MOLLY WALLACE – In a 2015 article for the journal Mobilization, Erica Chenoweth and Kurt Schock examined all nonviolent campaigns from 1900-2006 with radical (i.e. maximalistâ€) goals â€” such as the â€œremoval of an incumbent national government, self-determination, secession, or the expulsion of foreign occupationâ€ â€” to see how the presence or absence of armed resistance affected the success of these nonviolent campaigns. Their findings offer compelling evidence that violence is not generally a helpful addition to nonviolent resistance movements. How did they arrive at this conclusion? And what lessons do we learn by adhering to this understanding?
KAZU HAGA – Nazism and white supremacy are forms of violence. Letâ€™s start there. The constitution does not protect violence, and Iâ€™m happy to see that the California chapter of the ACLU has taken a stand against protecting the â€œfree speechâ€ of hate groups. But with or without marching permits, it is clear that public displays of hatred are a growing trend in the United States. And as much as I donâ€™t want to give these groups more attention, it is also clear that simply ignoring them is not going to make them go away. So what do we do?
JOSE-ANTONIO OROSCO – As someone who regularly teaches about the political philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr., I often spend time discussing with students the ways in which Kingâ€™s ideas are taken out of context and turned into sound bites in order to support positions he would not himself have taken.