Thursday, May 28, 2009

Civil Disobedience - Thoreau and King on Tim De Christopher

Civil Disobedience simply put is described in the oxford dictionary as “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes, as a political protest”, but does this simple definition do justice to the complex philosophy of civil disobedience? On December 2008, Tim De Christopher, a student of economics at the University of Utah recently made headlines when he posed as a bidder at a government auction to disrupt the sale of “150,000 acres of wilderness” that was being auctioned to oil and gas companies. Christopher stated that” his false bids on oil and gas parcels were acts of civil disobedience against the exploitation of public sites” (Goodman). What responses would he evoke from famous authors like Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. whose writings on civil disobedience are world famous? Thoreau and King would have been on agreement on many concepts if they had the opportunity to be born in the same era. To state two main concepts they would be in agreement of – one, a person should consult his/her conscience before taking out an action they consider unjust and two, while disobeying the law one should be ready to face the consequences. They both would have been pleased with the student from Utah as they believed in acting on what one considers morally right rather than go along with an unjust law. The student in Utah acted on what he thought was right. He disrupted the bidding process which ultimately resulted in twenty two thousand acres of land not being sold to oil companies. King and Thoreau both would have been very proud of the student in Utah.

Christopher justified his act of false bidding as something that needed to be done to protect the public land that would otherwise be auctioned off to oil and gas companies. Out of the 150,000 acres, 110,000 acres consisted of land near Arches and Canyon lands National Parks, Dinosaur National Monument, and Nine Mile Canyon (Lance). Some might ask “So what is the big deal if oil and gas companies get hold of the land and started to drill for oil?” The answer to that might be given in three parts, drilling for oil would add to global warming, it is unjust and wrong of the government to sell public land around national parks, and it destroys the natural beauty of the American terrain. These are moral issues that Americans stand divided against. Some believe that humans have speeded up the process of global warming while there are some who don’t believe in global warming at all. “I was looking at the consequences of acting and not acting,” De Christopher said. “I chose that going to prison was a better outcome than letting this destruction continue.” (McFall). De Christopher said he believes “the morality of his actions supersedes the charges”. His lawyer’s Patrick Shea and Ron Yengich said they plan to use this as an argument in their case, known as “the lesser of two evils defense.” De Christopher said his actions exposed the government bidding process as unjust.

De Christopher now faces two felonies, if charged he faces a combination of 10 years in prison and $750,000. The Obama administration nullified the auction. The parcels that De Christopher had purchased were under the parcels that were nullified. The bases of the nullification were that BLM (Bureau of Land Management) had not followed all the rules and that the sale was illegal and unjust. What comes as a surprise is that even after De Christopher managed to raise $45,000 for the first payment BLM did not accept it due to the nullification of the auction; nevertheless the charges were still maintained against him. He rightly states his surprise in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now – “I saw that really as an official ruling that what I was standing against was something illegal and unjust, and so I was surprised that they still wanted to prosecute me for my opposition to that unjust procedure”(Goodman).

Americans stood divided in 1848 as well when Henry David Thoreau was put into jail for refusal of paying poll taxes. His “Civil Disobedience” inspired many across the world. He believed that the Mexican war and slavery was unjust and did not want to be part of the injustice by paying taxes. “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why does every man have a conscience, then?” he asked in “Civil Disobedience” (Thoreau 301). He went on to ask his audience “what was the purpose of every man having a conscience?” The purpose that every man has a conscience was to decide for themselves what they thought as just or unjust and to act on behalf on that conscience versus obey the laws blindly. “Unjust laws exist”, stated Thoreau and what can citizens do to change that he asked “shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” (Thoreau 306).He brought to attention the different scenarios that most citizens would contemplate when asked the question of how to deal with injustice. When men were faced with such a dilemma Thoreau believed that, most men would be content to wait till a majority stood up for an injustice rather than question the injustice single handedly. People are scared to stand up against the law and face the repercussions i.e. to be arrested and face injustice personally. Imploring people to not be scared of the repercussions and stand up to unjust laws he stated that if standing up for injustice means you have to stand against the government then it is justified. “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machinery of government, let it go….…; but if it is of a nature that requires you to be an agent of injustice to another, then I say break the law” (Thoreau 306). Christopher clearly acted on what he thought was an unjust procedure. On the terms mentioned and discussed as above would Christopher’s act of civil disobedience qualify in Thoreau’s opinions? Absolutely.

