I hope I am not completely off base. Let me know =) -Aaron- *Student Movements and Tactic Innovation: Decentralized Protesting and the April 16th model* Introduction In the spring of 1999 students at Duke (followed by others), captured national attention by sitting-in in administrators' offices, lobbies, and hallways. Student activism hit the headlines of newspapers across the country. The following spring there were anti-sweatshop sit-ins at nine more schools (1). Not only was this an impressive display of activism, but it was also very effective as students in the spring of 1999 (sit-in wave I) faced no punishment and won the bulk of their goals. While I believe that there is a lot of room left for sit-ins, especially at campuses that have not had them (many of which could be caught completely off-guard), since movement growth and success depends on tactic innovation (Ex. the civil rights movement's "innovations" of bus boycotts, sit-ins, store boycotts, freedom rides - which all led to positive spurts of activity (2)), and as administrators adopt to our tactics (notably by repression as seen in the arrests of students at Madison, Kentucky, SUNY Albany, and Iowa - all in wave II - spring 2000), it is important to constantly try and develop new tactics. The following ideas are inspired by the April 16 DC protest against the IMF/World Bank and Napster (3). A Very Brief Historical Sketch of Protest Tactics In the past hundred years, I believe the vast majority of social movement tactics were relatively centralized. (*Note: feel free to dispute this claim, as I wasn't alive and may be missing out on important counter-examples. For instance, perhaps the anti-Vietnam war movement was different.*) This centralization is relative, often occurring at the group or site level. For instance in a typical national movement against war, there are hundreds of local actions that are normally centralized on the local level. By "centralized" I mean that the local movement activity would be organized by one group or a coalition that would decide what the movement (or the bulk of the movement which were members of the dominant activist group or groups in the area) would do. Decisions would be made in group/coalition meetings, and thus be the product of the local activist elite. These are the people who have the most experience, time, better speaking ability, closest relationships with group members, most charisma, and/or other factors like gender/class/race that lead to their disproportionate influence in the group's decision-making. Hundreds to hundreds of thousands of people who attended these centralized/top-down protests had no direct influence in shaping them. The most obvious and pervasive centralized protest tactic is the "demonstration" (a.k.a. protest, rally, or march). The main elements of a demonstration can include speakers, chanting, music, and marching. All of these activities promote groupthink (where everyone in the group thinks the same way) and while empowering, they empower some people more than others. There are only a few speakers (and often the same people), but many people in the crowd who are "talked-at" (4). With chanting there is also a small group of people who decide and start the chant, while most people just repeat it. Chants do not promote critical thinking (in fact they discourage it, because the noise can make it difficult to impossible to discuss politics with your neighbor). Group singing which was more democratic (except for excluded people who have been socialized to think they cannot/should not sing, and for the small factor of who chooses songs), has moved to the top-down "get sung-at" approach where the professional musician(s) play on the stage and the audience listens, largely without reaction (minor dancing and attempts to sing-along aside). The inequality between protesters and the organizer elite is proportionate to the size of the event (because with small events a larger proportion of the participants will have a role in the planning). Other centralized forms of protest include picketing, strikes (with the possible exception of wildcats), vigils, traditional cross-the-line civil disobedience (Ex. SOA protest), etc. Hunger- strikes or petitions can be more decentralized, however they are often carried out in a top- down or vanguard manner (Ex. the petition is written by a small group of people, or only ten people participate in the hunger-strike). Within USAS in specific (and student movements in general) we have seen centralized tactics such as sit-ins, rallies, leafleting, sleep-outs, negotiations with administrations, etc. All of these share the problem of having the decision- making power concentrated. The advantage of centralizing rallies is that it can show your movement's power (if you get fair media coverage) and can confront the opponent head-on with the bulk of your strength. The disadvantages are that it concentrates decision-making power (possibly having a net disempowering effect on the "followers" - ultimately damaging the movement), and that police (or other opponents) know how to deal with centralized tactics due to their previous experience and their expectations of a top-down structure - which will hurt your odds of success. Decentralized