For those who haven’t joined already, do join the Facebook group “Occupy Madison” (http://www.facebook.com/OccupyMadison?ref=ts). As of this writing, it’s already nearing 4,000 members.

It’s an amorphous group that’s behind the organizing, with no single organization or group of individuals driving the agenda. Like the Wall Street occupation and its rapidly increasing sister demonstrations, the Madison occupation seems to be a mostly spontaneous activation.

While many have complained about this lack of structure and identifiable goals, the movement’s lack of discernible center is actually its strength. Do we really need a clear outline of the point of a protest taking place at Wall Street, the most lucid symbol of everything that is wrong with our society? The progressive/pro-worker side of the political ledger does not lack ideas; indeed, I think ours represent the best hope for improving the quality of life for the vast majority in our society. Rather, in virtue of being shut out of decision-making processes of our political system, we lack the means of implementing them. And this is what occupation of Wall St is all about: Harnessing the energy and strength of workers, unemployed, students and those otherwise disenfranchised to radically change the political dynamic occurring in the world today.

The lack of organizational leadership and centralism are equally laudable. This has allowed the movement to avoid sectarianism and being co-opted from establishment organizations (especially, and most ominously, the parasitical Democratic Party). This method is radical and anti-establishment because it has to be; our institutions have been corrupted by corporate money to the extent that making change within the system (on a national level, at least) can now only be considered an unfunny joke.

The protesters are comprised of the 99% who are exploited by the 1%.

The winds of progressive change were first blown earlier this year with the mass protests of workers here in Wisconsin. Now, the winds are blowing back.

Under this bill, any company that has hired a person who is not legally in the United States is, for a period of seven years, ineligible to: 1) receive any income or franchise tax credit or property tax exemption; 2) enter into a contract with the state or a local governmental unit for the construction, remodeling, or repair of a public work or building, or for the furnishing of supplies, services, equipment, or material of any kind; and 3) receive any grants or loans from a local governmental unit.

The sponsors of this bill are Senators Answen, Wirch, Hoperin, Erpenbach and Carpenter. Presumably, this will lead to firings of undocumented workers and more “in the shadows” type of employment which leads to only more hideous exploitation. It’s one thing to capitulate, but it’s quite another to take the lead in this type of policy. My friend Yvonne Geertz from the Immigrant Workers’ Union hits on all the right points better than I ever could:

“The Democratic Party has a unique opportunity, a duty really, to engage the hundreds of thousands workers, amoung them undocumented immigrants, who went to the street to protest Scott Walker’s policies. During the uprising in Wisconsin, there is no doubt people had illusions that the Democratic Party would represent different policies than the Republican Party in power” says Yvonne Geerts immigrant rights advocate and organizer. “With this bill we can see the Democratic Party coming back to the old-electoral politics, not principles, not differences. It is painfully obvious that the Democratic Party wants no progress in Wisconsin, just to win the election even if it means to throw undocumented workers under the bus.”

Obviously, there are electoral considerations at play here, with three of the sponsors facing recall elections. And it’s no surprise that Tim Carpenter would be in on this, too; it was his maneuverings that kept undocumented immigrants from being able to acquire drivers licenses in the 2009 budget. Erpenbach’s participation is more disappointing.

I know that I’ve been critical of the WI Democratic Party in other posts, but this is really beyond the pale. How can this be justified? In this instance, electoral politics trumps people’s lives; immigrants are currently an unpopular group, and so advantage has been taken for the recall efforts.

But it’s worth considering. According to establishment opinion, the recalls are supposed to be the avenue by which we “take Wisconsin back.” How should immigrants feel about that? Should they, or their allies, be expected to work on the campaigns of the recalled Democratic Senators, the same Senators who are determined to “throw them under the bus?”

We all know this. The response of some on the left has been to try to reclaim patriotism – ie we who believe in a better quality of life for American workers are the true patriots! It’s an understandable impulse, although there is something a little absurd in watching liberals fall over each other in trying to show how they love America every bit as much as the Republicans.

Regardless, it’s a strategy which, innately, ends up contradicting the spirit and and policies of progressivism, in my opinion.

What is patriotism, anyway? If it’s defined as love of one’s government, it’s easy enough to see how conscientious people – in this country, at least – would be revolted by waving the flag. (We are killing civilians in how many countries, at the moment?) If it’s defined as a love of a country’s people, landscape or culture, I end up a little confused because in any of these things there is plenty of good and bad. James Baldwin and the Grand Canyon may be great, but what is there to admire in toxic waste dumps and crass consumerism?