What about one of the most famous civil rights leaders of our times, Martin Luther King, why would he give Christopher a thumb up? To come to the answer we have to first analyze King’s approach to Civil Disobedience. What better way than to analyze his response to the letter that was written by “Eight White Clergymen”, when he was in jail in Birmingham. King believed that it was the right of every American to stand up for an injustice even if did not affect your immediate community and that an injustice to any American was an injustice to all Americas. On being called an outsider when protesting in Birmingham King stated “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King 194). Just like King, Christopher believed in “Direct Action” when he realized that negotiation was not working. King believed that direct action was required to highlight an issue when negotiation had failed. The seriousness of the issue would be noticed by practicing direct action and this he stated ever so eloquently, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue”(King 195). Christopher seems to be inspired by direct action and that’s what he deemed as appropriate action to stop oil and gas companies from bidding for public land. King goes on to define the difference between unjust law and just law. He answers the question of “When it is okay to break some laws while still obeying other laws?” (King 197). His answer states that it is okay to break the law when “an unjust law is out of harmony with the moral law”. King gave importance to being a moral human rather than follow a law that was immoral and “degrades human personality” (King 197). He regarded the moral law in the same vein as “the law of God”, not a man made law.

Christopher admitted that he realized what had to be done to disrupt the bidding process. He realized that the implications of his actions would mean going against the law and possible jail time, nevertheless he was willing to accept the repercussions of his direct action. To draw a parallelism between Christopher’s action and King’s letter would be most appropriate at this point. King stated “One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly ….. , and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law”(King 198). In his letter, King advocates the need to respect the law even while disagreeing with it, and accepting the consequences. By accepting the consequences a greater awareness would be brought to the people and the law would be respected at the same time. In my opinion, this is like killing two birds with one stone. King believed that by practicing direct action it would bring to the community’s attention the tension that lied beneath and had to come to the top. I like to relate it to the fat in milk, for example we all know that there is fat in milk but to prove it we have to boil the milk and subject it to heat in order for the fat to float on top.

Although King would be in agreement with Christopher’s direct action, he might not be impressed with the fact that Christopher worked by himself and not in a group. The four steps/criteria in Kings Non-violence campaign were not entirely met by Christopher since he did not follow the necessary steps but jumped straight into direct action. Kings four basic criteria’s for a non-violent campaign to be launched on an issue was “(1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices were alive, (2) negotiation, (3) self-purification, and (4) direct action” (King 194). Although Christopher’s actions had a hint of some of the basic steps involved, his actions were not well thought out. He mentions that he was not sure where exactly the land was that he was bidding for. It was after the false bidding that he found out that some of the land he won was around the same parameters of national parks. While Christopher’s motives are not in question his unorganized planning is. King mobilized the youth to stand up against segregation by launched the non-violent campaign. His campaign was well thought out and well planned in advance. Facts of an injustice were collected and then analyzed to determine if the injustice in fact did exist, after which a negotiation was set up with the involved parties. If the negotiation did not reap the fruits it deserved then the campaigners were trained in self purification to determine if they were ready to undergo physical abuse. The last stage was the stage of direct action, physically protesting in a peaceful manner without any retaliation. King’s preparation strategies as compared to Christopher’s action would be doing injustice to King’s campaign of non-violent. Had King being alive when Christopher decided to act on what he considered as an injustice he would have asked him to show his passion of the cause by identifying the four stages which Christopher clearly would not be able to do justice to.

Christopher’s action did bring a great awareness to the immoral auction of public land to oil and gas companies which is commendable, but on the other hand the impact could have been bigger if he would have taken the time to really learn about the issues, the land that was being sold, and how better to engage his fellow campaigners of the cause. Who is to say that if he had a well thought of plan he would have not been in the current situation he is in, fighting the system against the two felonies he has been charged with. However, let’s look at the positive aspect of De Christopher’s current ordeal who is to say that “this too shall pass” for him and all charges against him would be dismissed. Who is to say that the youth of today shall unite against unjust laws inspired by Christopher’s action and his name would go down in history, after all, all great leaders of Civil Disobedience have been to jail from Martin Luther King Jr, to Thoreau, from Mahatma Gandhi to Socrates. Christopher believed that inaction was like taking part in an act of injustice and he took action to show that he was not part of that injustice; this is a feather in his cap.


Works Cited
Associated Press. “Student is charged with obstructing Utah land auction.” Los Angeles Times (2009): April 2, 2009 <http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-drilling2-2009apr02,0,380776.story?track=rss>

Goodman, Amy. “Utah Student Who Prevented Bush Admin Sell-Off of Public Land Charged for Disrupting Auction.” Democracy Now. (2009) April 6, 2009. <http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/3/utah_student_who_prevented_bush_admin>

King, Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: Elements of Argument, 2009

Lance, Jennifer. “College Student Faces Felony Charges for Disrupting Auction of Public Land.” Planet Thoughts. (2009): April 5,2009 <http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=pt/Whole&qid=2842>

McFall, Michael. “DeChristopher indicted.” The Daily Utah Chronicle. (2009): April 5,2009
<http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/news/dechristopher-indicted-1.1639933>

Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience”: Elements of Argument, 2009

No comments: