In the past few years, roller derby has surged in a popularity not seen since the campy, televised bouts of the 1970’s. But the derby of today isn’t the same choreographed sport your dad watched on TV. There aren’t clothesline trips, elbow jabs or planned endings to the bouts. Instead, roller derby has become a serious sport, creating a niche community. The sport means something a little different to each skater on the track and fan in the stands.

The DC Rollergirls started with a group of players practicing in parking garages seven years ago, and have since transformed into a local league with a rapidly growing fan base and a competitively ranked all-star team.

Despite their varied backgrounds, many of the skaters stumbled across roller derby by chance and all refused to let anything prevent them from strapping on a pair of skates and competing in the league.

“It just happened exactly at the right time,” said Mara Veraar, who has skated for the past seven years as Scarlet O’Snap of the Cherry Blossom Bombshells. “I thought that I would do it just to make friends—and that is a big part of it— but what I really found to was that I forgot how much I loved sports when I was younger. I realized, ‘Oh, I really am athletic!  I really want to be a part of a team sport!’  And the athleticism and the camaraderie have both been important to me.”

Kari Ryder-Wilkie, who skates as Queen Kamayhemmayhem for the Cherry Blossom Bombshells, said she first caught the derby bug six years ago.

“I heard about it and went to go see a bout, and was immediately fascinated and really wanted to play. It was kind of love at first sight,” Wilkie said. Wilkie was finishing up her graduate degree at Boston University when she decided to start training and tried out for a spot in the local roller derby league.

“I had one friend who was kind of interested in doing it with me— and the first day we went out to the roller rink, I broke my arm,” Wilkie said. “That kind of killed it for her, but it didn’t kill it for me.”

Wilkie stuck with it through the injury and moved to DC over three years ago, where she joined the Bombshells and still enjoys the rough and tumble of the game.

The shoulder slams, booty bumps and all the scrambling to block the other team’s jammer might all rile the crowd up at the bout, but even the audience knows how quickly a jam can run afoul when a skater gets slammed down hard.

Cheers swiftly turned to shocked silence during the December 8th game when Jersey Kill of the DC Demoncats twisted and crashed to the ground in one of the last jams in a bout with Scare Force One. Kill, the lead jammer, managed to touch her hips and call off the jam as she slammed to the floor—but didn’t get up. Enthusiasm turned to concern as the music stopped and the audience fell silent. Flanked by referees and EMTs, Jersey Kill cautiously pushed herself from the floor—twisting a grimace of pain into a grin and raising an arm above her head to uproarious cheers.

Kill finished out the bout with a determined grin on her face, even though her team fell 93-270 to the undefeated Scare Force One. But other skaters have faced more than bumps and bruises after going down in a game.

Wilkie is one of them.  She is out for the next few weeks on a hip injury, and was able to walk around without crutches for the first time in two and a half weeks during the last practice before December’s double-header.  She said she only found out about the extent of the damage to her hip after telling a doctor during a surgery follow-up after injuring her elbow.

Despite the risk of injury, many skaters take the physical contact inherent to the sport in stride and keep coming back for more.

“I think one of the things that got me into it was just that it looked awesome—I mean, you’re on roller skates and you’re hitting people,” said Allie Feras, who is entering her second season of skating as Frak You for the Majority Whips. “But I think one thing that keeps me around even when I’m tired, or feeling down about my own ability or anything is the community.  Everybody’s very supportive.  So even if you’re having a bad day, it’s kind of like your own little family.

She stuck with the sport after being teamed with the newly formed Majority Whips two years ago.  At the time, she was completing a graduate degree and working full time.  She says she has a little more time now that she has finished her degree, but that juggling work and derby proves challenging at times.

“Sometimes it’s exhausting when you get home from practice really late and then you’d have to be up really early for work or when you’re travelling for derby stuff and you have to convince your boss that you can’t be at work because you have to go roller-skate,” Feras said.

Feras and her teammates on the Majority Whips faced off against the Cherry Blossom Bombshells during the last double-header. The team narrowly lost 117-123, in a bout that hinged on a series of jams in the last few minutes of the game.

Plenty of fans packed the bleachers at the Armory for the bout. The whole league hopes to capitalize on the draw of the sport as they face the challenge of considering how best to sustain the league and the community they’ve created.

Their aspirations include purchasing a warehouse for practices, getting a rec league off the ground and potentially forming a junior offshoot of the league. During the December eighth double header, volunteers sold shirts and baked goods made by skaters in an effort to help raise money to fund the costs of expansion.

Interested skaters don’t need to buy out a warehouse to get started in the sport, of course.  Anyone with a roll of tape, a bit of space and a pair of skates can play flat track derby— but it takes a certain sort of determination to go from free-spirited skating to the time consuming work of running a Women’s Flat Track Derby Association (WFTDA) member league.

“They always say that half of derby is getting used to how many nights a week you practice, and the other half is getting used to how many emails you get,” Verarr said. “We run this whole league. We’re on the board of directors, we’re the heads of every committee, we’re the ones setting up volunteers, we’re the ones doing fundraisers—so it’s just a million emails.”

Doing the legwork on the track and behind the scenes is a handful, but being skater-run is a requirement for participation as a WFTDA member league.

“They didn’t want to get in a situation where it was some guy or some girl owning the league and not having the skaters’ best interests in mind,” Veraar said. Even though skaters run the league, they receive plenty of help from volunteers and referees who help run the show on bout day.

Colin Burke, known as Refsputin when clad in the black-and-white officials’ uniform, first fell into roller derby seven years ago as the DC Rollergirls were just getting on their feet.  Burke said he became interested after his girlfriend wrote an article about the DC Rollergirls, and suggested he act on his interest and start refereeing bouts.

“I was like, ‘Wait, there are referees in roller derby?” Burke said.

Today, referees and officials usually volunteer as non-skating officials and go through a certification program after they get used to watching the game while gliding around on a set of wheels. Burke said that since he started out when WFTDA was still getting organized, becoming a ref was a little bit different.

“When I started, everybody was learning—so there wasn’t anything set up,” Burke said.  “Now there’s a little more structure to it, and there’s a lot more help from the WFTDA.  I’m one of their officiating clinic instructors, so now I teach people how to do it.”

Burke doesn’t just stay in the city with the league that drew him in to the sport. He travels to ref games with the DC Rollergirls’ All Star team, and even helps officiate games in other leagues as well.

“I’ve been to Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, North Carolina, Virginia—pretty much everywhere.” Burke said. “I also ref several tournaments a year, and those are in Philly, Vermont, Buffalo— all over the place. I do a lot of travel for derby, and I work a lot of different bouts that have nothing to do with the DC league.”