Probably many self-described patriotic liberals envision patriotism in the same way as they love their familiy; they take the good and the bad but are ultimately devoted to its welfare (often over the welfare of other families). Again, this is understandable, but ultimately nonsensical. There is no single America, no single community with a set of common interests. Corporate interests are contradictory to those of working people and their environment. It would be in the interest of American workers and unemployed to ally themselves with the working people of other countries against the multinational corporate agenda to best improve their quality of life.

Patriotism is and always has been the cloke by which the corporate political parties justify war for corporate profit; the national anthem is always played loudest when the sound of the bombs needs to be drowned out. We only end up making the job of the war-mongers easier when we give credence to the idea of a unified America in need of collective defense, rather a political entity of contradictory interests which are intertwined with the rest of the world.

The best in the American political tradition – civil rights, abolition, the union movement – did not acheive success when it “out-patriotized” the other side. It did so by appealing to people’s sense of decency and basic humanity. The history of the people – rather than the elites – of this country has been defined by righteous social struggle, and such movements weren’t – couldn’t be – defined by their patriotism. Frederick Douglass, an ex-slave, said, “This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn.” MLK called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”

When the left tries to usurp official propaganda for its own ends, it usually ends up in failure. We need a counter-narrative. Our political movement isn’t about making America the best, but uplifting all human beings by promoting universal peace, justice and environmental sustainability. Let’s broaden, not limit, our approach in making a better world.

Perhaps this makes me a raging anti-American, but I care a hell of lot more about the welfare of a Chinese sweatshop worker and Afghan refugee than I do about the profits of GE and BP.

Ultimately, when morally conscious people make appeals to patriotism, we either end up in a semantic debacle or inadvertently justifying future wars. Patriotism and humanism are contradictory. The more the left steeps itself in a love of all human beings and, indeed, all living things, the stronger our political movement will be.

******************

Yes, the social movement at the Capitol may have sung the national anthem a few times, but far more prevalent tunes included the anthems to humanity that define leftist musical culture. Songs like this:

And this:

And this:

From the perspective of unions, community activists and progressive and marginalized students, the story of any Chancellor is going to be a combative one, more or less. It’s simply the nature of power relations. This was, of course, the case with the curiously named Chancellor ”Biddy,” whose privatization efforts were vociferously opposed by pro-justice forces in the state.

But David Ward’s tenure (1993-2000) was heated even by the typical standards. The 1990′s witnessed a surge in campus and union activism against sweatshop labor, and UW-Madison was a leader in this fight. Following a 97-hour sit-in in February 1999, Chancellor Ward agreed to establish a shared governance committee to advise the implementation of stricter work force standards in the manufacture of all UW apparel. However, promises were quickly broken and the joint student-staff committee was largely sidelined. Later in the year, Chancellor Ward signed onto the Fair Labor Association (FLA), an organization designated to monitor workplace conditions, despite student objections. As one activist stated, “FLA is a sham. It is corporate-controlled.” Students had instead wanted UW-Madison to join the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC), which was free of corporate influence and offered more independent monitoring.

In February 2000, the movement’s energy culminated in another sit-in, this one including student government leaders and local elected officials. The demands initially included that the university withdraw from the FLA and join the WRC. They were later expanded to include a dropping of all punitive charges against the protesters and democratic changes in the university’s decision-making structure, among others.

The sit-in began on a Wednesday and, early on, Chancellor Ward made something of a vague commitment to look into joining the WRC. He promised to meet with activists on the next Monday and, as of Saturday night, the administration was promising that no arrests would be made. However, on early Sunday morning, riot police stormed Bascom Hall and arrested 54 people. Seven students had U-locked themselves in the Chancellor’s office, which were cut off with electric saws by the cops. One U-locked student said, “It was horrifying, they had to put wet towels on our heads to prevent the sparks from starting us on fire.”

In all, the outrage surrounding Chancellor Ward’s broken promises and behavior surrounding the protests prompted outcries from the community. Even the Badger Herald, hardly a bastion of left-wing thought, condemned the Chancellor’s actions (hat-tip to former Editor Jason Smathers):

The students and community members who protested the University of Wisconsin’s ties to sweatshop labor by staging a nonviolent sit-in at Bascom Hall should be exonerated. They should also be applauded for their dedication, diligence and commitment to victims of sweatshop labor.

