Civil Disobedience, Litigation, and the Gaplin Sit-In

In January of 2018, the College of Wooster witnessed a public demonstration against its own administration on its own campus. The demonstration was in the form of a more impromptu walkout and laid back sit-in. Students were sent mass texts to leave class 10 minutes early and to meet in front of Kauke, where they would be greeted with student leaders handing out pins and giant speakerphones playing music. Afterwards, students walked to the administration building–not without a few pictures from the school’s professional photographer. After students filed into the building, the demands were read aloud, students were encouraged to post on social media. The sit-in began. Students were served drinks by the administration staff, given the opportunity to leave and come back, and engaged in light conversation and games until the sit ended that night.

Now, what does a traditional sit-in look like? Historically, sit-ins were serious and somber, with students locked in a building for hours, refusing to leave until the last of their demands were met. These demands were often concise, and the student leaders who negotiated them were relentless. The Gaplin Sit-In, however, was a different type of sit-in. In a new age, very few things are kept the same– public demonstrations included. The main purpose of civil disobedience was to make enough noise, so those in charge were forced to make a change. In this age, that noise can be made with a few Instagram posts, Snapchat stories, and tweets. But how effective can this be? Such a question can only be answered with 20-20 vision, so Wooster students must wait to see how effective the Gaplin Sit-In was. The one result that is instant, however, is the hope and inspiration the sit-in stirred in others. One can say confidently, that no matter how effective the sit-in was, it was far from a waste of time.

Reflection on Dr. Kathleen Cleaver

Last week, the College of Wooster had the pleasure of hosting Dr. Kathleen Cleaver– a prominent member of the Black Panther Party. During her lecture, Cleaver spoke on her involvement in the party as well as the party’s international involvement and advocacy.

When discussing local involvement in the Black Panther party, Cleaver expressed the community’s tenacity to joining the party. At this point in Black civil rights, African Americans were more than willing to join an organization that practiced civil disobedience through public demonstrations and lectures. This tenacity can be contrasted with the Black community’s apprehension towards civil disobedience in the 1940s. During the 1940s, civil disobedience tactics were the topic of debate, as prominent Black figures discussed the shift from litigation to civil disobedience. On one hand, litigation supporters stated that the slow-and-steady pace of the legal system was the best tactic in order to avoid racial violence. Civil disobedience supporters, however, stated the slow-and-steady pace of the legal system was too slow, and public demonstrations were more effective. For that particular time, it cannot be said which tactic was more effective. However, by the 1960s, civil disobedience became widely practiced, present as the driving force for many organizations–including the Black Panthers.

The second driving force of the Black Panther party is the idea of global Black power. The concept of Black power was not of Black superiority, but rather Black freedom to determine one’s future. This idea was not contained to just the United States. The Black Panther party incited a global Black power movement that mirrors that of the rise of pan-Africanism following World War I. Just as Blacks across the globe realized their oppression and connected through their shared experiences around 1915, people of color around the globe connected in the 1960s.

Schuyler vs. Hughes

Going over the primary sources, I found myself caught between choosing a side between Hughes’ and Schuyler’s arguments in terms of how to represent black art. On my initial read, I thought they both made good points. While it is important to establish an identity in culture, does doing so imply that there is a difference between races? And if so, does that mean that one is inherently inferior? But especially today, I do know how important it is for a race to establish an identity in mainstream culture, and how important it is for them to cling to that. I think that that is why I eventually sided with Langston Hughes over Schyler. While the idea that a black artist should just be considered just an artist, I think that it is more important for a race to find their own identity among themselves. The Harlem renaissance allowed black Americans to stake a claim in their own world and gave the community something to rally behind. Saying that they are the same as any other artist takes that away from them, and does more harm for the community than good.

Kathleen Cleaver BPM- Violence

Kathleen Cleaver’s visit to the College was very fruitful and her presentation covered the history of the Black Panther organization. Cleaver was very intentional to try to unravel the misconception of the Black Panthers as a group that promoted violence. The Black Panthers did believe in the right to bear arms and one of their famous tactics was to follow police officers active in black neighborhoods and prevent violence by being present with guns. However, this tactic was in response to police brutality from racist police officers.

Cleaver stated that protestors wanted the Black Panthers to supply guns so they could retaliate for the death of MLK and ongoing police brutality. When the Black Panthers refused to support them that way, two carloads of protestors, including Black Panthers Eldridge Cleaver and Bobby Hutton, decided to act out in violence. In this act Bobby was killed and Eldridge Cleaver was to be arrested. Ultimately, the movement lost access to some of their leaders because of violence, so it makes sense that Kathleen Cleaver would be opposed such tactics and labels.

Who Are We Listening To?

In the wake of the Florida school shooting just over a month ago, a lot of people have begun speaking out against the loose gun control in this country, and many others have started to really listen. The marches organized by the Parkland students, specifically, gained a lot of media attention and started a bit of a snowball effect in terms of protests and school walk-outs. However, as an article for Huffington Post by Sarah Ruiz-Grossman points out, the fast success of this anti-gun, anti-violence movement can bring into question why a relatively small group of white students are being listened to more than black victims fighting against gun violence. This is a very complicated issue, then, because the topic of gun control is finally being addressed very vocally nationwide, but why it is only now being addressed in this capacity when groups like Black Lives Matter have been trying to talk about it for years? This all comes back into class discussions of anti-black violence and demonstration to get political progress, but this time comparing the effectiveness of the demonstration based on the group’s race. Granted, this new anti-gun movement the Parkland kids kick started is very new and has hardly had enough time to make any lasting difference, and considering how popular in media coverage the Black Lives Matter movement was when it first started, so I’m a little hesitant to fully compare the two movements just yet. Still, there is clearly the sense, from my perspective, that many people see the Parkland kids’ movement as the first real protest against gun violence, which it definitely is not. And while I am glad that this issue is being addressed, I, too, am more than a little disheartened at the fact that it was ignored for so long simply because of who was presenting the issue.