Wilkie says that the sense of community among skaters definitely extends beyond the city and the league. She isn’t too worried about being separated from the sport if she ever moves out of DC.

That’s not to say all skaters stick with derby forever.  Varaar says that she’s the only player who has been skating with the Bombshells since they first started up seven years ago. Teammate Wilkie adds that several others left the sport during the three years she has been with the team after getting bogged down with life commitments and work.

But those who stick around do so because they’ve found something uniquely meaningful in the sport and the community it creates.  It’s a network of players with common goals and interests, a place for people who want to compete without giving up their day job, and for some a riot grrl mentality informed by a do-it-yourself determination.

Rollergirls spend their time juggling fundraising for the warehouse with squeezing in plenty of practice for the next bout— and just having a good time with like-minded skaters.

“I think the great thing about it is that it’s so many different things to different people,” Wilkie said. “I just think people are finding something there that doesn’t exist in any other place in society.  If I didn’t want to do derby— I can’t think of anything else that would replace all of the things that derby is to me.”

Illustration by Ellyse Stauffer

On my 16th birthday, I remember listening to a radio report about a mass shooting that killed 33 people on a university campus. Even now, I can still remember how I felt about the disturbing news, because at the time I was just beginning to make my own plans for college. A few weeks ago, I opened an email to the AU community from University Safety Programs titled “Active Shooter Preparedness,” which brought back the same frightening images of students cornered in classrooms I imagined after the Virginia Tech shooting, the deadliest in US history.

On December 14, 2012, my colleague at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence stuck his head in my office and asked if I’d heard the news from Connecticut: there was a reported shooting at an elementary school. The horror our office and the whole country shared after learning that the victims were 20 five- and six-year-olds along with six educators was heart-stopping. When that news broke, I was updating the Brady Center’s list of school shootings in America.

***

Most Americans are waking up to the presence of gun violence in our society only after  mass shootings like Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook take their toll. The daily presence of gun violence in many communities across the country is no less damaging or distressing though. Duke University professor of public policy and political science Kristin Goss estimates that one in three Americans have been touched by gun violence in some way in Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America .

For high school students in Maryland’s Prince George’s county, this academic year has been especially deadly: eight teenagers have been killed by gun violence in the area, sending waves of disbelief through the community. The Root blogger Sonsyrea Tate Montgomery wrote that the violence was like “slow torture” for the county. When the murders of teenagers are random, unrelated and occur despite a decrease in other types of crime, the frustration of survivors in the community toward the inaction of county leaders is palpable.

In February, after the deaths of two 18-year-old boys in the same shooting, county officials organized an FBI-supported investigative response, called the Violent Crimes and Safe Streets Task Force. Although its written goal is to better understand and combat violent gangs on an institutional level, police are also increasing efforts to foster good community relations. Involvement of law enforcement officials with the anti-violence efforts of other advocacy groups will, they hope, be a more collaborative approach to fostering a safer community environment.

***

Increased awareness of the complicated issues tied up with gun violence is essential in decreasing it. American University professor Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox of Loyola Marymount University surveyed over 4000 high school and college students about their attitudes toward future gun ownership. Results indicated that roughly 40 percent of those students plan to own a firearm when they live independently. Another 20 percent said they would consider owning one.

If the number of young Americans affected by some type of gun violence is high and the rate of intended gun ownership is too, why isn’t there greater participation among our generation in the current national debate surrounding increased gun control?

Dr. Beatrix Siman-Zakhari, director of AU’s Washington Semester Justice & Law Program, believes the mass shooting in Newtown, CT compelled her students–-many of whom are not US citizens–-to become increasingly aware of guns in US society.

“Whether about gun violence surrounding celebrities like [Paralympic and Olympic runner Oscar] Pistorius in South Africa or kids killed on school grounds in DC, students can’t avoid or ignore this issue,” she said.

***

Setting aside differences in population size, federal laws, and attitudes toward gun ownership between the US and other countries, the main feature characterizing the national gun landscape is the disturbing lack of regulation around gun industry activities.

The gun industry–meaning manufacturers, dealers and the lobbying-giant National Rifle Association–is highly protected from being held liable for damages incurred by firearms it produces, which is part of the reason Americans unaffected by gun violence have remained unaware of its consequences. Only recently and sporadically have lawsuits brought against firearms manufacturers by individual victims or their families been successful.

What can be done to encourage further accountability for those who produce, distribute and sell guns, and more responsible gun ownership practices among the estimated 60 million Americans who own guns?

“Our country has run into a serious problem with the caliber and magnitude of weapons that private citizens have access to,” AU senior and Justice major JB Budd said. “I one day intend to own a handgun, but I also expect to have to go through an intensive process to become eligible for gun ownership.”

Such a process–-applied nationally and coordinated between local and federal agencies–-does not exist yet. Outraged cries from the small minority of Americans concerned about 2nd Amendment rights currently drown out the voices of Americans who want to see action taken to reduce gun violence.

The problem is that those who want to see more regulation and less gun violence lack the money and influence to effect real change. Or at least they did before now. After the tragic shooting at Newtown though, the national consciousness surrounding guns has shifted, causing outrage among many who would otherwise be apathetic or uninvolved in the national gun debate. While this has given the gun control movement momentum, it will take people dedicated to the cause to continue to pressure our representatives to enact change. It will take conscientious prospective gun owners like Budd to force a shift from within the gun ownership culture. It will take young people who don’t intend to own a gun to speak out against our daily routines being interrupted by gun violence. And it will take community leaders and elected officials to act in the name of increased public safety for everyone.

Illustration by Max Gibbons

Though a relatively small difference, I was shocked to see students resting their feet on tables throughout the campus. Growing up, my father liked to remind me not to put my feet up “like a rickshaw driver” because in Singapore, it is considered rude to put your feet up while with others or outdoors.

American University currently has over 1000 international students and scholars, many of whom have also been adjusting to new cultural norms. Take for instance Fu Hamabe, a friend from Japan, surprised at first by the way American students act in class.

“Japan is really a small country, so we have to co-operate and respect each others’ opinions,” Hamabe said. “It’s about leadership, raising your hands in class and standing out, which was a bit of a culture shock to me. It is good for me actually, as I’m sometimes tired of Japanese collectivism and here you can speak your mind. And Japanese people are more likely to be shy, and difficult to guess their opinions. It’s like, ‘Just say it!’ On the other hand in class, sometimes people talk too much—and this is frustrating as well.”

But Amir Awol, a student from Ethiopia, has been experiencing culture shock in a different way.

