For this blog, discuss strategies for or issues in social activism. Post your blog 5 as a comment here.
Writing For Social Change
…where students express their views about social issues.
For this blog, discuss strategies for or issues in social activism. Post your blog 5 as a comment here.
On Friday, the demonstrators in Pomona purposefully set out to have fifteen people arrested in honor of the fifteen workers fired for their inability to produce documentation on time. After negotiating with the police (who wouldn’t arrest them for peaceful protest), fifteen protestors blocked traffic on College Avenue, were arrested, brought to jail, and charged with failure to disperse and illegal assembly. The goal of instigating these arrests was to generate notice of the protest which would have otherwise likely been overlooked by many. Now, an article in the Huffington Post addresses their protest and the ACLU and Judy Chu, a House Representative, have declared their intended support of the workers.
However, the decision to have some protestors arrested remains a controversial one. The modest amount of increased media coverage may have been offset by the increase in negative opinions of those already irritated by the annoyance of earlier protests. In the online comments at TSL, people called the act of provoking arrests “poorly executed and obnoxious,” “selfish,” “arrogant” and “belligerent” to quote a few. While other commenters supported the protest, those most fired up were those against the workers’ cause. Provoked by the arrests, opinions about the protest became more binary across the board, as it became an either/or issue that students either supported or rejected. It isn’t clear who won the PR battle—the Pomona administration and anti-protestors by simply letting the protestors appear extreme or the protestors by demonstrating their commitment to their cause.
When I was reading Shaw’s “The Activist’s Handbook,” I was struck by the similarities between the protest in Pomona and a protest in which SANOE (Stop AIDS Now or Else) blocked traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge. Their civil disobedience took on the same form as that of the Pomona 15 and it incurred a similar mixed reaction. Those affected (the drivers) said that the protest did not increase their support for ACT UP’s cause and, in fact, “the director of policy for the region’s largest AIDS organization… told the press that the protest could hurt support for AIDS patients” (221).
If taking extreme measures while protesting creates greater controversy, how desirable are these measures? While both protests gained greater opponents because of their “upped” tactics, they also forced a conversation about their issues, which might have been buried if they hadn’t interfered with the usual flow of things. As a TSL commenter noted, “It’s interesting to see how vocal and opinionated people can be when issues PERSONALLY affect them.” Who would have noticed the protestors if they hadn’t made any noise?
Whatever you’re thinking right now, there’s a pretty good chance I’m going to disagree with part of it.
That’s what I love, though: studying how to make all types of people in our world work together, for it truly takes all types to make one world.
We’ve asked a lot of questions and read different authors’ takes on protest. Some have struck particular resonance for me. Thoreau encouraged us to use our entire bodies to block “the machine” of the government and system. Lorde discussed whether it is ever possible to work within “the system” at all, when there’s such a high risk that we’ll fall into the trap of relying on the perspectives of the “masters” whom we attempt to subvert, failing to find new ways to view ourselves and relate to others because we are distracted by old prejudices that have been ingrained in how we were raised. We must be self-conscious in every moment of protest then; this relates also to Reagon’s view on coalitions, where we must recognize our differences in addition to what we have in common, lest our group efforts crumble into a chaos of disagreement based on misrecognition. We’ve discussed whether just talking about issues is enough, versus finding ways to seek change more actively.
Reading the excerpt from Randy Shaw’s Activist’s Handbook, I thought: “Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to learn.” I want to obtain strategies for being that bridge between people. I want to be the one who networks, makes those connections, mediates the conflicts, and helps find the common ground on which to base group activism. I want to see and understand how people are feeling, to talk through issues thoughtfully, and come to compromises that will carry us forward with strong strides.
I found the Activist’s Handbook’s discussion of direct action enlightening: I see how we must align acts of protest with events or locations that correspond directly to laws or demands that are being made, to maximize media attention and most importantly promote the clearest possible public understanding of the issues and suggestions at hand. I’m impressed with ACT UP’s level of media savvy, and I respect their bravery to lead protests even in the face of powerful people such as Cardinal O’Connor and President Clinton himself.
