Editor’s Note: For more on Chalkupy Austin see The Crackdown on Chalk -Kit
By Hillary Procknow, Ph.D. Crossposted from Occupy Austin

Corey Williams is arrested in front of Hillary Procknow's children (Photo: John Jack Anderson, used with permission).
On Thursday, August 9, I took my two children, ages 4 and 7, to an Occupy Austin event called “Chalkupy the World.” Many other cities around the country, and even abroad, participated in this event. I’ve been to a few Occupy events, support the methods and messages of Occupy, and am somewhat active in one of the Occupy groups that does work dealing with the local school district. The Chalkupy event was supposed to be a gathering of people using sidewalk chalk to express, well, anything really, but mostly dissent or disenchantment with the way things in our country have evolved to either favor the ultra-wealthy or punish the poor, middleclass, marginalized, or otherwise “different” people.
I anticipated that this was going to be a small event, and one that would allow me to show my support of the Occupy movement while also letting my children participate, or at least keep them occupied. They like chalk; they like to draw. I wasn’t really expecting police intervention. I’m a responsible mother; I would never knowingly put my children in harm’s way. I thought, particularly in Austin, this event would be reasonably innocuous. But I’m also responsible enough to want to teach my children to participate in the citizenry, to stand up for what they believe in. I can’t say I’m altogether surprised at what happened, which is really a sad comment on our society.
I took my children because I thought it was an appropriate place for children to participate in coming together, in citizens who don’t know each other meeting in person, in public space…in space that is for the public. I think it’s worth mentioning, too, that the day before, I had just read William F. Buckley Jr.’s essay “Why Don’t We Complain?” Writing in 1960, the famous conservative commenter remarked on how much people at the time were willing sit back without remark and endure unreasonable situations. He explains that it’s sometimes complex, that there are often hidden reasons for why some things are the way they are. But his essay challenged me. And on August 9, I was feeling a duty to myself and my country to speak up for things that seem unjust. If I didn’t, who would? How would my children learn to speak out against injustice?
We had picked up two packages of giant-sized sidewalk chalk earlier in the afternoon. They were the biggest chalk sticks I had ever seen, and I found their cartoonish proportions a little humorous. Two sticks in each pack. Two sticks for each child. I knew there would be more chalk waiting at the event, but it’s always good to come prepared. As we drove to the event, I reminded my children they could draw anything they wanted. I want my kids to participate in the public sphere, but I don’t want to be too heavy handed in what messages they feel forced to repeat. They will change their minds about many issues many times as they grow. I don’t think I need to force them to accept any point of view right now. I did tell them, though, that they might want to think for a minute about one thing they thought would help make the world a better place. My younger child thought about rain. My older child mentioned recycling. I told them that would be great, and that they could draw as many pictures as they liked.
When we arrived, there were about 10 Occupiers on the southwest corner of 11th and Congress, just across the street from the Capitol, where Occupiers had been warned not to use chalk. But we were all on public property on this corner. We noted the large box of sidewalk chalk on the bus stop bench. It had many more color options available. So both of the children picked out a couple of colors. My son, my older child, set in on his design. He decided that drawing the earth in a “recycling triangle” would be good. My daughter started drawing butterflies. She’s just recently developed the skill of representation, so her drawings are actually starting to look like something. I wrote a message about how I would be better off financially had I never decided to pursue graduate studies.
This is true, by the way. I would have been earning a middle class income from the time I graduated college in 1997 through today. I wouldn’t have any debt. In fact, in my one year working in a corporate office after I earned my bachelor degree, I saved over $7000 dollars. I’m pretty thrifty with money. I would not have had to take out student loans (all subsidized), and I wouldn’t have had to live on the approximately $800 monthly most graduate assistants make. Of course, I would not have become more educated about history, philosophy, justice, and education. It makes a difference in your perspective. It’s important to remember that education is not a commodity. I don’t owe money for student loans because I wanted a boat or an expensive purse. I owe money because I wanted to be an educated citizen. I thought that was a responsible decision. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me it would have been more responsible to keep my office job and keep my mouth shut.
The adults had already noticed the group of state troopers gathering across the street in front of the Capitol. Apparently, one was also hiding in a car across Congress. Whatever the case or the number of eyes, four troopers crossed 11th Street over to our corner. They promptly arrested two adults who had been chalking. One of the arrested chalkupiers was wearing a mask covering his face. When my children and I first arrived, they asked about the mask. I simply explained that some people like to be private. They accepted this answer without further inquiry. Indeed, children are often at ease when their parents or role models help make sense of the world for them and are honest with them about what they see. That’s not always a very easy task. Taking a moment to consider one’s response and how it will potentially frame the world for children does take a little more effort at times, but I’d rather not go around dividing the world up into “people like us” and “people not like us” for my children. I imagine there are parents who would have explained that the young man with a mask was just weird, wanted attention, thought highly of himself, whatever excuse they could use to make sure that their children understood that he was “different” and that “we” don’t act like that.