Protest Thus it is clear that activists should at least experiment with decentralized tactics. By decentralized tactic, I mean one that will strive to minimize (*elimination of inequality is generally impossible*) the inequality between the organizers and participants, not only in small groups where this is more easily done, but also in events with hundreds or thousands of people. Participants will be able to shape the course of the action, and any form of "leadership" will be directly responsible to the participants (and revocable). April 16 Of all the events I've attended, the DC April 16th protest comes the closest to being "decentralized." Participants were unified by the target / issue, and by the most part the use of non-violent tactics that excluded property destruction. The overall strategy was designed by a spokescouncil consisting of representatives of affinity groups of 5 to 50 people. This introduced a measure of accountability to the extent that representatives were democratically chosen and held responsible. The protest area was divided into pieces called "pie slices"; each of which was the responsibility of multiple affinity groups. Significantly, the decisions on tactics were delegated to the pie-slice which then delegated them to the affinity groups. As it was difficult to predict what would happen in the action, many decisions were left to the affinity groups to decide over the course of the day. Thus depending on communication from other groups and its own free decision-making power, an affinity group could decide to hold its present position, move to another intersection, lock-down (or not if there was too much spray, gas or physical pressure), construct a barrier (or not), or try negotiating something with the police. The advantage of this flexibility was that protesters were able to rapidly reinforce barricades that needed assistance (for instance if the police attacked it) - and it would have worked even better if communication was more organized (I was at F and 20th and had little idea of what was going on at other intersections, except for periodic very short updates) and if affinity groups were more familiar with each other (multiple affinity groups would hold an intersection and wouldn't communicate too well with each other). Suggestions for Decentralized Campus Protest What might a decentralized protest look like on campus? One or more groups of people, at the same university or college, would agree on a day (or other time period) of action against the same target(s). I'd suggest a modified affinity group structure, where the overall integration (sharing) of various plans would be done through a spokescouncil. Affinity groups might be as small as one or two people, if the group does not have many members. Each affinity group could decide what tactic it would use, so as to use and develop its own talents and to complement those of the other groups. Overview Basically you'd use every single imaginable tactic that your group would normally use, however instead of doing them on different dates, you would do them at the same time. Thus you might have different groups passing out leaflets (or stuffing them in campus newspapers), blocking streets or buildings (soft-blockades - linked arms as you'll want to be flexible), speaking off of soap-boxes (trashcans, benches, from the branches of trees, in classes, etc) possibly with the use of bullhorns, dropping banners, chanting, marching (or running) through buildings, burning things (ex. administration press releases), chalking, postering, petitioning, doing street theater (everything from full-fledge "plays" to a couple people just walking around campus with duct tape on their mouths and placards or words on their t-shirt), civil disobedience, etc. I think rapid-fire attacks, followed by retreats would prove particularly effective. So that campus security has to go one place, tell a couple people to stop doing something (ex. loudly chanting or blasting political music outside the president's office), and they will stop - but by that time someone else will be doing an activity elsewhere on campus, and while the security officers go over there to figure out what is happening the group that was originally chanting outside the president's office can move to its next planned activity. Your goal is to bend the rules, slightly breaking them, but by ending your activity after the police/security complain (or beforehand if your scout sees them approaching and you have time to disperse to your "regroup point") you will not be held responsible and will be able to continue agitating. The effect of these tactics should be to overwhelm your campus security. If the most radical thing you are doing is nonviolently blocking a building, it is unlikely that your university will either want or attempt to get reinforcements from the city. And the city might be reluctant to send them. I suspect most universities have little experience calling upon external police to crackdown on protestors, and thus by the time they make that decision your day of action will be successful (if not over with). The achievement of these tactics should be to have disrupted the (top-down) power of your school's administration, and demonstrated an alternative source