What intrigues me most, however, is the question of where to proceed from here, to seek continued success for groups like ACT UP. We see that “early conflicts get particularly strong media attention,” where the media ceases to pay full attention to issues later in the career of an administration (227). Shaw also notes the risk of “confusing the public which might erroneously equate the group’s ability to obtain publicity with actual progress on its demands” (218). Nowadays, Shaw says, ACT UP has joined the many organizations who “lose steam after achieving their goals” (234). Yet the battle is hardly over; a cure for AIDS has not been found, ignorance about safe sex still leads to the spread of the disease, and people around the world who still lack resources for obtaining and maintaining treatment still experience AIDS as the epidemic as which it began. But what do we do when a cause or major organization has slowed, when a continuing issue has fallen beneath the table and been forgotten? We must re-envision our approach to protest.
Shaw predicts that this re-envisioning will indeed occur as the strategies of ACT UP are applied to new angles of the gay and lesbian rights movement, such as workplace discrimination. In the end, it’s our job to figure out the next step. We’re up next, you me and all our classmates. It’ll be our turn soon. And I think we can do it. Let’s dive in. Let’s leap.
Are you ready?
Well
my friends
protest is a lot like writing.
I have been thinking about what happened last year, with the walk outs in solidarity with the workers in Wisconsin
I have been thinking a bit about my protests about censorship in our student press in high school
I have been thinking about all of you out there, supporting the Occupy movements
I have been thinking about a lot of you guys, my friends, who have been putting yourselves out there because there is a lot about this world that you don’t agree with.
I read something that struck me, as someone who wishes for change and does not always understand how to achieve it. I read something that explained a few things for me. We have spent a lot of time and energy trying to change people’s minds about what we believe in. We have been frustrated by a backlash of criticism. We have felt defeated.
It is NOT hopeless, it’s just about channeling our energy into clarity. It’s about relevance and timing. We must write the history of our opposition into the minds of the voters, the taxpayers, the constituents, the representatives, and we must do so with great detail and demand so that our needs can be met. We must have specific needs to begin with. We must educate ourselves, and make waves in such a way that does not obscure what we want or complicate our demands but pinpoint them. This is something I feel like a lot of us have not understood or prioritized. We must have a thesis and supporting evidence. We can’t protest a whole concept to some vague utopian end in the distant future. That doesn’t argue anything at all, when you think about it. I’ve had to think about it.
Anyway, I really think that Randy Shaw, author of the Activist’s Handbook, said it best. Engaging in unfocused direct action is counterproductive. Let’s focus. There is hope for us yet!
I agree with you, Leah. I had that same thought while reading Shaw and while interviewing Alyssa Solis Thursday night, literally four hours after she was released from the LA Metro Jail after being arrested at the Occupy LA raid Wednesday at 1 AM. I thought, “What are you fighting for?” as I talked to her. A question I didn’t ask, and now thinking back, I regret not having done so. Her mom is air force. her dad is army. She told me she was freaking out about what her parents’ reactions would be to her arrest. Her mom told her, “We all fight for our country in different ways.”
And superficially, I thought that was really cool that her mom supported her like that. My mom would probably disown me. But then I thought, well…duh. We all fight in different ways because we all have different causes. What, I ask then, is Alyssa’s?
She never intended to be arrested. She never wanted to spend 37 hours in a jail and a bus with piss and vomit covering the floor. She had previously been an “passive protester”. Those were her words, I think (none of these quotes were in the TSL article I wrote). She mostly sounded more upset with the way she was treated by the police and the fact that they were raiding Occupy rather than “greed and corruption”, which is what the Occupy Movement’s website says it’s protesting. Kind of going off what Mkay says, it’s funny how people get louder once they’re actually personally affected.
So now, the issue is being DILUTED. It isn’t just, let’s protest the 1% that controls the majority of the country’s wealth (which is vague as Virginia Woolf, if you’ll pardon the alliteration), it’s now also “Fuck the police! They suck and they raided the Occupy camp two months early. ” vs. “Alyssa Solis is an air headed passive protester who only happened to be in the right place at the right time to martyr herself out”. Both points are used for reasons to support either side. But does it have anything to do with the actual problem?
“Greed and corruption”. Yeah. That’s specific enough to accomplish something. What are we really going to accomplish with this Occupy Movement? It’s depressing to seriously consider how little this might be achieving–this movement into which so many people are putting an effort. How do we focus our energies into something constructive? If we need to completely revamp and revolutionize our society, economy and culture, how do we function outside of it to fix its problems? How do we use our own tools and not our “Master’s”? Which tools do we use? Is it even possible?