When the troopers came to our chalking area, my children were frightened. My son began to cry. He’s pretty sensitive, but very logical. My daughter feigned crying to be like her big brother. She’s big on drama and intensity. She has asked me to recount the story of the time I stepped on a nail when I was 12 years old a thousand times, but she’s not given to crying, unless someone else has tried to pick out her outfit for the day. Without any warning, the troopers arrested two chalkupiers. I approached one of the arresting officers and politely asked if he could help me understand why two people were being arrested. He deferred to the other who explained that chalking public property was considered criminal mischief. I asked if it was explicit in the penal code, if the code was specific in naming the use chalk on public property as criminal mischief. He explained that no, but it could be considered such.
Let us remember, too, that a number of courts have upheld citizens’ use of chalk as a form of expression. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, “No reasonable person could think that writing with chalk could damage a sidewalk.” (Mackinney v. Nielsen 69 F.3d 1002, 1995). To make this absolutely clear, in our country, we have freedom of speech to protect unpopular speech. This does not, however, protect use of dangerous or slanderous speech. We all know that we may not use words to threaten another or incite violence. That kind of speech is not protected. Similarly, had there been threatening messages or even obscene drawings, that use of chalk might reasonably be considered mischievous. But there were no such messages or drawings, only messages of dissent and drawings of the earth and butterflies.

Hillary and her children confronting the State Troopers at the gates of the Texas State Capitol (Photo: Kit O'Connell, used with permission).
After the troopers took the arrestees across the street, I calmly gathered my children and started toward the car. I certainly did not want to keep them in a place where they might be subject to violence or see their mother arrested for chalking. They were both teary. We walked for a minute. Then, I literally asked my children to stop for a moment while I thought. As a parent, you really have to do this sometimes. Sometimes, you have to stop and figure out what is best. If we left at that moment, what lesson were they going to learn? What meaning would they make of what just happened? Of course we were going to be discussing this at length; that goes without saying. But what would they take away from this event if, having told them it was not right for the police to arrest those two people, I simply walked away, too. I knew, already, I wasn’t going to go back to the chalking corner. So I simply turned around, crossed 11th Street to the Capitol, and I told my children I wanted to talk to the troopers, to see if I could understand what was going on.
Now, I’m an adult who (not that it’s anybody’s business) has never been arrested. And that might even be a damning statement against me, depending on who you’re asking. Because, without doubt, there is injustice in our country. We have one of the highest rates of childhood poverty in the “developed” world; we have the least amount of access to health care in the “developed” world; we don’t let consenting adults of the same sex enjoy basic civil liberties; we allow bankers who stole millions of dollars to continue their practices without so much as an investigation. These are surely injustices. Don’t get me wrong, I am thankful we live in a country where women are allowed to obtain an education; I am thankful our country attempts to educate every child, whether poor or rich; I am thankful for many things. But that does not absolve me from my duty to make this country better for the vast majority of people. What I’m stalling in admitting here is that talking to police makes me nervous. Which is a shame. At any rate, I had an example to set for my children. Children should learn to speak respectfully to officers of the law; they should be willing to approach one if it seems that something wrong has happened. And as a mother, I honestly did not want to walk away from this with children frightened of a police officer who might be trying to help them if they were lost or if there were an emergency such as a fire.
The three of us walked up to two troopers standing in front of one of the gates in front of the Capitol. Honestly not knowing protocol, I extended my hand to the trooper closest to me and said, “Hi, I’m Hillary Procknow.” Her arms remained around her chest. I fumblingly said, “Oh, I guess you’re not allowed to do that.” I explained to her very politely that I did not understand why two people had been arrested and that I was indeed concerned because my children were now afraid of police. “What,” I asked, “can you help me understand to explain to my children that they do not need to be afraid of the police.” She repeated what the other officer had said about chalk and criminal mischief. I reminded her that chalk is not explicitly mentioned as mischief. She said that just like free speech, if a citizen is offended by what someone says (or chalks) an officer can tell the person to stop or arrest them. No trooper had explained that a citizen had complained. I replied, “I’m offended by what a lot of people say, but that doesn’t mean I want them to be arrested.” In any case, when I pressed her about what I should tell my children about their fear of police, she recommended that I go home and have a discussion about how it’s wrong to damage public property, and that it was going to take tax payer money to remove the chalk. I offered to go home and get rags and buckets. She said it wouldn’t make a difference. Of course, we did go home and have a discussion. I did tell my children not to be afraid of police. (We are not people of color, so it’s a lot easier for me to say this to my children than it is for others. If we had dark skin, this particular issue would have been much more complex. And that conversation will come, too.) But, I also told them that our country is not perfect. Just like at home, we all have to pitch in.
Many people wonder, I’m sure, what chalking a sidewalk does to make this country better. I want to be clear on this. People coming together, in public, to express themselves is something that makes the country better. I don’t mean this to apply to any particular political persuasion (and, in fact, Occupy has a firm stance on its resistance to embrace any particular party). When people meet each other, disagree, agree, argue with civility, see each other’s faces, learn to be in a public space and tolerate the presence of others, important things happen, and not necessarily or even mostly sweeping political change. The country learns what it looks like when people participate, when people recognize each other as human. The country learns what it looks like when people decide for themselves to think beyond political platforms and party lines, and come together to imagine new possibilities that simply are not available on a ballot coming to you in November.