“I think it’s hard because, where I came from, it’s way different,” Awol said. “People interact a lot with one another. I feel Americans are more individualistic. Usually I spend most of my time hanging out with international students rather than American friends.”

Before arriving, I  heard that Americans love to talk and as an avid conversationalist, I was sure I’d be in deep discussion most of the time. The friendly “How are you?” was a refreshing change, and I was thoroughly warmed by the friendly greeting. After a while though, the novelty wore off.

“Whenever you say [it], you expect people to reply they’re fine, they’re okay, but it’s actually a formality and you don’t care that much, and it was the most neutral thing somebody could ever say,” Joanna Heaney, a student originally from Rhode Island, said. “There was this one time where I did that and somebody replied, ‘I feel terrible.’ So I felt I actually had to have conversation with him and it threw me off guard.”

While neutral in day-to-day life, some see the frequent greeting as a sign of cultural warmth.

“I think Americans are very friendly. At least, face to face. While I was jogging, a complete stranger said hi to me,” said Eka Cipta Puetra Chandra, an Indonesian friend. “But while I was living in Singapore, they don’t.”

To navigate this new culture, I try to mimic the people I see at places like American University or the streets of Dupont Circle. I am mindful of how cashiers greet me when I check out groceries and reciprocate their passing well wishes. However, small talk isn’t taken too kindly in some situations, and I occasionally have to grudgingly accept the dead silence that fills the moment. Admittedly, many people here smile more enthusiastically than back home, but at the same time, others give sullen looks. Adapting to a new culture has challenged my assumptions about America, forcing me to look beyond stereotypes and giving me a new lense through which to see my home.

In September 2012, a debate erupted in Selma, Alabama over a monument honoring Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Not only did the monument honor a commander of the Confederate States of America for his military victories, but it also noted Forrest’s leadership of the early Klu Klux Klan after his service in the Civil War. Though the monument had been passively protested for 10 years, last autumn it was stolen from its 7-foot-tall base. Since then, courts and civil rights groups have debated whether the statue should be replaced.

Monuments have often served as landmarks of historical reference. Though not typically as controversial as the Forrest memorial in Selma, expressing reverence through sculpture and structure has become a hallmark of American historical memory. In the nation’s capital, monuments honoring various significant historical figures and events line streets, parks and traffic circles.

For the most part, memorials attempt to be respectfully didactic. They serve as lessons about the past, items that mark both historical consequence and character. American University’s Student Historical Society president Matthew Skic believes that monuments are important for Americans’ perception of history.

“Historical monuments serve as static reminders of the events and peoples of the past. Commemorating service, sacrifice, and leadership, monuments help to preserve historic memory,” Skic says.

Monuments are a valuable component of public history and help to inform the populace of their forbearers’ contributions to their lives. Dr. Max Friedman, director of the Graduate History Program at AU, says he considers such memorials to be “one of the main ways that the public experiences history.”

“Many Americans never take a college history course or read a scholarly history book, but many visit historic sites, and they can have an enduring impact on what the public learns about the past,” Friedman said.

Professor Kirk Savage, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, is the author of Monument Wars: Washington, DC, the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape.

“I still think that they function as very important, powerful spaces that bring people together, focus their attention, and make them, in some ways, make them feel like they are in the presence of the nation,” he said. In his book, Savage discusses how monuments serve as an “imagined community,” one that helps give the nation a historical identity.

Washington, DC, could be considered a city highly conscious of the past, having received a somewhat unofficial responsibility to represent our nation’s history in its architecture, culture and daily life. Beyond the National Mall, memorials pop up throughout the city. The Women’s Titanic Memorial, located near the waterfront by the Arena Stage, honors those who perished in the disaster. But DC does not simply honor notable Americans or remember exclusively American historical events.

Monuments around the district honor not only lesser-known Americans like John Pershing or Samuel Gompers, but also observe the importance of figures like Mohandas Gandhi and Khalil Gibran. Traditional military veterans are honored throughout the city, but so are groups like Nuns of the Battlefield and Women in Military Service for America. It seems, then, that DC has become an epicenter of memorial, both national and international.

***

Monuments often have unintentional implications that extend beyond serving as history lessons for the passerby. Several complications result from monument building, many of which can do more harm than the good that the memorial intends to convey. The finances behind building monuments sometimes present ethical issues, and perhaps most practically, monuments present a huge monetary undertaking. Friedman points out that these structures are a product of public funding or private donations, both dominated by population of “white male elites.”

Many bemoan the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial’s image and message as uncharacteristic of the civil rights leader’s life and principles

Dedicated in 1922, the Lincoln Memorial cost around $3 million to complete. The Washington Monument, constructed intermittently between 1848 and 1884 cost almost two million dollars, a whopping sum in 1800s America. The high costs of memorial construction call into question the justification of spending so much money on structures meant to honor individuals’ important sacrifices. Memorializing is expensive, and the costs incurred might be better served honoring a cause through contribution rather than through effigy.

The representation of historic figures can also draw controversy. Take, for example, the next big monument scheduled to decorate the National Mall. The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial, an honorarium to the his life and legacy, will sit across from the National Air and Space Museum, a few blocks from Capitol Hill. The memorial’s website shows how the multifaceted memorial will look to honor his humble origins and the different stages of his military and political life in an effort to “inspire future generations with his devotion to democracy, public service, leadership, and integrity.”

The memorial’s design has met intense criticism from Eisenhower admirers, public historians, and scholars as a misrepresentation of the former President. The proposal seems to characterize Eisenhower as a simple, average American rather than as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces or the President of the United States. Additionally, Eisenhower’s family considers the museum to be underwhelming and an improper reflection of the President and General’s significant contributions as a public figure. Historians similarly disparaged the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial, as it seemed to exemplify a personality that was hardly reminiscent of King’s philosophies or persona.

In a lecture to his peers and students in 2012, Professor Michael J. Lewis of Williams College discussed the implications of misrepresenting memory in public monuments, referring specifically to King’s monument.

“Instead of inspiring warmth, there is the infinite aloofness of an idolm,” Lewis said. He considers the monument absent of allusion to King’s actual identity, most blatantly evident in the misquoting of the civil rights leader on the side of his effigy. King never said,“I was drum major for justice, peace and righteousness.” The “quote” was simply a paraphrased reference to something King had heard from another source.

   ***

Monuments remain fundamentally subjective. No sculptor can appeal to every observer’s historical opinion, but Lewis and others argue that a certain “timelessness” needs to be incorporated into the design process. Lewis argues that in an effort to remain modern and innovative, memorial designers have lost sight of the real purpose of their work.

“A structure that offers a single great lesson is a monument; one that offers many facts and anecdotes is a school or museum,” he said.