Should we allow the government to dictate how protest can proceed, or is it simply allowing the government to create the illusion that we, as the people of America, are making a difference even as it controls the reins?
I went to Professor Drake after Evasion in order to clarify the idea of anarchy. Along with some explanation, she suggested I write my research paper on it. What better way to learn about a subject than to research it for a 10 page paper? As I looked into the philosophy and ideas of anarchy, I realized it was advocating stepping outside of structure, a refusal to allow protest to become stagnate. Maybe this plays into Laura’s comment in her blog about how perhaps the peace marches she participated in are useless. It allows people to feel they have accomplished something, when in reality nothing is being done. Yes, peace is good. Everyone agrees with that. But is peace something so simple that we should simply march and expect change?
I think anarchy would agree somewhat with Gilmore’s proposition that “what-is-the-solution” thinking is restricting social change. As I read Sarah Han’s blog about wondering what Occupy Wallstreet is about, I wondered if it specifically had to have a plan of change. Perhaps right now it is just about drawing attention to the issue, and allowing the masses to hypothesize ideas? I know it has at least kept me thinking recently. Perhaps all of us are wondering “Could we do better?” “Is there a better option?” “Is it perfect as it is?” Even if we come to the conclusion that the set-up of the fiscal hierarchy is perfect it as it is, are we better for knowing that full thought has been put into it?
Perhaps all it’s asking for is that we keep thinking, that we don’t allow ourselves to believe the structure we live in is perfect. Could this be social change in and of itself?
Last Friday my friend came up to me, visibly distressed. “Hey,” she said, “Amber (*name has been changed) was just arrested. I’m going to visit her in jail now.” What a way to start a weekend, right?
Although Amber seems very quiet and demure most of the time, she has a steely determination also. Over the past few weeks, she has been very involved in protests of Pomona’s investigation of their employees. On the Thursday before she was arrested, 16 workers of Pomona College were fired, many of whom had been working there for over 10 years. In the protest, Amber represented a woman who had worked at Frary Dining Hall for 12 years and needed the job to provide for her daughter. Along with a group of alumni and students, Amber formed a circle in an intersection of the street and refused to leave. (Some news coverage has claimed that the protestors provoked the police or made a deal with them in order to get arrested. I know that they were prepared to get arrested, but I am not totally convinced this reporting is accurate. Amber has told me that they knew they could be arrested, but she wasn’t sure it would happen.)
Amber was held in jail for four hours, and was charged with unlawful assembly and failure to disperse. She has to go to court for these charges which could possibly go on her permanent record. Talking to her, she does seem scared, but she is convinced that no matter what the court ruling is, the protest will have been worth it. She did not get arrested to flaunt her activism or to look out for her own record. She did it because she was convinced it would draw attention to the situation. “The workers have a right to provide for their families,” she told me. Pomona shouldn’t be able to take that away.
This type of protest is the direct action that Randy Shaw was arguing for in his piece “The Activist Handbook.” The protesters at Pomona wanted the arrests to reflect directly on the administration, to make them deal with the repercussions of arresting students. It also reminded me of Thoreau’s idea from “Resistance to Civil Government” where he said: “let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine [of government].” In both cases, there is more concern for stopping injustice than for your own well being.
I’ve often heard the question: “What is ‘enough’ social activism? How will I know where to stop?” To me, this is the wrong way to approach the issue. Such questions make social activism seem like an obligation. In fact, it seems to me that community service and social activism have become the “cool” or “political correct” thing to do. However, randomly adopting a cause seems dangerous, especially for the reason to just “be active.” I think you should fight for something that you actually feel convicted to change, not just to gain respect from others. I know full out protesting is not for everyone. I certainly have qualms about it. So does that mean no one else’s actions matter? No, I don’t think so. Raising money to help genocide victims in far off countries or simply alerting others to an unjust situation is better than no activism at all.
However, it is important to remember that there is always the barrier of not having to actually live that life of persecution and that there is the danger of misrepresenting the people directly involved. Earlier in the course, we read about a poet taking of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina to use in his own work, and his cavalier attitude. In the case of the Pomona dining hall workers, the protestors spent time talking to them about their life stories and worries for the future. They were not the ones directly affected but made an effort to really understand the issue from the worker’s perspective.
It is a fine line between activism and misrepresentation and there will undoubtedly be mistakes along the way. People will get offended, not everything will work out the way you want. But that’s no reason not to try. You never know until you try.
More about the Pomona protests: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/pomona-college-protest-undocumented-workers_n_1125904.html#s517484
Poetry Issue of Hurricane Katrina survivors: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/article/239906
I have always wondered what it takes to accomplish something great. Do you have to already be great and have people that want to help you do something great? Or is it that your passion for something takes over your inhibitions and you are able to do something some people only dream of? When I really think about social change, I see great difficulties in achieving something great. But now, after I have read Shaw’s “Direct Action,” I realize that we can either be impervious to the idea of social change or we can jump in with both feet forward, never looking back.
As I read about the organization known as ACT UP or Aids Coalition to Unleash Power, I thought to myself “Wow. With an unending amount of people against the idea of this organization, how are the people able to advocate on a day to day basis?” But, what I have now realized is that it does not matter if the whole world is against you. The only thing that really matters is your ability to understand that your cause is important, and something needs to be done about it. Sitting around and thinking about what needs to be done means nothing when there are millions around the world fighting for something every day.
So I have come to the conclusion that if I want to do something great, something I truly care about, such as going to Tanzania to empower and educate women, then that is what I really need to be doing. This reading merely helped me realize that, even though this conclusion is far from the readings purpose, in order to be satisfied with ones self we need to do all that we desire, especially in the real of social justice. If we all sit here saying that we hope something is being done, then who is actually doing the action?
Reading about strategic activism has made me question the validity of various forms of activism, both personally and generally. One of the forms of activism I’m question personally is marching in small protests. When I lived in Big Rapids (super small central Michigan town), I participated in a few ‘peace marches.’ Fourteen-year-old Lauren bundled up and carried a sign reading “Peace Now” up and down the sidewalk of the busiest street in town (that is, two lanes and maybe thirty cars a minute). I felt like I was part of something bigger than myself, that I was contributing to the political process of the country. But thinking back on it, I wonder whether it actually did accomplish anything, besides making me feel good about myself and become very cold. Did anyone driving by in the mostly right-wing town read the signs and suddenly become aware that war is problematic? Is there even the slightest chance that I changed any minds at all?
Marches have a long history in protest. In the past they have had spectacular results, creating visibility and changing minds and sometimes causing political administrations to go so far as to reverse previous positions. Sometimes, however, they don’t. This can be due to a lack of participation, a lack of media coverage, or a polarizing issue that people refuse to even think about their position on. Looking back, I have to conclude that the Big Rapids peace marches fit into the latter category and probably didn’t do much at all. In that case, the march was symbolic for the people participating, reminiscent of great marches but not mirroring them in results. The time and energy that was spent in that march could have been put to a more productive purpose. In terms of raising awareness, talking one on one with people, writing letters to the paper, or speaking at town meetings would likely have had more of an effect. From now on, I would like to do more to consider the potential benefits of my activist actions before embarking on them, and I encourage others to do the same.
As a Legal Studies major, one of the prerequisite classes I have to take is “Introduction to American Politics”. Most would think that because it is an introductory level class it would be easy but, trust me, it’s challenging! At least it is for me, personally. I do not enjoy confrontation with other people – it makes me uncomfortable to debate openly with others and target a specific individual or a group. I cannot help but wonder if my classmates will judge me solely based on my opinion of public education or healthcare.
Nowadays, I understand that people are especially divided in terms of their views on political and social issues. In order to get our point across about the issues that concern us we must lobby, and lobby hard. Due to the widespread use and effectiveness of new media (such as social networking forums and websites), people are lobbying in different ways now than in the past. From what I read, the entire political movement to overthrow Egypt’s Mubarack was organized through Facebook (see photo 23 on link below).
I’m conflicted. I understand that in order to create and continue movements for social change, we must act through direct action. We must have a clear plan to target a certain individual or group and convince them that change is necessary. But again, I’m conflicted. Through what means? One could argue that peaceful petitioning and violent picketing are equally effective – and I believe this is true. However, the ends should never justify the means. Confronting people who have a differing ideology from ourselves require careful action.
There needs to be a more sophisticated approach than rioting and yelling for social change. I believe that ACT UP, an AIDS advocacy group, has taken the most effective as well as moral approach. By approaching the goal in a creative but nonviolent way (such as raising awareness at baseball games to target a male audience), they are raising awareness about their issue with confronting people in a way that gets them upset and violent. We can still use direct action, but such a confrontational approach often leads to allowing our passions get the better of us.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-most-powerful-photos-of-2011
After all of these readings, I have come to ask what form of social activism is best to spread a message. One characteristic I noticed that I felt was highly effective was the idea of coming together as a community to address an issue. In Gilmore’s reading, she provides an anecdote where the women of the immigrant community came together for a meeting to address the issue of the government turning a women’s prison into another structure. However, many voices are necessary before a message can be sent? If I hadn’t read the chapter, I would have never known about the anecdotes about prison and prisoners that Gilmore shares. For local issues, I suppose a local voice is enough. But for such broad topics such as environmental activism, I don’t understand how people can address the topic without starting locally. I guess having the well-known celebrities and politicians on ads is a start, but at the same time, don’t the voices of the people contribute to the activism?
I suppose I’m just really confused when it comes to activism. In high school, I was taught that there were two forms of social justice: direct action and social change. Most of the readings have been addressing direct action, combating the problem that is already present. But my class taught me that social change means having to go to the root of the issue and fixing it to prevent the further problems. Of course, both are necessary, but addressing the problem that is already present feels like a standstill to me. If we only attack poverty by helping those who are in low-income families, then we are doing nothing to prevent more families from suffering from the economic downturn. However, if we had legislation address the gap between the cost of living and minimum wage, then we could help families in that way as well.
Now the only question is how to get to social change. In an ideal world, the legislation would listen to what the people have to say and address the issues accordingly. But our government is hardly perfect and it makes very little sense for them to realistically take on every problem by preventing them. Funding always seems to be the number 1 issue when it comes to politics that a good majority of the public tends to often ignore. So where is this balance where we can combat these problems at the root without having to worry about heavy repercussions? Or are we meant to only rely on direct action and attack the branches of the problem?
When are people really changing another person’s perception about a controversial subject? Is stopping a busy intersection, filled with drivers on their way to work really effective in trying to get one’s message across? After reading Shaw’s article, “Activist’s Handbook”, I found out that such a method of social protest does not necessarily bring change. What really needs to be implemented to bring change is direct action, or directly going up to the person or group of people who oppose what you are fighting for, and protest in front of them so that their view might be changed on the issue at hand.
Until now, I would have thought that protesting in front of a large group of people was an effective way of activism, but I have realized that unless one goes right up to the source of evil, the people that are directly opposed to passing what you are fighting for, nothing will ever get done. ACT UP proved this when they walked into the sermon of Cardinal O’Connor, who was vehemently opposed to the gay-liberation movement and the right for women to receive abortions. The protestors attracted the media, and brought awareness to the fact that this man was preaching false information. It was not just gays who could contract the AIDS epidemic, but any one of us if protection was not used during sex. I am fortunate that these activists protested the way they did, for if they never went to the root of the false information, people would have kept believing the words of someone who is so highly looked up upon, a Catholic priest, and would have never believed that they could have gotten the AIDS disease as well. I thought it was necessary for these activists to stop the sermon of O’Connor because he was preaching that we should have not found new medicines and possible cures to AIDS because the disease was a punishment from God to the gays. However, why would he ever want medicine to stop being produced if the disease is highly fatal, and disastrous to humans?
Picketing in front of a building is not going to be enough to achieve the change you desire. We must take direct action, go to the source and prove that people who are against you are false. You must be determined to get your message across, even if this means going directly to the people who are in disagreement of what you believe.
Occupy UC Davis.
Oh Occupy UC Davis, you have gotten so much press, such an obscene amount of national AND international press. It is the only thing that anyone on Facebook could talk about for a couple days. Which is great, I’m happy for you hometown and ex-work place. However, dear hometown I feel as if you missed your opportunity to be truly great as opposed to your usual non-directed-anger-politically-involved self. Now do not get me wrong blogosphere, I am not bashing their protest efforts, I am merely about to express my frustration with an occupy movement that could have been a springboard for some sort of change. But since their anger was misdirected, it got its 15 minutes of fame, and was then filed away with the rest of the news in the world.