 Instead they are being punished by the university and its administration. Once again, Ward has turned his back on those he is supposed to represent, listen to and nurture. The protesters claim Ward has consistently gone back on his word; they are right. Ward’s conduct during the four-day peaceful protest is consistent with a documented history of complacency and non-action on student-endorsed policies regarding sweatshop labor…

…Instead, the protesters were sent to jail because they were trying to improve the moral standards of the university. Ward may be sincere in his stated commitments into investigating the Workers’ Rights Consortium. However, the protesters correct suspicions mandated that they continue the protest. It was their only means of invoking change in the university’s sweatshop policies because the administration had continually failed them.

Regardless of Chancellor Ward’s treachery, the activists scored a major victory in forcing the university to join the WRC. What’s more, all of the charges against the arrested protesters were dropped after a high-profile campaign on their behalf. The campaign received support from the Daily Cardinal, Badger Herald, Capital Times and letters in the Wisconsin State Journal.

For Chancellor Ward, the fallout was too much to endure; the very next month, he announced he would be stepping down in January 2001. These were the circumstances surrounding his departure more than a decade ago.

It was just a few months ago that the whole country had its eyes on the democracy uprising in Madison. We even witnessed gestures of solidarity from Cairo. What happened? Again, Rothschild knows what he’s talking about:

It seems to me that the state AFL never had a mass strategy, was surprised by the mass uprising, and was even a little afraid of it. The leadership never called for boycotts, never called for a general strike or any workplace actions whatsoever, never called for civil disobedience.

In an era of global austerity in which working people are being forced to pay for the bankster-induced crisis, unions in other countries are actually exercising the potent muscle of their massive memberships. Just this week, labor in the Greek public and private sectors have combined forces in calling for a general strike in opposition to the EU structural adjustment policy. In Britain, 750,000 teachers and other public workers are planning on not showing up to work in response to pension and other cuts from the Tory government. In Spain, thousands of ‘indignados’ have camped out in Madrid to protest unemployment and attacks on the welfare state.

In Wisconsin, the massive mobilization in February and March has either retreated into our homes or been transformed into – wait for it – recalls of six Republican state senators. In a global context, this is somewhat of an underwhelming response to union-busting and such hard blows against the public sector. Still, it wouldn’t be so disheartening if the opposition party actually presented us with a robust alternative.

But here’s the thing: It doesn’t. For all of Walker’s extremism, the rarely uttered fact remains: The Republican agenda is simply a more radical version of neoliberal policy that has been embraced by both major parties on both the state and national level over the last few decades. Let’s not forget that it was Tom Barrett who promised to put Wisconsin ‘on a diet’ and Jim Doyle who passed a budget – with Democratic majorities in both legislative chambers - which had a devastating impact on human services and public education. And for all of the loud noise surrounding Walker’s cuts to higher education and UW privatization scheme, it was the Doyle years that witnessed hundreds of millions of dollars in a loss of state aid and nearly a doubling of tuition.

In Democratic Massachussetts, public workers have lost the right to collectively bargain over healthcare. In New Jersey, Chris Christie managed to pass legislation eliminating COLA’s (Cost of Living Adjustments) for public employees with a Democratic-controlled legislature. On the national level, Obama’s main pro-worker achievement is passing Bob Dole’s old healthcare plan. EFCA never had a chance – even with supermajorities in both houses of Congress. I think AFL-CIO head Richard Trumpka was being generous to the Democrats when he said the following:

“For too long, we have been left after Election Day holding a canceled check waving it about — ‘Remember us? Remember us? Remember us?’ — asking someone to pay a little attention to us. Well, I don’t know about you, but I’ve had a snootful of that s–t.”

Regardless, the union leadership in Wisconsin has continued to rely on the Democratic party as its principle means for change, allowing the moment to pass without other significant action, as Rothschild wrote. Largely, the Democratic Party and its apologists got their way in circumventing the anti-Walker energy into the recall efforts. The little civil disobedience that did occur was savagely attacked by various liberal bloggers, with people like Jack Craver essentially writing David Blaska’s press release for him. The message was clear: “Don’t protest. It will alienate moderate voters. Put down the bullhorn, cut your hair and pick up a clipboard to help in the recall efforts.”

But what’s never discussed is the fact that, as far as progressivism is concerned, the Democratic Party is objectively a failed institution. It’s in the business of electing Democrats; its policy platform and values (or lack theroef) are purely incidental.

We’re constantly hearing how the Democrats need to be as aggressive in fighting for our side as the Republicans are for theirs. Obama needs more Bush in him, I’ve heard it said. But this sentiment is based on an essentially false premise; it assumes the Democratic Party is supposed to be the champion of working people and progressive causes. In politics, nothing talks like money, and since 1999 state Democrats have received 2 out of 3 campaign dollars from business interests; only 1 out of 8 has come from labor.

Ultimately, most people reading this are probably interested in defending the public sector, advancing the union movement and protecting the interests of the state’s most vulnerable citizens. This agenda is not the same as that of the Democratic Party’s and often it is even opposed. This is not to say that many individual Democratic politicians and activists are not stalwart progressives; my commentary here is merely a description of the party as an institution.

Creating sustainable social movements is a long and arduous process and guarantees no quick victories. But what is clear is 1) such a movement – including civil disobedience, strikes, mass protest – is our only hope for the realization of our ideals and 2) Taking back the Senate through the election of more Democrats will, in itself, do nothing to reverse the long-term, anti-worker and anti-public sector trends occurring in this state.

And just when one is tempted to think this nightmare of a budget process couldn’t go on any longer, it does just that. The WSJ notes the following in an article discussing yet another complaint of animal abuse in UW laboratories:

The state Legislature’s budget committee last week approved a provision specifying “that current law provisions prohibiting crimes against animals would not apply to persons engaged in bona fide scientific research…”

Sandgren said the language is intended to clarify ambiguity in current law. But Rick Bogle, co-director of Alliance for Animals, said he believes the language is too far-reaching.

“Their argument, the way I read it, is the state should absolutely have no say in what goes on in the state university involving animals,” he said.

In other words, animals can now be tortured in any and all ways, without reprucussions. All that is needed is for this activity to be called “science.”

The UW, ranked a few years ago as “the worst animal laboratory in the country” by PETA, has a record of animal cruelty so unfathomable and extensive that it would make even the most hardened hunter uneasy. These experiments have included dogs, pigs and, of course, primates.

In practice, little is likely to change, since existing regulations are largely superfluous, anyway. But it’s worthwhile to reflect upon the fact that we are living in a state in which the government has just decided that the suffering and interests of non-human animals are irrelevant.

I was present for the for the original protest and immediate aftermath. There was much confusion both inside and outside the Capitol. The issue of protesting vehicles and the Capitol Square traffic obviously didn’t turn out as everyone had expected. What I can say is that everyone I had spoken with – and I mean everyone - assumed that the Mayor was reponsible for the police behavior.

In an email exchange today, Soglin admits that he “recommended” to the police, in conjunction with a discussion with a union/protest leader, that the police should issue a series of warnings to blockading vehicles and then give them ample time to move and once again open up the area to traffic. Though he doesn’t say it in the email, these warnings were supposed to be an hour apart, which effectively would have cleared the square for most of the day, as I stated in the original post.

Originally, I had stated that Soglin must have reneged, and later edited this to way that it was irrelevant if it was the police who took this action unilaterally because the culpability would still be the same. In the email exchange, Soglin states that he had no official contact with the police on that day. I assume he’s telling the truth, and readers can take his claim as they will. But the initial lack of clarity and unsubstantiated assumption is still exclusively my fault.

From the perspective of the protesters, however, what’s obviously important is the fact that things didn’t turn out as they expected them to. The fact remains that Monday’s marchers believed the police would not react to the protest behavior in the way they did, and they held this belief due to the words of Mayor Soglin.

These are just the facts as I understand them and I won’t bother to interpret them any more than I did in the original post (including the edit). There is obviously still some lack of clarity as to what happened and I hope the remaining details will emerge in the near future.

Among the marchers were dozens of participating vehicles – fire trucks, union cabs, tractors, AFSCME vehicles – that drove around the Capitol Square. The original plan was to use these vehicles to surround the square, blockading it and utilizing it as a space for political protest in the same way it was during the original protests over the collective bargaining law.

The story hasn’t been recounted in any local media outlets that I’ve seen, but this outline of the day’s activities had been approved by Mayor Paul Soglin in discussion with union leaders. The agreement was that the protest vehicles would be allowed to to block off the various entrances to the the Capitol Square, not allowing any other traffic in the area for most of the day. The agreement stipulated that the police would not interfere in this activity.

However, upon entering the square, protesters quickly learned this is not how things were going to play out. Union Cabs were told to leave the square after circling it one time. Other vehicles were ticketed. At the State St entrance, two protesters were arrested.

What happened?

