Thursday, June 11, 1998
Protect our right to protest
RIGHTS: Fighting unjust laws like Prop. 227 vital in avoiding
oppression
By Jason Garrett Kamler
The letter "Voice of citizens must be heard" (June 5) by Marlon
Cicero was an extremely closed-minded and misinformed article with
regards to the rights and responsibilities of American citizens and
groups which work to promote civil rights. The United States of
America was created with individual rights serving as a cornerstone
of our nation. One of these rights is the right to protest unjust
and racist laws. As a member of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), I applaud the organization’s effort (in conjunction with
the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Law Caucus, and
the Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy) to have
Proposition 227, a racist and un-American law, repealed. These
groups are working to prevent the "tyranny of the closed-minded
majority" from becoming law in California – but this is not the
first time that Americans have risen in defiance when the threat of
injustice and oppression reared its ugly head.
Less than 50 years ago, African Americans were forced into
segregated schools because the "majority" of white Americans
decided that this was just. It took the Supreme Court case of Brown
vs. Board of Education (1954) to overturn this racist law. Then,
the civil rights struggle of the 1960s worked to give African
Americans and other minorities the rights which were denied them by
the "majority" of white Americans. Were these people being
un-American by protesting for their civil rights? Protest and legal
action work to address issues of injustice, oppression and tyranny.
The founders of this country warned against the tyranny of the
majority and wanted to make sure that the minority was not
silenced. However, you, Cicero, seem to be advocating the exact
opposite.
You claim that the opposition doesn’t understand what it means
to vote. I say that you don’t understand what equality, justice and
civil rights mean. Merely voting in favor of a certain proposition
does not make it just. Also, nobody’s right to vote was compromised
by the lawsuit filed. On the contrary, the lawsuit allows people to
exercise their ability to protest actions which they feel violate
their civil rights. Unjust laws are overturned through court cases,
and ruling such laws unconstitutional is one of the functions of
the U.S. court system. This is precisely what has happened in the
last 27 years with regards to bilingual education.
There have been numerous court cases which support bilingual
education, including Lau vs. Nichols (1974), where Justice Douglas
stated that "there is no equality of treatment merely by providing
students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers and
curriculum; for students who do not understand English are
effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education (from
bilingual education)." ("From Compensatory to Quality Schooling" by
Maria Estela Brisk, 1998, p. 8).
Along with this historic case, there have been others which
actually mandated bilingual education including: United States vs.
Texas (1971); Serna vs. Portales Municipal Schools (1972); ASPIRA
vs. Board of Education of the City of New York (1974); Rios vs.
Read (1977). These are instances when the civil rights of
non-English speakers have been upheld against the tyranny of the
majority.
While exercising the right to vote is one aspect of being an
American, it is just that – one aspect. The groups filing this
lawsuit are exercising an even greater American right – the ability
to protest laws which are unjust. You, Cicero, said that anyone who
voted in favor of Proposition 227 should take this action as a
"slap in the face." I agree and I hope this "slap" was enough to
open your eyes to the unjust and racist law which you voted for. As
long as individuals have the right to protest (verbally and
legally) actions or laws which are unjust, racist or oppressive,
then democracy will continue to move toward a more equitable and
less oppressive society.