2008 Woodie Awards
A Response to Amos's Sermon
Jeffrey Paik
Issue date: 10/20/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
In last week's Record, Amos Jones wrote that Lambda's use of the term "sit-in" in publicizing its October 12 rally against discrimination in the military was "racially offensive" and a "flippant appropriation of the civil rights movement," and part of a longer history of Lambda "promoting...its events with disingenuous black-history pegs" ("Amos's Sermon: On Carter G. Woodson and the Lambda-Sponsored 'Sit-In'"). I write in response individually (not on behalf of the organization) to explain Lambda's use of the term, but also to question some of Mr. Jones's assertions in his opinion piece.
A "sit-in," by the definition that Mr. Jones provides, is a "form of direct action that involves one or more persons nonviolently occupying an area for protest, often for political, social, or economic change" (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in). Lambda's demonstration would fit within this limited definition - members and allies nonviolently occupied the aisles of the Harkness Commons Dining Room in order to draw attention to the exclusion of LGBT students from military employment and from protection under HLS's non-discrimination policy, in the hopes of encouraging the University to take action on behalf of its students. However, Mr. Jones correctly notes that sit-ins (which have been employed in diverse contexts such as the Indian independence movement, the American civil rights movement, Vietnam war protests, and more recently even by Harvard undergraduates in the 2001 Living Wage campaign) generally involve occupying the area until arrest or until the protesters' requests have been satisfied. Lambda's demonstration took all of 30 minutes, and thus may have matched a sit-in in form but not in duration or execution. It would perhaps most appropriately be termed a "performance protest."
The term "sit-in" was misapplied and potentially misleading, especially considering the common understandings that are attached to the term and its pivotal role not only in American history but in global social movements as well. Lambda should not have called its demonstration a "sit-in" if it was not a sit-in as commonly understood, but rather a variation or a lesser form. I can only attribute the use of the term to oversight and a lapse in clear thinking. On this point, Mr. Jones and I are in agreement.
A "sit-in," by the definition that Mr. Jones provides, is a "form of direct action that involves one or more persons nonviolently occupying an area for protest, often for political, social, or economic change" (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in). Lambda's demonstration would fit within this limited definition - members and allies nonviolently occupied the aisles of the Harkness Commons Dining Room in order to draw attention to the exclusion of LGBT students from military employment and from protection under HLS's non-discrimination policy, in the hopes of encouraging the University to take action on behalf of its students. However, Mr. Jones correctly notes that sit-ins (which have been employed in diverse contexts such as the Indian independence movement, the American civil rights movement, Vietnam war protests, and more recently even by Harvard undergraduates in the 2001 Living Wage campaign) generally involve occupying the area until arrest or until the protesters' requests have been satisfied. Lambda's demonstration took all of 30 minutes, and thus may have matched a sit-in in form but not in duration or execution. It would perhaps most appropriately be termed a "performance protest."
The term "sit-in" was misapplied and potentially misleading, especially considering the common understandings that are attached to the term and its pivotal role not only in American history but in global social movements as well. Lambda should not have called its demonstration a "sit-in" if it was not a sit-in as commonly understood, but rather a variation or a lesser form. I can only attribute the use of the term to oversight and a lapse in clear thinking. On this point, Mr. Jones and I are in agreement.