From the various accounts, it’s become clear that Soglin, who was at the march’s starting point at the fire station, reneged on his promises to the unions, directing the Madison police of the change in plans about 30 minutes before the march began. Naturally, he made this call without talking with any of the protest organizers.*

I can only conclude that, given the relatively small size of the protest (perhaps a thousand people or so), Soglin decided that the resistance to his reversal wouldn’t be particularly potent, and so his political calculation was to side with “law and order” over those resisting the governor’s agenda. From a purely political standpoint, his decision was probably the right one (in the near-term at least), given the right-wing criticism of Walkerville and increasingly numerous voices opposed to civil disobedience.

[Edit: In a recent email exchange, Soglin claims he didn't have any contact with the police during Monday's protest, other than a simple "hello." He also claims that he only made it clear that he would "recommend" to the police to issue a series of warnings, an hour apart, which would effectively have the square cleared for most of the day. Clearly, this isn't how protest organizers interpreted their exchange, but take this as you will.]

I think yesterday’s turn of events serve as a reminder that, for those resisting the Walker agenda, protest (of various sorts) is our only reliable and most powerful tool. It was protest that gave the Democratic senators cover to flee the state; it was protest that exposed the Republican arrogance and forced them into illegally passing the collective bargaining law. Similarly, when our protests aren’t as large and/or confrontational as they should be, we allow our politician “allies” – be they Soglin or Democratic legislators – to betray us.

In short, if our sole instrument for change is the Democratic Party, well, forgive me for not exactly being hopeful about our prospects.

But regardless of what one thinks about this strategy debate, the fact remains that Soglin lied to yesterday’s protesters. I voted for the man, and I certainly applaud many of his actions during his early days as mayor, but this development is hardly encouraging and, frankly, says some discouraging things about his integrity.

*Edit: I’ve spoken with people who seem to be sure that Soglin made a call at the march directing the police to keep the square open to traffic. Regardless of whose call it ultimately was, I don’t think this point is really important. For Soglin to make a promise to protesters knowing full well he couldn’t keep the promise is effectively a lie, in my opinion, and equally indefensible. He’s the one in charge and so he’s responsible for what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L48gMDq0iyc

I’ve been very disappointed in the amount of negative commentary this action has received on Facebook and other places from self-described opponents of the Walker cuts. These protesters are wasting time, doing more harm than good, violating the democratic process, etc – I’ve read it all at this point. Even more disturbing were the comments from the Democrats on the JFC:

Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar): “I’m on your side. I’m asking you to consider that you could be doing more harm than good.”

Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee): “With all due respect, you don’t speak for us…the issue is whether this room is going to be filled with you or without you.”

How disappointing. How pathetic. At this crucial juncture in our movement, now is not the time to be dividing those involved in the opposition to the Walker agenda. We have to respect a diversity of tactics; we have to respect that people will be affected differently by the budget; we have to respect that people may have different ideas about the way to proceed forward.

We have to admit that, in many ways, the Walker opposition hasn’t been entirely inclusive of the struggles representing poor people and people of color. By telling Voces and the immigrant community that they’re “doing more harm than good” in their action yesterday, we’re effectively telling brown people to sit down and shut up. Doing so is not only wrong in it’s own right but, by further marginalizing already marginalized voices and creating more division, strategically problematic.

And let’s not forget about the magnitude of the obscenity going on here. Immigrants will no longer be able to afford higher education; poor people will be thrown off welfare rolls; the disabled will be institutionalized; unions will be destroyed; etc ad nauseum. And then there is this:

The specifics of who will be affected and how remain vague. But many fear the worst. Says William Orth, the human services director for Sauk County, “It would not be unreasonable to imagine some people will die sooner than they would have. These are fragile populations.”

For many people, the cuts are of apocalyptic proportions. Now is not the time to pretend that our “democratic process” is functional. Our system doesn’t work for poor people and so many others. Under these circumstances, extralegal tactics have to be considered if we are genuinely committed to reversing the tide. Nonviolent civil disobedience is part of the great American progressive tradition. If we can’t consider embracing the path of Thoreau and King now, then when?

Besides, direct action and protest – not the maneuverings of Democratic legislators – are the only options we have left to do something about the budget process in a meaningful way. Day after day, the 12-4 votes on the JFC are as appalling as they are tragic to witness. Consider:

1) Civil disobedience garners media attention in a way that no other form of opposition can. Yesterday’s protests are on the front page of today’s WSJ and Journal Sentinel.

2) The commitment of people willing to get arrested is an inspiration and catalyst for our movement. Despair has been on the margins of consciousness for many anti-Walker activists and observers since the passage of the collective bargaining law. Such acts of bravery signal that the opposition is still alive and strong.

