisive and insightful dimensions into the proper pursuit of social justice. King was no stranger to protests. Indeed, he was criticized by many for his leadership in all kinds of civil disobedience, including sit-ins, marches, boycotts, and more. But King’s protests were characterized first of all by nonviolence. King knew that the righteousness of the civil rights cause could easily be undone by employing violent or unjust methods.

King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in 1963 attests to this directly. As King puts it, in preparation for the Birmingham campaign, “We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: ‘Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?’ ‘Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?’” Birmingham in 1963 was a danger zone for King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. But King helped lead a principled protest that was pursued responsibly and effectively.

Proper distinctions are important when coming to moral judgments. And among the relevant distinctions at issue in the protests in Minnesota as well as other places is the difference between violent confrontation and nonviolent, passive protest. Without proper preparation, the latter can devolve into the former. “I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth,” King observed. That is precisely the kind of spiritual and moral growth that our society so desperately needs in this moment of national unrest. Properly pursued, protests have a role in catalyzing that growth. We can be grateful for the constitutional protections for such assembly and for those willing to sacrifice throughout American history to provoke the conscience of our nation.