The Violence of "Nonviolence"

Columbia University recently announced that, in light of the Trump administration’s threatened revocation of $400 million dollars in federal funding, it would concede and amend some of its policies pertaining to on-campus protests.

They chose to do this, despite the fact that Columbia University has a nearly fifteen BILLION dollar endowment to draw from.

They chose a small amount (for them) of money over the safety of students who wish to exercise their first amendment right.

They, despite their long history of fostering space for historic nonviolent demonstrations, chose violence.

They won’t be the only academic institution to do so- and they join a growing number of prominent, “progressive” entities within and adjacent to the nonprofit sector that are modifying, curtailing, and/or outright dismantling policies/programs/protocols designed to, in one way or another, create space for marginalized people and marginalized discourse.

These actions are being rationalized as “necessary” so as to not financially impede such organizations’ ability to do the “good” work they are renowned for.

These organizations are justifying their complicity in violence, plain and simple.

That said, organizations are run by people and many people- if not a majority- who purport to be "nonviolent", in practice, aid and abet violence. Indeed, like the organizations they run and the system they uphold and maintain, benefit from the fruits of violence.

To elaborate: Proponents of "nonviolence" allow for a very limiting definition of what "nonviolence" is- a definition that centers the physical, the "uncivilized". War, gunshots, punches, slaps.

These actions are "violent".

But criminalizing dissent (including enabling it to be criminalized), employing the advocacy “strategy” of pitting one marginalized group against another, engaging in emotional manipulation, gaslighting, looking the other way when one is witness to someone else experiencing microaggressions, financially benefitting from exploited labor, etc- since none of these actions involve physical aggression, they all conveniently skirt the definition of "nonviolence" that most people work from.

This iteration of "nonviolence" focuses on the overt, yet allows for the covert to thrive- so long as one doesn't physically aggress another, both are “fine”.

But, with the limiting of the definition of "nonviolence" comes the opportunity for those who wish to benefit from violence without fear of losing their “progressive” title to conjure up innovative ways to do so, which can include, but certainly isn't limited to actions such as:

-devising a whisper campaign to alienate a colleague who threatens the status quo in the hopes of getting them fired-purchasing products manufactured with sweatshop labor-eating food grown/processed by exploited workers- this includes so-called “cruelty free” foods that vegans enjoy

-maintaining a pro-union visage publicly while simultaneously treating "unskilled" and/or undocumented workers condescendingly in real life

-using one’s power and privilege to “reframe”- or downright override- the lived experience of oppressed people

-maintaining relationships with racially marginalized people as a buffer to accusations of racism, up to and including marrying Black and Brown people and parenting Black and Brown children

-rationalizing working for an entity that oppresses others because one “has to make a living”, has “mouths to feed”, etc.

The system that is the United States of America was built to oppress. It cannot function, let alone, advance, without the acquisition of land and labor in exploitative ways.

As h. rap brown put it, “Violence is a part of America’s culture. It is as American as cherry pie.”

But, instead of supporting our society to evolve to the point where dismantling this oppressive system to create one that is just is the obvious course of action, we have, instead, chosen to evolve oppression to ensure that it is covert, outsourced, rationalized, dismissed, and/or ignored. An employer can't refuse an employment opportunity to someone because they are Black, but they can certainly emotionally filibuster them during the candidate selection process (anti-Blackness). A law enforcement officer can't arrest a woman for not covering her hair, but an administrator can send a 13 year old girl home from school for violating the school dress code by wearing a top with spaghetti straps (sexism). One can't advocate for the killing of trans people, but they can “forget” to include trans people in their advocacy efforts (transphobia). One can’t deny another’s right to free speech and assembly, but they can create conditions that render such activities impossible. One can't set up a plantation and staff it with enslaved people, but they can incarcerate them into oblivion and create industries that thrive as a result of their under/uncompensated labor (racism/anti-Blackness). And, upon release, one can limit the employment opportunities of previously incarcerated people as a result of the fact that they were incarcerated (as well as revoking their right to vote), thus increasing the likelihood of them becoming incarcerated- and under/uncompensated for their prison labor- yet again.

And, most importantly, one can choose to bear witness to any or all of the above occurring, but refuse to do anything of substance to make it stop.

And, in the face of the simple solution- dismantling the oppressive system- one chooses violence as if their life depends on it. Because, in this oppressive system, it does.