If memorials should teach, as Lewis suggests, a single valuable lesson about the monument’s subject, one must wonder what lesson the individual might want displayed. In the end, figures like Martin Luther King, Jr., Dwight D. Eisenhower, and even George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, would probably take issue with their statues and personalities being portrayed for all to see. One can’t help but think that Thomas Jefferson would rather see the time and effort spent toward increasing individual access to liberty than constructing a rotunda to honor his image and legacy. While it hinges on a bit of idealism, the issue can hardly be avoided: how do we justify building grand, expensive structures to men and women who might rather see their work pursued and continued than simply represented by a structure?

Dr. Friedman sees the need for careful production of monuments to ensure accurate representations of historical figures.

“Historical monuments have a tendency toward patriotic fairy tales that are supposed to make Americans feel good by consuming a heroic version of the country’s past,” he said. “It takes a lot of creativity, thoughtfulness, and political struggle to produce monuments that do more than render the official line.”

No doubt the National Mall gives many visitors a feeling of national pride and patriotism. For instance, The World War II Veterans’ Memorial honors each state and territory’s contribution to the war effort. Beyond the circle-structure’s unity, the memorial contains tributes to the industrial contributions to the war, the loss of military lives, and the sacrifice American families made in the name of liberty.

Patriotism is a critical component of this and many other monuments throughout the District. The question becomes, then, should it be? If historical memory is important to monument production, shouldn’t the memorials give us accurate, well-rounded representations of historical figures?

The historical memory may be part of the problem though. There is a significant lack of monuments to political, social and racial minorities in the District of Columbia, as most of the shapers of the early nation were predominantly white males. But monuments to lesser-known figures, especially women and racial minorities, are often tucked away, not displayed proudly around the District’s epicenter like those of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson. The Mary McLeod Bethune memorial, honoring the legacy of a critical civil rights leader and education reformer, sits in Lincoln Park adjacent to the Emancipation Memorial in a region of the District most tourists will never go.

Yet, it seems unrealistic to scrap monuments altogether. The Washington Monument is not only a symbol of national trial and triumph, but the different gradations in stone color from the halted construction during the Civil War presents a historical narrative itself. Monuments become, inevitably, components of national and public history. They have inherent value as a structure that stands for more than just one person or event.

“Successful historical commemoration usually happens when a groundswell of political participation meets a community demand for using a space and a creative artist is able to translate that rare moment into a compelling physical site,” Friedman said.

The African American Civil War Memorial, like many memorials for less recognized subjects, is far from the National Mall

Community demand is important, but Skic notes that stressing the “human qualities” of monuments’ subjects is critical.

“Relying on proper historical interpretation rather than myth is what makes a monument effective,” says Skic.

We have great memorials depicting great moments and great figures in history. Perhaps the thing to consider now should not be the importance of producing blind admiration of a certain figure or event, but rather on inspiring informed patriotism. Visitors to the National Mall can be proud to be American without forgetting about the less-than-honorable moments in our history. What makes America is not simply be the glorious contributions from national figures, but also our ability

to overcome tribulation, to unite under astounding pressure, and perhaps most importantly, to recognize errors in judgment in an attempt to progress as a society.

Monuments, then, must be reflective of this all-around history. It should be neither a singular, heroic message that disregards reality nor a confused, ambiguous worshipping of a demigod. Perhaps our monuments should be coupled with funding for institutions that look to advance that individual’s efforts to change society. Sacrifice some pomp for substance, establishing both a passive element to preserving the subject’s historical importance and an active contributions to furthering

their legacy.

Even monuments like the Forrest memorial in Selma offer some lessons. Though clearly possessing an offensive character, replacing the Forrest memorial should

not be a way of simply ignoring the undesirable memories from our national past. Remembering Forrest and the KKK is an important part of our national history because if history does not teach lessons about the errors of the past, then it is not serving the population as it should.

“I think in order to make a monument like the Forrest memorial constructive, there has to be a very well-thought-out process of reinterpretation,” University of Pittsburgh Professor Kirk Savage said. “That’s not an easy process because it brings up really strong emotions and a lot of painful history.”

Perhaps it is time to let the American public view history not as something meant to support patriotic generalizations and fervor. Monuments can again be great, but they must focus less on idolatry and more on the educational value history carries for the American people. Hopefully, future memorials will emphasize a holistic view of historical remembrance, reflecting a mature patriotism—one that avoids demagoguery and looks to instigate informed civic action that is both respectful and aware of our nation’s storied past.

Photos by Bailey Edelstein

One of those survivors is Selam Heran Tarik. She lives in Shady Grove, Maryland and asked that her real name not be used in this story. Tarik says she was a minor organizer for a political opposition party back home in Ethiopia and was tortured by the ruling government for her political participation. She was forced to leave her adolescent son behind when she fled in 2005.

Tarik petitioned for asylum in the United States, but lost. Without a green card or a work visa, she could not work and didn’t have the savings to live on her own. She says she lived with different friends from church for a few days or weeks at a time, eating off of the charity of others and occasionally supplementing her funds with money from temporary, undocumented housework.

Today, there are an estimated 2-15 million torture survivors worldwide

“Normally no food, nothing, nothing, nothing,” her  translator and friend, explained.

After Tarik lost her first case, TASSC helped her build a second. In late 2012, she was called to the immigration office in Baltimore. She remembers her lawyer not being allowed in the room when the officers put her into custody for one night before releasing her with an ankle monitor and directives to check in at the Baltimore office once a week.

The immigration officers required her to have a permanent address, so a friend from church let her live with him for what he thought would be a week or two. She says she’s been there for four months now and hasn’t heard anything about her case.

Tarik says her church community is helping her rehabilitate, keeping her connected to her Ethiopian culture and providing isles of friendship in a sea of isolation. It takes Selam four buses to travel from Shady Grove to her church and the TASSC center though, and since money is scarce she can’t always go, making her feel isolated. Increasing her isolation is Tarik’s longing for her son, but she cannot bring him to the US unless she gets a green card.

“I prefer to live here. Foreigners want to go abroad to improve life,” she said. Selam says that she is grateful for TASSC’s help in providing her with psychological and legal support. While her immigration status saddens her, she says TASSC has helped her recover from the pain inflicted by torture.

How to Break a Soul

No one knows for sure just how many survivors live across the globe. Estimates range from two to fifteen million based on refugee statistics. There are approximately 500,000 survivors in the U.S. alone according to TASSC. The survivors generally aggregate in the major metropolitan areas, where the nation’s nearly 40 torture treatment centers can be found. Most survivors are refugees, exiles, or asylum-seekers.