Jane Addams, one of the great educators in our country’s history, who fought for the rights of poor and women, for sanitary conditions for immigrants all over Chicago, had some reservation about women’s suffrage, which she did fight for. Why? Because she knew in the 1910s what we have witnessed over the past 100 years: when people have the right to vote, it’s all too easy to dismiss the other important civic obligations they have. Did I vote this season? Yes? Check. Done with my responsibilities. When you feel your obligations are limited to a multiple choice form once or twice a year (if you’re a very conscientious voter), you have failed to understand every other obligation to your country, your fellow citizens, your neighborhood, your local public school, the poor, the sick, the marginalized. Being in public and expressing in public are ways to make this country better. Not the only ways, certainly. If I should have known better than to bring children to a public display of dissent, then I truly hope people will come out in public and make the public a safe place for all of us to be.
The two arrested Occupiers were charged with Class C misdemeanors. Apparently the charges may be increased to Class B. Class B misdemeanor charges result when the damage done costs between $50 and $500 to remedy. The cost of erasing dissent, in this case of erasing chalk from a public sidewalk, will cost tax payers less than $500. The cost of erasing dissent, by making the country’s citizens fearful of participating in a robust public sphere, by making them fearful of coming together, by making its children afraid to be with others and afraid of the police, will be paid for generations to come.
Epilogue
It rained the next day.



58 Comments

Hi. Really nice article.
Were all chalkers (excluding your children) arrested?
Hillary, i believe it is too dangerous to take children anywhere near protests and police today. The looks on their faces, as you questioned Officer Friendly is telling, they have learned a lesson, the police are not your friends they are the enforcers of the status quo.
The fact that they are pretty white kids will not shield them if when they grow up they decide to resist the Beast.
Why isn’t erasing dissent a crime?
First thought.
I thought the Supreme Court said the answer to speech you disagreed with is more speech. So if the cops have disagreement to public chalk speech, they can say that, but arresting someone is not speech. THIS just sounds totally bogus:
That’s “just like free speech”? Under what Constitution?
This needs to get stopped by the court.
All the more reason to learn it now. Mayberry RIP, as Frank Rich wrote.
Also, a big hat tip to bmaz, who gave a big hat tip to this article last fall.
He’s right. Occupy, chalk, meaning. Now it’s my turn to ask, indeed implore, you to read it too. Really, I think it’s that good and that relevant. It was just words, right? Pixels of chalk even. But I’m remembering them.
Getting into an argument with a police official, especially a police official on a street might get the cop to think about it. But it won’t change any more than that particular cop.
Changing the way police approach these sorts of things requires orders from their superiors: the Chief of Police and the District Attorney. If necessary the courts have to order them to change their approach.
The idea that chalk on a concrete sidewalk amounts to mischief is ludicrous on its face. Water will wash it away, although under current drought conditions that might take a while.
I hope that the arrested chalkers will demand trials. I hope that they are acquitted. If they are convicted, I hope they appeal.
Somewhere in some document founding our nation it says:
It strikes me that chalking sidewalks outside a State Capitol comes under the headings of peaceable assembly and petitioning. It is certainly not the case that someone offended by such speech can suppress it by complaining to authorities.
I wouldn’t want that even if I could silence the Koch Brothers with it.
Parents and teachers who drag children to demonstrations or use them as props for political campaigning do a disservice to the children, in the same way that indoctrinating children with rote songs or pledges about religion, government, and the like is a form of brainwashing.
Children should never be made to recite words they don’t yet understand, nor participate in an activity they lack the capacity to give consent to.
Get a babysitter or find something else to do with your children which is appropriate.
The bad behavior of police, and the rotten cronyism behind the financial mess is worthy of protest–but protest by informed adults and teenagers mature enough for the situation.
I could not disagree more, Keith. Occupy Austin has a 4 year old who was a regular fixture at camp and still appears. He knew why he protested, and regularly asked his parents and other adults to accompany him to Occupy — more enthusiastic about it then people 10 times his age.
I too accompanied my mother to protests. It taught me the right, and the obligation we have to demand our rights. It taught me that protest and free speech is fun. I held signs. I chanted. I did drudgery like stuffing envelopes & manning phone banks — because I loved to do it. I was no one’s prop. I was never coerced. I was a young, independent thinking human well versed in what it means to be an active participant in American life.
Thank goodness parents bring their children to protest: it ensures we have future generations who will speak up for us.
@Center: Two arrests out of about a dozen chalkers.
Our children are also citizens and should have the opportunity to have a voice. What better way to teach our children about such values as sharing, equality and justice than by allowing them to see that citizens stand up for what’s right and they can too.
Making chalking a crime is the real disgrace here.
Hillary – this is a brilliant post. Thank you so much for sharing it with us – and for your awesome mom-hood!
