Less is more
Written by Nicholas Reason, Senior Staff Writer
Protests are most effective when they are tightly organized around a single, simple message — the Velvet Revolution toppling communism in Czechoslovakia, peaceful protests to desegregate buses in the American South, or student activists demanding an end to the Vietnam War. Recent protests in Minneapolis owe their effectiveness in part to their ability to coalesce around a laser-focused message: Get federal agents out of our city.
However, this wisdom is lost on many modern activists. Discordant constellations of unrelated flags, posters, and chants have become the standard at most large protests.
In 2020, after the heinous murder of George Floyd, I attended a Black Lives Matter protest with the understanding that we were organizing against two realities: police brutality and racism. I found myself in an ocean of people calling for all sorts of other radical positions that I had no intention of promoting: fully abolishing the police, forced reparations, and even the inevitable socialist revolution of the people.
In their zeal to scream and bang drums, many seemed to have forgotten the fundamental reason we had assembled.
Being the most radical person at a protest may earn you prestige among those who already agree with you. Protests, however, are about convincing those who don’t. If your goal in protesting is to flaunt your moral superiority, then, by all means, wave a Palestinian flag, wear a shirt advocating for open borders, carry a sign calling to defund the police, and do it all at a protest that has nothing to do with any of these positions. But if you want to bring about real change in the world, pick one at a time.
Leave the guns at home
Written by Avani Kongetira, Opinion Editor
The eruption of anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement rallies in the face of the tragic fatal shootings of Minnesotan protesters has called to attention the validity of the radical notion of taking up arms in defiance of immigration crackdowns.
No matter how virtuous it may seem for protesters to arm themselves against federal agents, doing so detracts from their purpose — especially for protests that are not calling for revolution. In 1968, anti-Vietnam War demonstrators ravaged the streets of Chicago in clashes with police. The results drew public attention away from the war and instead to the sheer spectacle of the riots. Public opinion turned against the protesters.
It’s not that we are close to a general consensus in favor of ICE agents, but there is a reason that peaceful protest is a proven form of action. From civil rights to women’s suffrage to the Indian independence movement, peaceful protest is and has always been the driving force behind real change.
Alex Pretti was exercising his Second Amendment right in carrying a firearm, and his murder was both unnecessary and unjustified, at least according to video evidence. Simultaneously, having a gun in a charged environment where angry protesters and poorly-trained federal agents are at odds with each other is simply unwise. I don’t believe that Pretti set out to use his gun or even draw attention to its presence. It made him a target anyway.
In any such situation, having a lethal weapon only escalates risk, regardless of intention. The odds of an ICE agent shooting you when you have a gun are tenfold. And ultimately, the law will protect an agent’s right to self-defense, not yours.
Think twice before arming yourself and walking into a protest — not because Kash Patel or Kristi Noem or even Donald Trump himself says so, but because promoting more violence is not the solution.
March if you must, vote if you care
Written by Aazam Khan, Senior Staff Writer
Protesting has long been an important tool for citizens to express political discontent and make their grievances visible to those in power. At its best, protesting does not replace elections but energizes them by raising awareness, shaping public narratives, and motivating people to vote. Marching signals passion, but real durable political power comes from organizing, persuading others, and voting in general, primary, and special elections. If protesters do not vote, their activism is rendered politically insignificant.
In Minneapolis, rallies following federal immigration agents’ murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti show how protests can influence short-term political decisions, but the lack of long-term results underscores why elections remain the decisive tool for lasting change.
Peaceful, visible demonstrations have garnered media attention and elevated scrutiny of Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics. These protests are most likely why Donald Trump decided to come to the negotiating table with the Minnesota governor and Minneapolis mayor. Subsequently, “border czar” Tom Homan announced that the administration would be pulling 700 ICE officials out of Minnesota. But what have we seen in the long term?
The outcomes of the ICE demonstrations in Minnesota provide a model for how sustained, peaceful protests can shift public narratives and compel officials on the opposite side of the political spectrum to adjust policy in response to community outrage — for the moment. Protesting has its limits. Unlike in eras when many Americans were formally excluded from the political process, most citizens today, regardless of race or background, already possess the most important political lever in a democracy: the right to vote.
Protests are catalysts that mobilize people to organize, persuade others, and turn out at the ballot box. Marching can shape conversation, but elections determine who governs and, therefore, what policies endure.
In this house, Alex Pretti is a hero
Written by Jaechan Lee, Senior Staff Writer
Renee Good. Luis Gustavo Núñez Cáceres. Geraldo Lunas Campos. Víctor Manuel Díaz. Luis Beltrán Yáñez–Cruz. These are the names of some of the innocent people who have been slaughtered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Yet, some moderates will claim that Alex Pretti’s decision to conceal carry with a permit was radical. Pretti did not commit a crime; his decision was a justified response to modern slave patrols in his community. To say that Pretti should not have brought guns to a protest implies that he is in part responsible for his own death.
While the state uses these instruments as killing machines, armed heroes like Pretti exemplify what community protection should be — a nonviolent deterrent. When so many innocent people have been murdered at the hands of the modern gestapo and masked men point guns at civilians on the street, there is no reason why the common man should not keep one in his holster.
I am by no means advocating for violence. But Pretti’s death was not tragic stupidity; it was heroic martyrdom. His brave and legal resistance effectively turned the American people against ICE because he was simply exercising his right to self-defense, exposing the inherent violence of the white authoritarian regime.
Pretti’s chosen tactic reflects that of the Black Panthers, who proved that the resistance fighter need not shoot a single bullet or break a single law to engage in armed resistance. Decades ago, when the white authoritarian utilized the police to brutalize Black communities, the Black Panther Party responded by patrolling their neighborhoods with rifles on their backs. The police dared not engage extrajudicially, for the people kept them in check.
Moderates might disparage this right, calling it an excuse for the white authoritarian to further oppress. Well, as The Onion once wrote, “Protesters Urged Not To Give Trump Administration Pretext For What It Already Doing.”
Sometimes violence is the answer
Written by Gitanjali Boyd, Contributing Writer
Nonviolent resistance, while often favored in modern society, runs the risk of enabling violence from the oppressor and falling short of necessary action. Comparatively, violent disobedience aims to invigorate democratic sovereignty and can constitute a form of democratic empowerment in itself — an exercise of political agency that is especially meaningful for marginalized groups.
Critics of violent resistance claim it undemocratic, but in a system where leaders do not obey the law, placing ourselves within these legal constraints serves no purpose. The government has already proven that it will abuse and disrespect us regardless of whether we suffer with our hands by our sides or our fists up.
In India, a much lesser-known movement occurred in tandem with Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India Movement that greatly contributed to the independence of the nation from British colonial rule: the violent revolutionary movement. The British directed the majority of their violence toward this movement composed primarily of young people — often college students much like ourselves — like the oppressive entities we face in the United States today. Gandhi himself, though often depicted as opposing violent resistance, did not argue against violent disobedience, only against its effectiveness. He agreed: Both movements were powerful in their own regard in the fight against injustice.
Peaceful and violent forms of protest are both legitimate, and which form is optimal is determined by the context, as well as the privilege of the individuals whose rights are at stake. In such dire times, it is crucial that those with the privilege to resist come together with marginalized groups and fight alongside them.