It began with the pepper spraying of the students sitting in the quad, an iconic place in UC Davis as it is the place of whole earth festival known for its 60s love revolution roots. For those of us who live in Davis the image of the students is two-fold, it is atrocious to see students be treated in such a manner for peaceful protest in a public space, but it is also a violation of a symbolic space of peace. Now since it was such a horrific moment in such a picturesque way, the media went nuts. And this is where I would argue that the movement went downhill.
The moment was ripe for the students to pull together and explain their frustrations with no just UC Davis, but also the tuition hikes, the giant class sizes, under-the-table monetary deals …etc. But no, what do they make as their list of demands? 1. Have Chancellor Katehi resign 2. Disband the UC Davis Police Force 3. Stop Tuition Hikes…… wait what? Really guys?! That’s the best you’ve got? You have the opportunity to shine and you completely murder your own legitimacy and credibility by suggesting two completely absurd proposals. I send a metaphorical face palm to you guys, just to follow it up with a real one when I visited you guys during Thanksgiving. So often this happens to us dear Davis, we get so angry we lose sight of what we are doing, and then go bezerk caught up in the lime light loving that our small town is getting some sort of press. Which I think could be said for the nature of protest if the goal is not kept in sight. It is true that everyone is frustrated and people want change now. The reality is that change isn’t going to happen now, it’s not going to happen tomorrow, and I’m going to take a wild stab and say that it isn’t even going to happen next year. Reforming of an entire university system probably takes at least a decade, not that I would actually know, just my best guess.
We cannot just decide to aim our anger at concrete figureheads when what we are angry at a system that is so abstract, blurred, murky, and pardon my French “fucked up”. Additionally with a problem that is so huge, I mean goddamn we’re the 99% that is by definition huge, we cannot get discouraged in the matter of months because the problem is not fixed yet. We can only hope that by using our opportunities in the right way we can springboard a conversation that will gain support and lead to change. And you Davis, have failed in my eyes, because the only thing you got out of international attention was a pepper-spray investigation.
Once a year around April, students in my high school, along with other people nationwide, would put duct tape on their mouths and wear shirts stating: “Day of Silence.” The Day of Silence was meant to be a way to bring awareness to gay people who feel silenced and muzzled by society. Now, I am all for being supportive and trying to bring awareness. However, at my school, the day of silence became more of a way to get out of class. If the students were to use their silence to try and protest or actually spend a day in silence to try and bring awareness, I would be all for it. That was not how they were using it! People were using the silence to get out of doing presentations in class and just for the fun of it. One year, I had a theater presentation, and my partner, a girl participating in the day of silence, refused to go up and give the presentation. My teacher had to go up to her and tell her she would fail us on the project if she continued to refuse. I was very angry. I just wanted to explain to her that speaking for 5 minutes to do a presentation is not going to take away from her experience.
The Day of Silence is also about understanding the pain of not being able to be heard and express oneself fully when muzzled for being gay. That does not mean making noises and waving one’s arms around until getting attention and then writing things down on a white board. That defeats the whole purpose of the day.
In Shaw’s article, different ways of bringing awareness are discussed. Similar to the idea of The Day of Silence is when “six gay men created the motto ‘Silence=Death’” (pg 215). I believe that the gay community and people struggling with AIDS absolutely need support and raised awareness, but the Day of Silence at my school is definitely not the way to do it. As Shaw explains: “The proven ability of direct-action-oriented organizations to enlist large numbers of participants- and to turn people into activists- reflects a powerful truth: progressive constituencies and social change organizations need a direct-action component” (pg 233). If the students in my school are able to organize the direct-action component and protest for the correct reasons (as in not to get out of doing work), I believe the Day of Silence could become a very powerful tool to bring awareness to the gay community.
I read an article on the occupy movement that discusses that the people in the occupy movement dont understand how the economy works and why occupy wont help it get any better. Police seem to be more than happy continually pepper spraying people and arresting them. In fact, the more poeple they arrest, the more bail money that they will get. The way to fix our society’s problems is not by rioting in the streets in the way that occupy is working.
For the students who were arrested from Pomona-I’m also not sure that this was the best way to go about thier protest. While they have made a statement, they have not done anything to actually help the workers. They could have focused thier time and effort and trying to help the workers get documentation or helping them get legal representation.