Approximately 500,000 torture survivors are currently living in the US

Manfred Nowak, the former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, estimates that torture currently takes place in as many as 90 percent of countries, with over half experiencing persistent patterns of torture rather than isolated, random cases.

The majority of torture occurs in detention facilities, hidden away from public eye. Torture methods vary but torturers are increasingly try to minimize physical evidence, combining healable physical abuses with psychological torment.

According to TASSC, common forms of physical torture include beating, electric shocks, starvation, dehydration, asphyxiation, positional tortures, sexual assault, and rape. While these physical acts have psychological effects, the group says there are other methods aimed at specifically damaging the mind such as sleep deprivation, threats, mock executions, hooding, humiliation, sexual shaming, waterboarding, solitary confinement, and witnessing the torture of others.

Torture is not ephemeral – it stays with victims throughout their lives as not simply a memory, but also a reality. Juan Mendez, the current UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, a visiting professor at AU and torture survivor from Argentina says despite commonalities, each survivor’s experience is unique.

“The universe of survivors is very complex,” Mendez said. “It depends on each person’s history, the history of the nation that they come from, and also how well they can adjust to changing situations. It’s difficult to generalize on that, but as an initial or at least in the near term, it is common to all, that they will have this fear and this distrust of authority.”

Mendez says that this distrust of authority stems from the fact that “torture is the ultimate exercise of authority; it’s a way of exercising authority over a person so absolute that you can actually dispose of a life of that person.”

Aside from distrust of authority, there are many other lasting effects of torture. TASSC says these include “flashbacks, chronic anxiety, depression, feelings of betrayal, survivor’s guilt, [and] fear of people in uniform.”

Rehabilitation aims to help survivors cope with these realities. “Some people just need to know that their life can have meaning again,” Mendez said. But not everyone chooses treatment.

“They may say ‘One time of victimization is enough for me, I don’t want to relive this all again,’ so they don’t participate,” he said.

An important step in rehabilitation after torture is finding purpose again according to Dr. Mary Fabri, who used to work at the Marjorie Kovler Center for torture survivors in Illinois. She says rehabilitation comes from “experiencing yourself in a dignified way again.”

Community attitudes also shape rehabilitation. “Torture breaks the connection with self, breaks the connection with family, breaks the connection with community,” Fabri said. Alternatively, when a community is supportive of its refugee populations, the survivor feels safe. Fabri believes a connection comes from that safety, helping to mend what torture severed.

The US View on Torture

“Your friend is an animal. Please—help me. Please,” pleads Omar, a torture victim in the controversial movie “Zero Dark Thirty,” a film that follows the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Omar’s interrogator has just left him alone with Maya, a pretty, young, woman new to the squadron. Maya pauses and then coolly replies, “You can help yourself by being truthful.”

Kathryn Bigelow’s film views torture through the perspective of the torturers, allowing viewers to understand how torture might affect a perpetrator like Maya as she experiences a weakening of morality, a hardening of demeanor, and a struggle with conscience. What Bigelow does not portray is torture’s long-term effects on its victims.

Bigelow aimed to show a realistic account of history in “Zero Dark Thirty,” but Mendez says she failed when it came to portraying torture.

“First, the torture sequences that a lot of people find painful and offensive – let me tell you, they are bland… you don’t see anything of how real the pain is at the

Washington, DC, is home to 50,000 of the torture survivors in the US

time of the suffering; and presenting the torturer as somebody who is reluctant to do it and kind of suffers when they have to do it is also completely unrealistic,” Mendez said.

“Zero Dark Thirty” brought back a national discussion focused on the effectiveness of torture rather than its morality, legality or consequences.

Mendez believes the public—partially because of Bigelow’s movie—thinks, “‘We’re safer because we torture, so let’s not criticize it.’” He doesn’t think torture is necessary to obtain information, pointing to the Italian government’s success in ending the terrorist threat of the Red Brigades in the 1980s without torture by offering detainees protection in exchange for information.

Debating torture’s effectiveness is dangerous according to Dr. Linda Piwowarczyk, a co-founder and psychiatrist of the Boston Center for Refugee Health and Human Rights.

“An end-justifies-the-means argument [...] becomes very abstract,” she said, implying that when people begin to generalize torture, they reduce and objectify torture survivors. “The survivor voice is so wholly absent in this whole discussion,” Piwowarcyck explained.

The public’s ignorance of these survivors prompted the creation of “Beneath the Blindfold,” a documentary that captures survivors’ stories.

One of those survivors is Donald Vance, a US citizen, navy veteran who was working in Iraq as a contractor in 2006. When he reported corruption and misappropriation of weapons by the military to the FBI, the military detained and tortured Vance for three months as an enemy combatant. “It’s this stain on you, being accused of being a terrorist. This should not happen to anyone,” Vance said in “Behind the Blindfold.”

While the film began to take shape following the Abu Ghraib scandal of 2004, its 2012 release date situates it as a response to Bigelow’s “Zero Dark Thirty.” One movie validates torture as a necessary evil; the other reveals the consequences of this viewpoint.

One consequence is that torture survivors face a lifetime of rehabilitation. Movies and media portray torture in purely physical terms, showing the agonizing pain. But survivors also carry the psychological burden of their experience.

Mendez believes that American citizens need to educate themselves on the statuses of refugees like Tarik living in their communities, as well as America’s policy towards practicing torture and rehabilitating survivors.

“It is very difficult now for the United States to be a beacon of hope for other people, and to play an important role in promoting human rights practices in other parts of the world, when a lot of countries will say, ‘What  about you?’” Mendez explained. He says citizens need to urge their congressmen to “get back to the moral high ground on torture that [the US] used to have until 2001.”

Obama’s prohibition on the US using torture is a step in the right direction; since the decree, Mendez has not received a complaint of torture against the US. Even so, survivors still face a grueling struggle each day to live and to recover, and we need to honor them with our support.

Infographics by Christopher Sledge

Min sits next to me on a bench outside a restaurant in Dupont one afternoon. She’s wearing her real estate company’s sweatshirt and jeans. She is calm, and good-natured, and as she sits and tells me the story of her childhood, I wonder how she can be.

“I knew I grew up in the jungle,” she says. “Then we went into Thailand, but the military still chased us. Out of nowhere, just shooting. You didn’t cry for your mom or dad, you just laid on the ground.”

Min spent her childhood on the run, moving from refugee camp to refugee camp in Northern Thailand. Her father, a prominent general in the Burmese military, “wanted to fight for what was fair. He got involved in the National League for Democracy, which put [their] family in jeopardy.”

