“Don’t be a bystander.” That’s the motto that’s driven into our youth as this generation takes a stand against bullying. It seems that even our educational institutions face problems with abuse of power. And if our children are taught to stand up to that abuse, why aren’t we, citizens of a free society, taught to stand up to it too?
Mind you, there are significant differences between elementary school bullies and the federal government. While the former’s power stems from physical intimidation, the latter’s influence stems from the “consent of the governed” –– as highlighted by John Locke, then by Jean Jacques Rousseau and again by Henry David Thoreau in his essay “Civil Disobedience.” Since the government’s power originates from the people, it’s only natural to assume that the people must be allowed to “petition the government for a redress of grievances,” as stated in the First Amendment. What is civil disobedience other than an effort to petition the government in a…show more content… It’s not “contempt for the law” as some critics define it (Cohen). Rather, it’s a call for attention. Where mere talk is met with indifference and direct action is considered criminal, civil disobedience is a method to “bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive ... [so] it can be seen and dealt with” (King). As we’re taught in anti-bullying campaigns, calling attention to the problem is more likely to get bystanders involved. Civil disobedience is synonymous to shouting “HELP!” at the top of your lungs when faced with a snarling fourth-grader who demands your lunch money; the conspicuous act gets the public involved. This is why Mahatma Gandhi marched for salt, why Rosa Parks refused to leave her seat, and why Britain’s thirteen American colonies wrote the Declaration of Independence. History has shown us that civil disobedience has combated injustice in the past and suggests that it will continue to do so in the