Kit, a four-year old does not understand. His “enthusiasm” is Pavlovian–it gets him attention. Pretending that he does is similar in nature (though not degree) to that church congregation which had small children singing songs about gays not going to heaven (to the enthusiastic cheering of the congregation). (Incidentally, I have another comparison of those sorts.)
When you were stuffing envelopes and answering the phone, how old were you? Were you old enough to have a paid job? I’d never exploit a young child’s labor for that sort of thing, no matter how strongly I felt about a cause.
When children are mature enough to use reason to intelligently make an informed decision, then they can decide for themselves what to do. Before then, it’s brazen exploitation.
Siun, there’s nothing wrong with letting children see what’s happening. But making them a part of a demonstration is exploitative.
Let them be kids. Let them mature until they have the mental capacity to make informed decisions and to give their consent to participating.
Keith, I will simply close by saying I was old enough that the younger me would have been furious had an adult suggested to him that he had so little agency & self-determination as you seem to think.
Keith, I appreciate your words and concern. I’d like to say two things. First, perhaps to contextualize this situation a bit for you, I have certainly been taken aback by what some children repeat, what they have learned to mimic, but do not yet understand. At a Save Our Schools rally, my son wanted to make a sign, too. He asked about making a sign that read “Charter Schools Just Want Money.” Well, I knew that this is something that he heard me say, and that he didn’t have, perhaps, the sophistication to understand all that implies. I explained as best I could how that might be interpreted by other adults. I suggested, instead, that he make a sign about how much he likes his school. That seemed age appropriate to me. So, just know, that I understand what you are saying about appropriate messages for children to learn and repeat. But this really is different for all families and children. So, if possible, give the family the benefit of the doubt.
Second, and I’d say more importantly, there is no place, situation, event that is not inherently political. Every decision we make is in the context of others and our relation to them. So, for instance, I’m aware of the lessons my children learn when we go to a major chain store or even our grocery store. They are exposed to messages of abundance and waste (“It doesn’t matter if the grapes in our fridge go bad, there are more at the store!”). They see everywhere that consumerism is what’s important, that what I have makes me who I am. So we talk about those things, too. A farmer’s market teaches them other lessons, like people actually grow and make this food. That’s a political lesson. I can’t shelter my children from politics; we’re born in the midst of it. The best I can do is to help them make sense of it in ways that won’t cause harm to others.
I know I said I only would remark on two things, but here’s a third to consider. Keeping children out of the public sphere is a sure way to cut women out of the political process. (I know there are lots of fathers out there; I don’t mean to cut them out. But the vast majority of child care is done by women right now. I know that’s changing.) My husband had other obligations at that time, and he is supportive of my bringing the children and their involvement. But when you ask parents to leave their children at home when they participate in politics, you’re asking many women (and men) not to participate at all. Many of the marginalized whose voices we need to hear most desperately cannot afford babysitters.
And again, every act is a political act. There is no neutral. Nowhere. So why not teach them at a young age how to participate? This was a demonstration with a dozen people and chalk. That seemed reasonably appropriate to me.
Agreed. Similarly abusive and just as disgustingly selfish in the way evangelicals attempt to brainwash their children, as seen in the documentary film Jesus Camp.
Thank you very much, ma’am, for thoughtfully raising your children and for thoughtfully telling us about what happened to you and your family at Chalkupy Austin. I appreciate the time and consideration you have spent on this post.
I find no flaw in your reasoning that it should have been safe for them, whereas I have to say Keith’s statement reminds me of “they shouldn’t have brought kids to a battle.” from the Collateral Murder video.
Austin is your city. You should be able to take your kids chalk-drawing without fear. Thank you again, and if your children are a little afraid of the police, perhaps that is reasonable. And if your talking to the police makes even one of them a little ashamed, that would be even better.
Did either you or Keith actually read what Hillary wrote?
THanks Hiliary and well done. I walked with my father and mother in anti-war demonstrations as a child and it deeply informed me about citizenship, civil rights and democracy. What a strange moment in our history– chalk drawings are prohibited now? Thanks again.
I guess Hopscotch is illegal now with lemonade stands to follow soon. We truly have gone mad.
tweeted and recommended with thanks
Do you have an argument, or just childish accusations?
Religious nuts think it’s appropriate for 4 year olds to be subjected to brainwashing and apparently so do “progressives.” “Everything is political” is just as vacuous as “Everything is Jesus/whatever.”
No, I just wondered if you read what Hillary posted before you took her to task.
By the way, questions are not accusations. An accusation would be something like, “Obviously neither you nor Keith Jackson read what Hillary wrote before you took her to task.”
“Everything is political,” is a bit of hyperbole, but hyperbole is sometimes useful in making a point.
Bravo once again.
Having raised two kids, comments like Keith’s “let them be kids” shows very little understanding of the amazing thoughts found inside children’s heads – and the value of them voicing them.
‘Let them be kids” is all too close to “seen and not heard” even if it sounds oh so concerned for it too disrespects the rights and interests of children themselves.
And yet children have the right for self-directed play and recreation and not to be treated as mini-adults and as proxies for their parents political/religious/social/etc ambitions.
Did the children have a choice in whether or not they wanted to participate in this political protest?
Hillary, thank you for taking the time to write about this experience.
I often think about children in the context of these times, and I think parenting has many kinds of challenges. Your experience and comments here illustrate that there are many complexities that arise from the many choices we make in the course of living our lives, particularly when we are trying to live them with heart and conscience, as you are clearly doing.
The idea that we can shelter our children from our passions, our conversations, our personal intentions, is silly. It is one thing to indoctrinate children, it is quite another to provide opportunities for them to become critical thinkers, to be creative, and to be active participants in their world.
At one of our many (un)Occupy events this year, we had an opportunity to try to engage with people who had a different perspective from ours. I chatted with a young man, age 14, who looked a few years younger than that. He told me that my opinion was of less value than his. When I began to challenge his “thinking,” he told me that I should talk to his mother because “she was better at talking about it.” She then tried to tell me that it was essentially unfair to be asking him questions because he was just a kid. I told her I thought he was perfectly capable of expressing himself, but it was clear that he was just parroting his mother.
I looked around at some of the youngest people who were involved with their parents on “our side” and I hoped that they were raised to be independent thinkers, not just brainwashed like the kid I had been talking to.
It seems to me that you are putting a lot of thought into your parenting/mothering, and I commend you. I don’t think you should have to wonder if taking your children to a demonstration is dangerous. For heaven’s sake, you could be taking your children to church or a movie not knowing that some nut would end up shooting up the place.
If anything, your children may have protected you from being arrested. It is incredible that the police would arrest anyone.
Take care and keep up the good work!
I don’t understand why the police don’t let this one go. Remember the idea about choosing your battles? Let people chalk all they want. It certainly isn’t as permanent as spray paint. Why so much energy against this? Doesn’t the payroll cost of having police arrest chalkers and go through the court procedure exceed the cost of having some municipal custodial workers hose the sidewalk off the next morning? I really don’t get this one.
Allowing people to chalk would be a great way for municipalities to channel the energy of the movement without incurring damages and excess cost. And – just thinking of human nature – after a while people would stop paying attention, get bored and abandon it. So….why are they bothering with this?
There is no better way to prepare our young for the adult responsibilities they will have, as participating members of our society, than by having them participate. We really cannot learn how to play the piano by reading about it. Nor, can we learn how to play basketball from a book, even with pictures. We cannot learn how our system works (or perhaps is supposed to) unless we are engaged in the process. We model what the fulfillment of our responsibilities are, as participating adults, when our children can see us engaged. And we serve as “teacher” and as “coach” when we explain, answer questions, and make suggestions.
As a mother, who brought her own children on many an adventure, I applaud the decision making process – Who the hell would think that using chalk on a sidewalk was an arrestable offense?
I also applaud your writing this diary with two young ones under foot. Most impressive.
Excellent diary.
Thank you.
Disgusting. Children don’t deserve to be used as human shields, and parents should take responsibility for their own political beliefs and accept the consequences.
What is the matter w/you?
I did not mean that they were human shields. The police made a choice not to arrest her, why? There should not have been any arrests.
Do we have any idea why the two were treated differently than the other ten?
“People coming together …”
This threatens the elite. Even a small, harmless chalking event, if it can’t be ignored, must be suppressed as an example to make others afraid to join in the next protest.
Church is the only place Americans are allowed to come together.
As far as exposing your kids to the protest, recall the Jesuit motto: “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.” The negative commentators here have obviously never tried to reason with a teen.
This is a good article on what corporate advertisers know about young children: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/ban-on-advertising-to-children-linked-to-lower-obesity-rates/
Hillary, I agree that parents should be the arbiter of what is age appropriate for their family members. But I think you are fooling yourself to believe that a child wants to pass on the message on a sign about charter schools. The child wants approval and attention. The child doesn’t understand the wretched performance of many government schools, the ugly side of teachers unions which often are at odds with the interests of children, and the desperation of (particularly poor, often minority) parents for vouchers or scholarships to help their children escape the perils of the worst schools. (See the documentary Waiting for “Superman”–it will break your heart.)
I also understand “there is no place which is not political”. But it’s one thing to observe and highlight when one group is doing something wrong, so the children grow up with an awareness of how they can be manipulated and how people can have their rights violated. It is entirely different to put them in the context of a conflict in which law enforcement is involved. I read many blogs which contain videos of violence at demonstration, both on the part of participants and law enforcement. I’d never want to expose small children to such potential volatility.
I don’t buy the excuse that parents are somehow unfairly impacted by being responsible with children. When people choose to have children, they take on the responsibility of caring for them, including all of the sacrifices that might involve. Again, I agree that, as a parent, you are the one to exercise your own judgment when it comes to your children, and I would not presume to intercede. I’m simply expressing my opinion that you’ve made an error in judgment.
Hotflash, if you think that any sort of “Occupy”-themed protest “ought to be” peaceful, then I’m afraid you are naive. Many are peaceful, but many have become violent. There have even been murders, rapes, muggings at some.
Women ought to be able to dress as they please, drive, and hold jobs in Saudi Arabia, but residents there who want to change the system should not have a young girl learning of the cruelty of the rulers there by putting her in harm’s way. Many rulers violate our rights and we ought to be able to do many things. But “ought” doesn’t mean there is safety.
Children should be playing and learning the basics, in safer environments. It may give you satisfaction that a LEO is embarrassed by the reaction of a small child, but that’s serving your interests, not the interests of the child.
If you are wanting to impart political lessons for children, show them video of a rally and explain to them, in terms they can understand, what is happening. When I was a kid, we started off by being encouraged to follow current events and writing essays.
That is precisely the point, the sidewalk chalk exercise is no different than any other event one might take children to for example a charity walk a thon. Except for the illegal jack booted actions of the Austin government.
Some comments posted here bring to mind the Federal and private contract efforts to disrupt opposition and they are to me psychologically worse than the actions of Austin government as they are disparaging a parent.
Big pieces of chalk, on a sidewalk, in Austin. I just don’t see much of a comparison with your strawman.
There are definitely a lot of places NOT to take children. However, I would not have thought that a “chalkupy” event in Austin would be one of them. Also, as Hillary mentioned, only two out of twelve people were arrested. Therefore, the event does not seem to have been dangerous or violent, and certainly not a rape-and-murder fest to which you allude.
There is a missing piece of the puzzle, though. As I mentioned in a prior post, I’d like to know what caused the two people to be arrested, and not the other ten.
Kit, I was angry many times when I was told “no” as a child, like when I wanted to wade out farther into the ocean (Port Aransas) than my parents deemed was safe. My anger didn’t prove anything and I later learned, in a different place, that I was overconfident in my swiming skills when I nearly drowned. My parents were right to put such limits on me.
I don’t know how old you were, nor do I know anything about your maturity level relative to others your age at the time, so my remarks were generalized. I said nothing specific about your “agency and self-determination”.
Why were these two singled out for arrest?
I can explain this to some extent — if you click the link that is at the top of this post you’ll see my report on the event — to the extent it can be explained at all, that is.
One person arrested was dressed in a Guy Fawkes facemask. We have reason to believe the Troopers are especially nervous about Anonymous & Occupy.
The other was wearing a Peaceful Streets t-shirt. As I’ve covered elsewhere, Peaceful Streets is an anti-police corruption activist group closely allied with Occupy Austin. When we occupied the State Capitol grounds at July 4, the Troopers were very concerned with this group, overheard talking about the arrival of one of their main organizers and then crowding around the area to hear his speech. It’s safe to say they are very aware of what the Peaceful Streets Project means, and may even be hearing reports from the Austin Police Department about their growing presence.
Other than that, the two were doing nothing different than anyone else. Only one was even actively chalking when the Troopers arrived to make the arrests. Audrey, from Peaceful Streets, was arrested while standing on a piece of chalk art she had finished, which said ‘FAIL: Healthcare, Schools,’ with an arrow pointing toward the Capitol grounds where she was taken for processing moments later.
BargainCountertenor, yes, I did read it.
So basically you’re repeating the Andrew Breitbart Memorial Occupy Talking Points.
Twain, lemonade stands have been illegal in most localities for awhile now. They can’t make exceptions for the rule that you have to have a license. After all, their contributors–who pay them to create arbitrary licenses as a way to squash upstarts and competitors (cronyism)–wouldn’t want anyone getting the notion they have the right to engage in free trade without the imprimatur of officials.
The point of the arrests is the time-honored expression of “authoritah’ against “hippies” by the Texas Pigs. You only have to pointlessly arrest a few to intimidate all – and that is the point. Catchall terms like “criminal mischief” are simply tools to allow this crap to happen with impunity. the point is that you have all the freedom you want – unless you actually intend to exercise it; then you have none.
BargainCountertenor, I don’t agree that “everything is political” is hyperbole, particularly when there are plenty of historical and contemporary examples of rulers passing laws about the most private behaviors. Here, it’s anti-”sodomy” laws, Napoleon Bloomberg dictating what you can eat, and Oregon officials locking up Gary Harrington for collecting and using rainwater on his own property. In Surrey, England, Mark Worsfold was arrested while watching a cycling race for not showing sufficient enthusiasm (he has Parkinson’s). His fellow countryman coined the term ThoughtCrime for that sort of thing.
Too many people fail to recognize all of the ways in which politics affect them. For example, some try to distinguish between “political” and “economic” systems, as though laws and regulations controlling economic activity were somehow not political. At root, they are all political, which is to say, in the domain of ethics.
Greengiant, I disagree that “the sidewalk chalk exercise is no different than any other event one might take children to for example a charity walk a thon.”
A charity event is easy to understand. Tell the children, “Those people are sick and if we do this walk, people will help them get better.”
Political demonstrations about student loans, cronyism, banking bailouts, and the like are not in the same category, both in the complexity of the ideas involved and in the presence of opposing parties.
Those children don’t understand the issue of student loans. They probably haven’t been given the various arguments and counterarguments on the topic. For example, do they know that the government guarantees provide a market incentive for universities to raise tuition? Are they aware that students have the option to major in subjects which are more conducive to employment, like engineering vs. history? Do they even know that young adults can opt to not go to college as a way to avoid debt?
I’m not defending the APD. This reminds me of people who were arrested for dancing at the Jefferson memorial.
CenterofMass, the term “rape-and-murder fest” is yours, not mine. Don’t lecture me about straw man arguments when you’re busy inventing words and arguments to attribute to me.
Like I stated, some Occupy protests have been peaceful. The problem is that even when you are in control of yourself, remaining peaceful, you can’t predict how others around you will act or react.
Kit, I’m not repeating anyone’s “talking points”. I don’t read the Breitbart news articles, unless someone links to them.
Some demonstrations are dangerous. Do you deny this?
The recent protests of police shootings an Anaheim resulted in a woman with children, sitting on a lawn nearby, being shot with rubber bullets. Just being in proximity to protestors can get you hurt.
In 1968, the “police riot” in Chicago at the Democrat convention resulted in innocent people who were sitting in restaurants, minding their own business, being dragged out and treated as protestors.
Comparing you to Breitbart a low blow on my part and I apologize for it.
However, I believe children are a welcome presence at protests, and credit my involvement with activism and work as a journalist today to my time at protests as a young child. I also think conflating Anaheim, the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968, or a small amount of criminal behavior among desperate people who were drawn to the food & shelter of Occupy camps with bringing your children to a chalk event is really reaching for your point.
We must agree to disagree here, I fear.
Unfortunately for the Texas Pigs our reaction is the opposite of intimidation. We told them to Expect Us and they can.
Your words. No invention needed on my part.
The chalkupy event had no such instances.
Triad1, I did think about that Jesuit quote when writing comments here. My dad told it to me when I was a young adult, but I didn’t have an actual attribution.
I’ve raised two children through the teenage years. Getting them to reason is incredibly difficult, particularly when they are emotionally tied to an idea. But I learned to give them space, to offer an argument and then give them time to cool down, go off and think about it. That works much more often than putting your foot down and saying, “…because I said so!” Note that there are many situations in which the latter is really the only option, usually due to exigencies.
On matters of philosophy (politics, religion), I offer my arguments to them and then let them make up their own minds. Even when they disagree with me initially because of what teachers, friends, and other family members might have told them, they’re smart enough to see the fallacies and often end up agreeing with me (or at least not taking the more popular view as unquestionably true).
CenterofMass, are you seriously arguing that “at some” is the same as “rape-and-murder fest”? I explicitly stated that some Occupy protests have been peaceful.
Nor did I claim that the chalk drawing events involved violence.
My point was that any demonstration about a political conflict carries the potential for trouble.
Advocates of the “tea party” often brag about the lack of any violence at their rallies. (Which is funny, since so many partisan attacks on them, to include the revisionist fantasy “The Newsroom”, constantly suggest danger which has yet to materialize.) And, while I have no interest in attending such a rally–they’ve morphed into something completely different than what was started by Rick Santelli of CNBC and Ron Paul in reaction to giving taxpayer money to reward failure and corruption–if I did show up, I’d never take small children.
I went to numerous anti-war protest with my mother as a child. I think I understood in basic terms what the issues were then and I think the experience informed my world view right into adulthood.
Taking a child into a riot is one thing. Taking a child to a peaceful protest is quite another. It is not incumbent upon the parent or the peaceful protesters to keep a peaceful protest a safe place for children; it is entirely incumbent on the police to maintain that peace. If the police are the ones instigating the violence, they are entirely to blame. Blaming the parents is despicable. Every peaceful protest should be blessed by the presence of children, it is a better learning environment than any classroom.
Keith, your logic is flawed. More people are injured in car crashes than are injured at protests. Does that mean we should inform parents that they aren’t to drive their children places?
Protest is an important part of our citizenship. Children are far more able to reason than you give them credit for. I have two boys, ages 14 and 11. One of them frequently composes my more witty protest placards, whether he attends the protests with me or not. Such as “When the police do something wrong, who arrests them?” In response to the mass arrests at the Occupy Oakland protests. And “We shouldn’t have to resort to silence to protect our rights.” for a silent protest of the NDAA.
My older son does not agree with my politics, and that’s fine, too. His arguments are cogent and reasonable and either one of them is likely to change his opinions at varying points in their lives. Longevity of a stance is not the measure of the critical thinking behind the stance. In fact, the ability to reason beyond one’s initial thoughts is the hallmark of critical thinking, and that happens well into adulthood – throughout your life, if you are fortunate.
Frequently, when I am at a protest – particularly an Occupy protest – I learn things I was not aware of when I arrived. I want my children to be open to those learning opportunities. You seem to feel that any risk at all, even a risk that is mitigated by the common sense of a caring parent (who is always able to LEAVE when and if things become scary or intense) is not worth the benefit. My question for you is why do you get to determine what is too risky? What if my opinion is that it’s far too risky to allow heavy-handed policing of harmless activities to curtail our rights to free speech and assembly? Is that not a risk our children will pay for? In my mind, the remedy to that is to do what Hillary very clearly says in her essay – use our rights while we have them and make the streets safe for EVERYONE to gather.