The National League for Democracy, or NLD, was formed in 1988 after the 8888 Uprising, a revolt lead by students in Rangoon to protest the extremely detrimental Burmese Way to Socialism ideology which had left Burma one of the most backwards countries in the world. It was during this time that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi started to become recognized as a national icon for leading the NLD, her pro-democracy political party. Two years later, the party won 80% of the seats in the Burmese Parliament, but this progress towards Burma’s right for freedom and democracy was quashed by the military. In 1990, Min’s family fled the county, and Daw Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest. She wouldn’t be released until 2010.

American University has long been affiliated with the struggle in Burma. “In fact, AU was involved long before Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was known on the world stage, and it’s not inaccurate to say that AU played a role in placing her there,” says Christine Gettings, who helped coordinate Daw Suu Kyi’s visit to American in September. “Many student activists involved in the Burma movement were AU students and AU alumni have founded non-profit organizations working on Burma advocacy, education, and human rights both here and in Thailand.” Indeed, four American University student activists were arrested inside Burma in 1988 for distributing pro-democracy literature.

Daw Suu Kyi’s visit to American University in September is far more significant than many outside of the community realize. Hundreds of native Burmese flocked to Bender Arena to hear their matriarch, The Lady, speak in person on her first trip to the United States in 40 years. The speech was made almost entirely in Burmese.

The importance of her language choice was not obvious until I began meeting attendees outside Bender Arena that morning. Most people donned traditional Burmese longyi, but more importantly, many of the elders did not speak English. Although a majority of the attendees were either American citizens or had lived in the country as long as Min, almost 20 years, language still connected them to their courageous leader and, in turn, to their home.

“The speech was a mother’s love; she came to see us,” says Min. “It wasn’t pressuring or promising, but it was very motivating. It brought me to think to bring my Burmese heritage out more. When you’re in this country, you respect this country, but you don’t forget your home.”

But Min explains her complicated adolescence is related to her struggle with her Burmese identity. “I used to write about my experiences in Burma in middle school,” she says. “I wanted to write a book for my children. But American culture, you have to act a certain way, dress a certain way. I was a teenager without a culture. I began acting out, and even though I still wanted to please my parents, they thought I was a bad child.”

Min says although she lives here in the U.S., she still strongly identifies as Burmese. And through Min’s parents and siblings have all chosen to become American citizens, she has not.

“I want to go back,” she says. “I want to take my kids; I can’t teach my kids about the culture properly. My husband isn’t Burmese, so we don’t speak it at home.”

While some Burmese Refugees want to return, others worry about their family still living in Burma.

“From where I stand, many are concerned about their families back home in Burma and access to education, economic opportunity, and political freedom,” added Gettings.

After Daw Suu Kyi’s speech there was an opportunity to ask questions, many of which pertained to citizenship and potential dual citizenship. Daw Suu Kyi explained that it is a common law for countries to not allow for dual citizenship, explaining that it was “the law of the land.” But the question was asked so many times, it was hard to ignore the plea from the young Burmese to take back their stolen identities. There was a cry for stabilization not just for the sake of the Burmese within the country, but all over the diaspora, praying to return to their families and culture in Burma.

For many, the problem lies within the Burmese Embassy. For some of Min’s family members, taking on a new name and getting American citizenship also meant access to an American visa and access into Burma. Min is not so lucky, and is unable to attain a visa to visit her own country due to fear surrounding the Embassy and that she will be sought after by the military.

“I am a little afraid of the Embassy,” Min says. “I’m always the one outside with a sign protesting, and I don’t know what pictures they have of me. They know who I am.”

The recent Burmese elections have left the world stunned and awed. Not only was it a quiet election, but the NLD party also won a large portion of the empty seats in Parliament. This led to a lessening of sanctions by many Western countries, including the United States. And although the majority of the pro-democracy supporters around the world view this as a giant leap, many at the speech last month asked questions about how much they can trust the NLD without Daw Suu Kyi.

“Every time I see her, I think, ‘What would happen if something happened to her?’” Min says. “When she stepped off the stage, she had to have someone walk her. She is getting older.” Many of the questions reflected the diaspora’s general exasperation with a Daw Suu Kyi-less government. “The world has acknowledged the struggle and horror in Burma. Because of that acknowledgement, I feel confident that if something happened to her, as long as we have the NLD, I’m OK.”

However, not all Burmese-Americans are so convinced the country will make the turnaround that they’ve demanded.

Jane, a Burmese-American, runs the ever-popular restaurant Burma in Chinatown. “If they’re thinking of going back, maybe they have never been before,” Jane says. “If I get robbed in America, I call the police. If I get robbed in Burma, who do I call? I don’t know why anyone would give up living like an American to live in Burma. You have opportunities here; in Burma, there are no factories, no jobs.” Jane’s son goes to university in America, and she says she has no intention of returning.

The restaurant also hosts meetings of the US Campaign for Burma, a group that advocates and fights for Burma’s freedom, once a month. “There used to be more people at the meetings, but now there are only a few. People have their own jobs and families to take care of.”

But for many, the desire to return is strong. Min says once her husband is working again, they will save the money for her to move back with her children. Even after admitting to having posttraumatic stress disorder directly related to her time in Burma, she still has every intention of returning.

“I appreciate the Buddhist culture,” she says. “It’s respectful, and I want to get in touch with my roots. I saw monks walking and praying at the speech, and that hit home to me.” As for now, she waits as her sister, an American citizen, travels in Burma, and contemplates her decision to not become a citizen. But her attachment to her culture is so intense, that to surrender her citizenship “would be like giving up all [her] rights.”

Generally, the diaspora has a hopeful outlook for Burma. The community watches eagerly, but with skepticism, to see the next move for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. The Burmese-Americans in DC will continue to monitor the developments back in their home country, but until a drastic change, they wait.

Photo courtesy of Min.

While moving with the music in the front row, I happened to look behind the musicians. Instead of some cool punk poster or tapestry, I saw a large portrait of the former Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie.

The show was taking place at Ras, an Ethiopian restaurant on Georgia Avenue, just north of Petworth. It wasn’t the first punk show I had been to at an Ethiopian restaurant. In fact, I had noticed a trend:  a lot of shows were being booked at Ethiopian restaurants and other unusual spaces.

Throughout high school and my first year of college, most of the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) punk shows I went to in DC were in people’s basements or living rooms. Chris Moore, a member of a few local hardcore punk bands who also books DIY shows, said he started booking shows at restaurants as “a product of not having steady DIY spaces in DC and resorting to alternative places to have them.”

Washington, DC, is home to the largest Ethiopian community in the country. And similar to any immigrant community, many enterprising immigrants opened up shops and restaurants catering to their community. The area around 9th and U streets NW, known as the “Black Broadway” before the 1968 riots, is now known as “Little Ethiopia,” home to many shops and restaurants that opened after rising prices drove many Ethiopian immigrants from Adams Morgan.

