As a student-activist, I feel that I must take issue with the opinion article (“The battlefield in the voting booth, not the streets” Feb. 27). Throughout the article, I felt a sense of optimism but more of a feeling of ignorance in regarding the time and place for protesting.
While I do agree that protesting is only part of the solution, saying that it is only proper regarding civil liberties is not. History has shown that protesting physical, social media, boycotting or whatever you consider protesting is effective.
The argument that dropping the signs and campaigning is bizarre – as if we live in some utopia in which it will always work. The writer failed to explain the realities of voter suppression and institutional racism that exists in our democracy.
The idea that contacting your representatives on any level and getting them to change their mind is like driving up to Memphis to get a lottery ticket and winning. The ills of voter suppression in which includes voter I.D. laws, gerrymandering of political districts as well as the many other pitfalls used in the past and today to quiet the voices of such issues.
Have we forgotten the plight of institutional racism in matters such as the Flint water crisis or the shooting of Mike Brown among the countless other things?
I feel protesting is proper to the point that it is at level with other forms to furthering such cause but to think that protesting should be discouraged to the only extreme crisis with all the pitfalls such protestors continue to face is ignorant, to say the least.
So, my question is that protesting an administration that touts racism, bigotry, misogyny, and deprivation of the press among the countless other things not worth protesting for?