Last evening videos surfaced of two young boys being ordered to cease and desist holding a large banner in Wisconsin's State Capitol. The scene was, for me, quite fraught with emotion. The middle-school aged boys looked remarkably calm as two officers were askingtelling them to take their protest down to the allowable designated "demonstration" zone on the ground floor of the rotunda. They could have their sign there, but could not have it where they were; in the overhang area that had previously been festooned with banners and signs, and had never been restricted in use until 2 weeks ago. This was according to an order of the Walker appointed Department of Administration, the same folks who grossly overestimated the "damage" done by "rioters," making a point of singling out the horrors of blue painter's tape that protesters had used to adhere countless signs to marble balustrades and walls while occupying the building.
The first video opens with an officer explaining to the boys that, "...the Department of Administration has demonstrated protest areas, or demonstration areas, and that area would be on the ground floor." He looks uncomfortable, and is being gentle with the boys. The handheld camera shakily pans around the scene, revealing the back of a woman (who we later learn is the mother of the boys, and a Dane County Court Supervisor) and then another policeman and a man with another camera, also shooting footage. The officer patiently explains the request, to "take the signs to the ground floor" and explains the consequence if they don't comply - that they will "be issued tickets" and their "signs will be confiscated as evidence." The officer redirects his request to the boys' mother and then gives them all some time to consider their response. The other officer looks much less tolerant of the situation: his body language suggests intransigence and suppressed aggression. A voice off camera, the other policeman, asks the boys "what does that mean to you?" and one boy responds "that we will get in trouble" and the other says "that you're saying we should go downstairs..." The first officer reiterates his request. His discomfort is clear.
By now a small group has gathered. A bit of laughter leavens the moment. The first officer walks away to give them time. This "giving them time to decide their fate" is a powerful moment, both in terms of the officers' understanding of the situation, and an amplification of the particularities of this "teachable moment" regarding protest, disobedience, just cause and consequence.
Video number 2 is more about mom. It begins with her saying "the way I understand the Constitution is they have freedom of expression and freedom of speech..." while she rocks a (perhaps) one-year old on her hip. She refuses to comply, and the first officer tries again, citing the Administrative Code. The mom points out that "it is not a law" and the camera pans low so that we can finally read the sign: "Solidarity." The officer cites the issue and explains it one more time, and the boys decide not to comply.
Dad is finally addressed and finally speaks. The camera is close on him, and he says, "They're using their own decision to do their freedom of speech, which is constitutional, and I believe that that does trump administrative code..." He says this while holding his camera on himself; a fascinating example of double (triple?) mediation. The boys choose not to remove the sign, and Dad assures them that they stand together. A baby cries off camera. The boys ceremoniously release the sign into the hands of the second officer. They are then escorted to the Police Department. The small crowd claps and cheers, and the family hugs and high-fives.
I learned from another source that they are later fined $205.50 for the incident.
Comments on YouTube were, not surprisingly, very polarized: the "kudos for engagement and civics lesson" camp vs the "how dare you horrible parents use your kids as your little political pawns."
The incident leaves me with many questions and I am fascinated by sorting through the issues of agency, control and ethical response. Who came up with the idea? Is it right for adults to include their children in such issues? Who actually pays the $200? What is the objective of the protest? Does aggressive mediation change the nature of the event (or perhaps, is it the event?)
I can imagine that this demonstration came about after numerous conversations around the dinner table: what is right, what is wrong, what can we do? One thing that I've always greatly admired about children at the age of these boys is their fundamental sense of decency and justice. Or perhaps it is inaccurate to think of the protest as the "boys" rather than as a family protest, each character performing a theatrical role that amplifies and contextualizes the other roles.
How often do we bemoan lack of youth involvement in our constitutional democracy, nervously assent to or critique childhood lived vicariously through screen-based media? And yet here we are, three months into what appears to be a long authoritarian winter; young boys fined $200 for peacefully holding a Solidarity sign in a State Capitol that once belonged to the people of Wisconsin.
Perhaps this needn't be said, but I'll ask it anyway. At what point have we had enough? And then, deeper still, what do we do at that point?