According to Moore, many of the restaurants where he books shows also host dance nights or live music of other sorts on a few days of the week.

“Having punk shows there sometimes brings in business on potentially slow nights,” he said. Moore says owners are usually “pumped” to have the extra money, and happy about having live music in their establishments.

Owners declined to comment on this story because most establishments do not have proper licenses to have underage patrons around during the evening,

Moore says some bands are taken aback a little bit about playing in a restaurant. Touring bands are usually used to playing in traditional punk spaces like basements, but once they see the exciting, upbeat atmosphere, Moore says they come around.

Recently, a Salvadorian restaurant in Tenleytown, Casa Fiesta, has hosted shows as well. Robin Zeijlon, a high school student at the Georgetown Day School, started booking shows at Casa Fiesta in the spring. He says the shows have facilitated a bit of a revival for the  struggling restaurant. Now punk concerts draw a new crowd that provides business to restaurant owners.

Some may see mostly white punk bands playing shows in Ethiopian and Salvadoran restaurants as the newest form of gentrification to hit the District. But Moore says that’s not the case. Instead, he sees it “as the restaurants helping us out by giving places for our shows and us helping them out by giving them business.”

Restaurants and punk rock bands may not intentionally be taking part in sociopolitical change—but the Ethiopian eateries are allowing musicians to expand into fresh, new venues and those musicians are helping bring in more revenue.

Illustration by Carolyn Becker.

With more than 1,600 eligible voters, many of whom no longer teach at the university, the vote came in 379-284, a victory for professors who have been struggling with low pay, no benefits, and no job security. Through the initiative, AU adjuncts became the third school in the DC area to join the Service Employees Local 500, in addition to George Washington University and Montgomery County Community College.

Several student groups and leaders rose in support for the unionization efforts. As part of the Student Worker Alliance, Ethan Miller, author of this article, produced a video where AUSG President Tim McBride endorsed adjunct unionization. The SWA on campus collected over 200 signatures from students and presented the petitions, together with a letter of support, to every department head, the deans of each school and University Provost Scott Bass. Students also held two flashmobs in the week leading up to the vote count, culminating in a demonstration in the provost’s office.

Questions arose whether an increase in adjunct salaries would result in tuition hikes. However, even if adjunct pay doubled, it would still make up less than three percent of the university budget. After the vote, AU administrators agreed to recognize the union and not challenge the election results, alleviating supporters’ concerns over AU’s potential reactions.

Other unionization efforts on campus have encountered far more obstacles. In 2007, the University contested shuttle bus drivers’ efforts to join Teamsters local 922 through extensive legal proceedings. Despite this, shuttle drivers unionized. But in 1996 the university successfully employed suspect tactics to prevent operating engineers from collectivizing. Other workers have unionized successfully, such as janitorial staff and food service staff, personnel employed through Aramark and Bon Appétit, respectively.

While many colleges, especially public institutions, find themselves in a financial bind, American does not. The budget for fiscal year 2012 projects a roughly fifteen percent growth in expenditures when compared to the budget for fiscal year 2011 of $479,200,000. And while the overall budget for adjunct salaries has also grown slightly in the last few years, the hiring of additional adjunct faculty has outpaced such improvements. Salaries for part-time faculty make up less than two percent of the total university budget, while salaries for the top five highest-paid administration figures have soared in the last five years to near $3 million combined. Full-time tenured professors make up to $156,100 a year.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, more than forty percent of the professors at AU are adjuncts. Many adjuncts at the university are paid as little as $2,000 per course, receive no health benefits, and retain little job security. However, motivations for collectivization were not simply financial. Many adjuncts feel isolated from the university community. Erik Cooke, an adjunct in the Philosophy and Religion Department, said adjuncts “often feel very marginal to the conversation.” Part-timers, until recently, had held no positions within the Faculty Senate or any other university governance structures.

Adjuncts across the country face difficulties similar to our adjunct professors. A 2010 study on the conditions faced by part-time faculty at two-year and four-year institutions, published by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), reported that only 28 percent of adjuncts receive health benefits through their colleges and one-third receive less than $2,500 per course. Almost half say they make less than $15,000 annually from teaching.

These conditions have led many to challenge their status through organizations like the New Faculty Majority Foundation, the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor and the Modern Language Association, all focusing on uniting contingent faculty.

Years ago, the majority of adjunct professors were professionals who taught on the side, a short-term arrangement where teaching was not their primary income. But with full-time, tenure-track positions at colleges and universities increasingly rare, many newly minted PhDs are going straight from graduate school to teaching as adjuncts. Because of this, adjuncts remain qualified, valuable faculty members who receive the short end of the financial stick. Hopefully, unionization will afford adjunct professors the compensation they are undoubtedly due.

Anne McLeer, Director of Research and Strategic Planning for SEIU Local 500, said that by voting to unionize, “American University adjuncts are now joining the many adjunct and contingent faculties across the country who are refusing to allow themselves to be treated as a second tier.”

Photo from USAS.org

According to Jessica Waters, assistant professor at American University in Justice, Law and Society, contraception is becoming a state issue largely because of the Affordable Health Care Act and the upcoming election.

“I think some of this is part of the primary season,” Waters said. “When we have Republican candidates playing to the right and playing to their most conservative base and you have a couple of Republican candidates willing to take that stance…that’s part of it. Part of it is just politicking.”

Additionally, states have been introducing fetal personhood measures, which would codify the fetus as a person. “They propose initiatives that are written so broadly that there are questions as to what they should cover,” Waters explained, saying with attempts to define what a fetus is, “We’re seeing other things get swallowed up. I think that’s purposeful.”

Such a measure was passed in Oklahoma this year, and similar measures have been rejected in Virginia and Mississippi. Elizabeth Nash, the state issues manager for the Guttmacher Institute, argued the fight for contraception has already become a state issue because of these fetal personhood measures. She rattled off a list of states that have become particularly unfriendly to the right to choose.

“Kansas, Nebraska, Arizona, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Indiana, and now Mississippi, Utah and Virginia,” Nash laughed. “Okay, there’s half the country.”

Last year saw a record 92 provisions in state laws that restrict abortion, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute. The locations are noteworthy because in most states Republicans gained power of state governments in 2010.

“What does seem clear is those who oppose reproductive health have clear conservatives at the state level and they have a lot of success. Now they’re turning their sights on family planning,” Nash said.

In the 2008 election, abortion continued to be the centeral social issue, but contraception was not. In 2006, former Governor Sarah Palin said, “I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues.” In the 2008 election, Palin amended her statement to say she believed in abstinence only education, but to offer alternative solutions as well.