3) Civil disobedience pushes the margins of the political spectrum to the left. It makes the Democratic legislators and union leaders look more mainstream.

4) Every disruption of this obscene process is a victory. Every action that slows down and interferes JFC meetings weakens the Republican determination and exposes their arrogance. It also makes them panic and forces them to break their own rules, as was the case with the violation in the passage of the collective bargaining law.

As Walkerville sets up in the downtown and more protest ensues in the coming weeks, now is the time to applaud, not denigrate, those willing to directly confront the architects of this horror. There is room for more than one kind of progressive in this fight.

Onward.

Public Authority status for the UW-Madison, part of the Walker-driven neoliberal trend toward privatization of state services, had neither the support of progressive Democrats nor Republicans with state universities in their districts. This is a resounding rejection of Chanellor Biddy Martin’s vision for UW-Madison. I can certainly respect her intentions (though not her lack of honesty) in her advocacy, but it might be time for new leadership on Bascom now that her ideals have no chance of being implemented.

Reflecting back on the year’s campus debate regarding this issue, I think the discussion revealed sharp divergences – the best and the worst - in the university community. Supporters of the NBP (not the most diverse group of people) were adamant in their stated beliefs about a number of things: 1) UW-Madison has no obligation to the rest of the state and the less privileged students who attend other universities should be counted as irrelevancies in this discussion and 2) Public good, accessibility and concerns with privatized research aren’t as important as UW-Madison’s status and selectivity.

It might be easy to blame the student architects of these opinions for their elitism, but the ambition-driven impulses of this university’s admission process and atmosphere are also at least partially at fault. How many times are UW-Madison students reminded that they are at the “flagship” institution and better and brighter than everyone else? Of course, larger cultural factors play a role in forming this kind of thinking, too.

Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab, recounting a Twitter discussion she had with a pro-NBP student, had some interesting comments about this on her blog:

A moment later, I got a reply: “It isn’t my job to be concerned with students at other universities.” And a few minutes after that, he added: “It was my job to maximize my education and the value of this university, if that benefits other universities too, great!”

It was like a punch in the gut, as I suddenly realized that the whole UWNBP situation is but a microcosm of the broader threat to public education.

Too many of our fellow Americans are downright compassionless.

If we at UW-Madison cannot teach our undergraduates compassion for their fellow undergraduates– at all public institutions throughout the state– then we are doomed to a competitive race to the bottom. If the only route they can see to helping others is by helping themselves, we have not done our jobs.

On the other side of this debate, we had a group of students who understand that higher US News rankings and Koch brothers money won’t make them better educated. They also understand that there is no greater educational achievement than an unrepentant commitment to solidarity, equalityand altruism. Finally, they understand that “helping others” is a prequisite for “helping themselves.” (Human beings are like that; empathy is part of our nature, whether we like it or not.)

Let’s put it another way. Is the goal of education – higher education in particular – to give students more credentials in their endless pursuit of status? Or is it to create more consientious, dynamic and enlightened individuals? Is the university a place that should foster opportunism and careerism or a commitment to the greater good?

An education devoid of values creates a society without a soul. Let’s keep up the good fight.

“The court must consider the potential damage to public trust and confidence in government if the Legislature is not held to the same rules of transparency that it has created for other governmental bodies,” Sumi wrote. “Our form of government depends on citizens’ trust and confidence in the process by which our elected officials make laws, at all levels of government.”

The chaotic, incoherent and at times illegal actions pursued by the legislature during that turbulent time were the direct result of the pressure the ruling party felt from the mass protests. This includes the violation of the open records law. Feeling the rapidly changing momentum, Republicans knew that time was running out and so scrambled to pass the most controversial part of the bill. They are now paying for their skirting of the democratic process.

Part of this pressure stemmed from the impending defections of Republican senators, many of whom were understandably going wobbly as thousands upon thousands of people gathered outside their workplace. Conventional wisdom is now that the Republican leadership pursued this avenue because they knew that they probably wouldn’t have the votes if they waited much longer in their game of chicken with the exiled Democrats.

Now, I don’t think the attack on collective bargaining has much of passing the legislature again – again, thanks to the changing tide, a shift for which the protesters are singularly responsible.

While Sumi’s ruling may or may not be upheld by the Supreme Court, I think it’s worthwhile to reflect here that protests, especially ones of the magnitude we recently witnessed in Wisconsin, do matter. The momentum in this state is now with public workers and unions and it seems this incipient movement has produced its first tangible result.