Olivia Vest
Managing Editor
Protest comes in many forms. Ranging from collective call sprees reaching out to our senators and representatives to planned demonstrations with speakers, signage and rhyming chants, individuals have the First Amendment right to free speech and peaceful assembly.
With hundreds of planned protests in recent weeks ranging from “Pro-Life” rallies to airport gatherings to, of course, the international Women’s March, we’ve seen newscasts of dozens of demonstrations—and that’s just locally. Walking across the Wichita State campus the other day, I literally walked into a rally about gun safety. Just like that, I stumbled upon a very peaceful assembly. And, just like that, dozens of protestors voiced their concerns about the impending “campus carry” law.
With online sensations such as Tomi Lahren blasting protests, calling (liberal) demonstrators “snowflakes,” it seems to be a new trend to belittle activism. But when did the American right to protest become a cultural laughing stock? Since when is it seen as weak to stand up for the rights of the oppressed?
These demonstrations can create positive change, especially with large-scale protests like the Women’s March in Washington D.C. Sister marches held around the world garnered the support of nearly five million individuals, all with the same goal: to express the concern for women’s rights and to educate voters and onlookers about the importance of such.
According to one Bustle article, research conducted by Dr. Jacquelien van Stekelenburg, a protest expert, shows that many factors determine the success of demonstrations. Of course, rallies that become violent gain negative attention from spectators and lawmakers and often become counterproductive. Similarly, disruptive protests (in which demonstrators peacefully block roads and cause mild discord) can be comparably unsuccessful. However, in a conducive political climate that involves a “democratic regime, a programmatic system, a polity open to the challengers’ claims, and political allies’ support,” can lead to a fruitful end for protestors.
If many protests aren’t considered majorly successful, why do demonstrators keep spewing their views through their megaphones and writing catchphrases on old cardboard? Well, according to research compiled by Cornell University, attitudes toward unfavorable protests change once the political climate evolves years later. In 1966, a survey of white Americans concluded that only 36 percent of respondents saw Martin Luther King Jr. as a hero or beneficial to the civil rights cause. In fact, half of those surveys said he actually hurt the cause. In 1994, another survey showed that almost 80 percent of Americans saw King as a hero.
Although protests may not bring an immediate impact to the table, demonstrators can change political climates and bring new perspectives to national discussion (Take that, Tomi Lahren).