Because of the Affordable Health Care Act, contraception will continue to be an issue in the 2012 election. Waters explained this election has shifted into a debate about health care reform as a whole.

“People may not understand the intricacies of health care reform,” Waters said. “They understand ‘I have sex and if I have sex and it’s unprotected, I might have a baby.’ People have views on that. So they’re sound-bite issues, they’re easy issues, they’re hot button issues and they’re ones you can play to your base.”

According to Waters, the comments from the past few months are not new. In February, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee met to discuss the Obama administration’s controversial decision to require employers to provide birth control to employees. The panel was all-male, which brought harsh criticism from the feminist community. A woman named Sandra Fluke was unable to speak because her testimony was not submitted on time. When she was invited back to speak, she became a scapegoat for slutty college students everywhere.

Conservative radio sensation Rush Limbaugh said of Fluke on his radio show, “She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.” Limbaugh’s show has lost 140 advertisers since he first made those comments.

Many other Republican commentators have denounced the use of birth control, demonizing contraception as just as harmful as abortion. Besides a complete lack of knowledge about how to use birth control (hint: it’s not like a condom—you don’t take it every time you have sex), the language is problematic because it could restrict women under the poverty line from knowing about contraception.

“Do I think we’re going to see something where there’s an outright ban on birth control? No. Do I think that we will see continued efforts on who has access to it, particularly for low income women? Yes,” Waters said.

Over 100 students turned out to the event sponsored by AU College Republicans. Brewer opened her speech with thanks to AUCR, the audience, and the AU community for inviting her, calling AU the “best university in the country.” From the outset the room felt emotionally charged, both with excitement and displeasure.
Brewer signed the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070), the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act into law on April 23, 2010. The law requires aliens to carry documentation of their immigration status and encourages law enforcement officers to ask for individuals’ immigration status when they are stopped, detained or arrested.

Opponents of the law argue that it sanctions racial profiling and treats those of Latin American descent as second class citizens. Protests also directed their attacks on a later law banning ethnic studies on the grounds that they would incite hatred in schools.

Brewer’s speech certainly played to a conservative audience, with jokes about both parties and casual mentions of issues and policies. Brewer was engaged and conversational. She gave students advice, such as “What’s right won’t be easy” and “Never abandon the dreams that inspire you.” Unfortunately, Brewer was unaware that conservatives made up the minority of the audience.

The speech portion ended and the event quickly moved into a question and answer session. Nick Linsmayer asked the first question, but before Brewer could answer almost 30 people were on their feet and yelling “mic check,” calling for a disruption of the event.

“A surreal scene ensued when near pandemonium took over after Jan Brewer started to address my question,” Linsmayer said. Protesters yelled, “The people, united, will never be defeated,” and carried signs with messages such as “My history is NOT inferior.” Supporters in the room reacted quickly with rallied responses of “U.S.A! U.S.A!” One protestor was removed from the room by Public Safety, while other officers, as well as Brewer’s personal security, escorted her from the room, with several members of AUCR trailing behind.

The AUCR apologized to Brewer as she left the building while the protest moved to the steps of MGC. Chanting and further mic checking continued outside while other protesters lowered a banner over MGC denouncing SB1070.

Other attendants of the event sat in shock and anger in MGC. The protest started in the blink of an eye, catching most people off guard.  By 6:25 the group was back inside the doors of MGC and still chanting. Chants ranged from “Hey, hey, ho, ho, racism has got to go,” to “Jan Brewer, escucha, estamos en la lucha,” (Jan Brewer, listen, we are in the fight), to “Jan Brewer, go away, racist, fascist, anti-gay.”

Onlookers’ feelings seemed mixed, most silently watching events unfold or taking cell phone pictures. One student shouted at the protesters, “No hablais English?” in reference to Spanish chants. The protest inspired several waves of controversy on campus, which spread from print publications like The Eagle to individual students’ Facebook profiles, and culminating in the resignation of College Democrats President Chris Litchfield.

The Eagle published 10 opinion pieces in the weeks following, covering both sides of the argument and publishing a response from the Executive Board of AUCR. In a Facebook poll with 273 voters, nearly 64 percent of people believed it to be an unacceptable form of protest, while 30 percent approved of the action.

In Defense of College Republicans

Most of the backlash centered on the timing and nature of the protest. The protest started while Brewer was still speaking, even though the event had moved to the question section. Nick Linsmayer and others had genuine questions they were not able to ask.

Some students say free speech was squelched because participants could not engage in dialogue with Brewer. The AUCRs had a right to engage with a speaker they brought on campus. Brewer was on campus for less than half an hour, from her energetic entrance to her untimely exit.

“The AUCR’s will never end our commitment to bringing high-profile conservative speakers to campus, simply because a handful of students decided to disrupt one of our high-profile events,” said Chandler Thornton, a freshman representative for AUCR.

In Defense of the Loudest Voices

Others find the action fairly reasonable. “SB 1070 degrades an entire group of people and codifies white privilege,” Matthew Metcalf wrote in a contribution to The Eagle. Protestors say they allowed Brewer time to speak, only interrupting the questions, not the speech. They felt compelled to draw attention to the controversial policies in Arizona.

One protester said he was amazed she was even allowed on a campus that prides itself on social justice. In fact, the Community Action and Social Justice Coalition publicly supported the protesters. The protesters, who were of many racial and ethnic backgrounds, cite ongoing discriminatory and racist laws in Arizona, many of which were signed by Brewer, as grounds for the protest.

“We do not want a racist bigot speaking on campus,” said Andrea Gonzalez, a freshman who protested the event.

On both sides of the issue, people got hurt. Latin Americans in Arizona are hurt by the targeted policies of the state and AU students were hurt because their event was disrupted. Regrettably, Jan Brewer was hurt, and, equally regrettably, her policies hurt people.

Unfortunately it’s a lose-lose situation. We need to move away from examining the action on an esoteric, moral level and realize that people were passionate enough to stand up and others were passionate enough to be upset about it.  However, the Student Code of Conduct does define “intentionally or recklessly interfering with normal university or university sponsored activities” a prohibited activity.

A group of students protested AUCR’s more recent event with Texas Governor Rick Perry, but these protesters chose to stand outside the building rather than mic check from the audience. There was little-to-no backlash from that action, but it also garnered less attention on campus. A protester who attended both events said that reasonably, they could only stand up in the audience a few times before it would lose its effect.

Perhaps, pushing the limits is the price you must pay to get your voice heard in AU’s highly charged political environment.

Illustration by Carolyn Becker.