As I understand it, case law has actually rejected the idea that the police have a legal duty to protect you, that they can be held accountable in court if they do not.
I would instead argue that each individual has a responsibility to refrain from violence. If a fellow protestor starts throwing rocks, the violence is his fault. If a police officer starts cracking heads, it’s his.
No one is blaming parents for any violence or unpleasantness which could occur at a given demonstration. I am arguing that they have shown poor judgment in opening up their children to unnecessary risks.
I could not disagree more with such a blanket statement. Note that you qualify it as “peaceful protest”, but given the volatility of political disagreements these days, I’d argue that you cannot know a priori what is peaceful.
While there were plenty of peaceful activities undertaken in support of and in opposition to Chick-fil-A, just today a gunman carrying a Chick-fil-A bag entered the Family Research Council, which actively opposes same-sex marriage, and shot a guard. I won’t presume to point fingers at any political group (unlike the idiots who jerked their knees over the Times Square bomber and the crazy shooters in Phoenix and Aurora). But who could have predicted that?
Putting aside the issue of violence or unpleasantness, while some parents may take children to a demonstration as a point of learning, others exploit them as props. Groups of all different political persuasion are guilty of this and I find it disgusting. It’s about like taking a veteran with Alzheimer’s to a demonstration and putting a sign in his hand, then saying, “Look, a veteran agrees with us!”
I’m not impressed.
Hillary, thank you for writing about your experience. It’s a shame that the police decided to act in a manner that may cause your children to be afraid of police – and it may end up being a lasting memory for them – but it was not wrong of you to take them. In today’s world, it is better to be wary of police – not afraid – but wary and suspicious of their motives. Once upon a time they were there “to protect and serve” the public, but no more, I’m afraid. Perhaps they never were in big cities, but in small ones that was true at one time, as I recall from my childhood in the 50′s. However, I’ve noticed the change over time to something more authoritarian and (now at times) even militant. It’s always prudent to question authority, if only because those who have become accustomed to authority usually end up abusing it.
WRT Keith Jackson’s statement that “some” protests are peaceful, I would wholly refute that to assert that most protests (90% +) are peaceful, and those that may involve violence – I’m talking person on person violence – are the result of violence being initiated by the police, and not the protesters. And a few broken windows and chairs are not violence.
I did not intend any specific quantitative value using the word “some”. I only meant less than 100% and more than 0%, for the simple reason that I do not know what such a number is. I don’t even know if anyone has an accurate figure.
I recognize that law enforcement often inject violence into a situation. I’m a frequent critic of such abuse of power and frequently have arguments with people who want to take a Pollyanna view of Andy Griffith type officers who are just trying to get home at the end of the day.
That said, the fact is that violence is not always started by police.
Violence against property is not violence against people, but it is violence. The basis for this is that property created by human effort is a part of the owner’s life. If a farmer spends months on a field and vandals burns it before harvest, they have, in effect, stolen away the months of that man’s life, which he can never get back. For him, the loss may be worse than the pain of a beating. When the property belongs to a corporation and is insured, the cost and risk are spread around to smaller pieces. So, maybe you can rationalize that it’s not a big deal. But it isn’t nothing and it isn’t peaceful.
Hey Keith, I don’t have the time right now to respond fully. But I would like to say a couple things. First, I can tell you have a deep concern for how children are treated, and I totally appreciate that. I’m glad, and I wish more people had as much concern as you do.
I certainly have seen Waiting for Superman (in fact, I taught at a charter school in Louisiana, which opened my eyes a great deal). For a counter argument to the documentary, please take a minute to read Diane Ravitch’s review of it: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/?pagination=false
We may disagree on what is appropriate for children and when, but I know we agree that we should treat children with respect and keep them safe. As for self-directed play, which you mentioned in a previous comment, please realize that this was just one activity on one day. As someone who has considerable background in child development, I count self-directed play as one of the most important activities for children, and so both of them have lots of time to play with blocks, legos, dolls, etc. We’re not perfect, by any means, but I realize children need lots of different experiences. I mention this only to let you know I care about children and education enough to have gotten a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, where I focused on the philosophy of education, not on classroom methods and research. Again, I’m not trying to play a game of “I know more than you,” I’m just trying to explain that I think about all the issues you bring up on a daily basis. We’re probably closer aligned in our thinking about the treatment of children than it seems surrounding this issue.
One final note, also in response to one of your comments, is that making decisions for children some of the time (not all of the time) is in fact part of a parent’s job. If I were treating them like mini-adults (which they are not, their brains have not fully developed, and won’t be so for many years), I would let them make every decision, about what to eat, when to go to school, when to go to bed, etc. This was, indeed, a difficult lesson for me to learn. When my son was born, I didn’t want to dictate anything to him. That was ridiculous, and I quickly learned that one of my most important jobs is to set some firm boundaries.
Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate it.
Agreed, about the potential.
A chalk event, and two arrests. One in a mask, and one in a T-shirt. It’s macabre.