of power (ultimately the power of students and workers to close universities). Not only will you interfere with the daily tasks of administrators (diverting them from their original jobs, to have to deal with this protest), but you will also destroy their administrator identity and image (by demonstrating their inability to control "unrest") in the press, regionally, and possibly nationally. Fearing future disruptions that will hurt their careers, administrators are more likely to concede your movement's demands. Not only will you overwhelm campus security and disrupt the regular running of your school, but by spreading the action out to cover as much of campus as possible you will widen your contact with the student body. Instead of there being a rally at the typical rally site with 50- 500 people, which students have grown use to ignoring, they will be confronted with a couple people protesting right in front of them, personally appealing to them to discuss the issue and join in on the campaign. By talking person-to-person we are far more likely to persuade people of our position and integrate them into the campaign. They will no longer be able to sideline us by referring to stereotypes, if we're talking in person. Also you should try very very hard to integrate as many people as possible into actions and affinity groups. Thus people could be encouraged to chalk (maybe even give out chalk to opponents - as this will spark increased debate), leaflet, poster, join in the street theater (there are special forms of theater that involve the audience), etc. This might work best when there is warm weather and a lot of people are outside. Communications If you have a small campus and/or many different people protesting, communications will not be much of a problem (you might manage with people just running into each other). Otherwise you could either have a bike-communications team, or use walkie-talkies (the new "family radio" series of walkie talkies can cost as little as $50 each, like if you buy them on Ebay. They have a range of two miles which is good.) You can also buy a used radio scanner on Ebay for $30-$40 that you can use to listen to campus police (do a internet search to find- out how many frequencies your campus security uses, or maybe ask a local radio shack - you'll probably only need 5-10 memories). One advantage as compared to Seattle or DC, you will be acting on home ground that you know. When should you do this? The more activities your group can do at once, the greater the potential for using decentralized tactics. There is no minimal group size, as a group with only two people could do a decentralized protest. A small group might be able to use a decentralized protest as a way of showing power disproportionate to your numbers. Some activities might be done better with one or more partners, who can fill in different roles or provide moral support. Conclusion Perhaps my suggestion of what a decentralized protest might look like is too ambitious and would require too much energy for it to work. Many people do not view themselves as "activists" and will be reluctant to join in a day of action, though they might attend a regular protest. It will take time to empower and train people so that they take leadership, rather than expect to follow someone else. However I think that tactic innovation is important because it could help USAS and other groups become more effective. So the next time you are planning a major event, think about doing something decentralized instead of another rally. I would love to hear what others think. How might you define a "decentralized protest"? Can we imitate the tactics and strategic approach used in Seattle and in DC on our campuses, and if so how? When should we use centralized tactics, and when should we use decentralized ones? Notes (1). In the spring of 1999, Georgetown, Duke, Madison, Michigan, UNC, and Arizona sat-in against sweatshops. In the spring of 2000, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Madison, Macalester, Toronto, Tulane, Iowa, Albany, and Kentucky did anti-sweatshop sit-ins. Also that spring Wesleyan, John Hopkins, Ohio, and Claremont Colleges did campus labor related sit-ins. This is more sit-ins on any one issue, than have occurred either since the 80s (anti-apartheid) or 60s. (2). For a look at tactical innovation in the civil rights movement see Doug McAdam, "Tactical Innovation and the Pace of Insurgency", American Sociological Review, 48: 735- 754, 1983. (3). Napster expresses the possibility for decentralized alternative uses of the Internet which challenge corporate power (it is used for the sharing/pirating of music files - mp3s). So does Gnutella a program similar to Napster, with the added features that it allows for the sharing of all types of files, does not rely on a central server, and is open-source (the program can be modified by anyone). Hopefully this shows that alternative decentralized systems can overcome the power of corporate conglomerates, though Napster is currently facing tough corporate legal pressure. (4). While some protests at Notre Dame have had over twenty speakers (we've held several open-mike speakouts/rallies), when there are 275 people in the audience this is still inequality.