'Diversity of Tactics' anyone?

As our Quaker meeting reassesses its support of the Portland Occupy movement, Occupy's pondering the term “diversity of tactics” has found its way into our discussions.

George Orwell would have had a field day with this one. (See his classic essay, "Politics and the English Language" in which he asserts, "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.")

The term means to suggest that Occupy should employ a full range of actions, from violent to non-violent. But some have seen through the phrase and labeled it a euphemism for “anything goes.” For instance, the definition of violence has been left vague. Tactical nuclear weapons anyone?

Others say the term is a cover for young anarchists simply acting out their anger. Still others hint darkly that the proposed policy is the work of agent provocateurs trying to destroy the movement.

Whoever or whatever is behind it, I see "diversity of tactics" as Orwellian “double speak.”

Start with “diversity,” a term that carries positive connotations in our multi-cultural, increasingly diverse society. To not recognize (some would say "celebrate") diversity is a form of ignorance at best and prejudice at worst.

So those using the phrase “diversity of tactics” are off to an appealing start.

How about “tactics”? The suggestion here is that “tactics” are a proven way to a goal, presumably a common, shared one. Tactics implies that tacticians — experts knowledgeable in tactics — are in control.

There’s a “trust us” aspect to the phrase.

Again, this is all sounds good, but is it?

Will using “a diversity of tactics” in fact help Occupy achieve its goals?

Of course Occupy has never been explicit in stating its goals, just as it has never offered an identifiable public leadership. Still, the movement’s single most prominent goal would seem to be ending inequity — in education, justice, opportunity etc.

Will a “diversity of tactics,” including violence, move our society toward less inequality?

No way. In a media-defined world portrayed by carefully selected compelling images, conflict is the predominant public narrative. Visual violence attracts attention to itself, not the issues that have sparked it.

Moreover, if violence actually did serve Occupy’s stated ends, the movement would then rely on violence in the future. It’s the old story of violence breeding violence.

And make no mistake, those advocating a “diversity of tactics” are condoning violence, unwittingly misdirecting public attention and opinion, and undercutting their own cause.

It is time for the Occupy movement state unequivocally its opposition to all forms of violence and disassociate the movement from those who practice i.

The diversity that the movement needs is a diversity of non-violent tactics. Fortunately, thanks to successful liberation and rights movements, there is no shortage of them.

Orwell versus Ostriches at PCC

At Portland Community College, where I occasionally teach, a huge e-mail debate recently erupted among the faculty.

The topic was: ID badges

Yes, you read that right, ID badges.

Not academic freedom, pay for part-timers, grade inflation, health benefits or parking passes (which we pay for).

A couple weeks ago, out of the blue, PCC’s president announced that faculty would be required to wear badges for security reasons. Apparently the tags would come in handy in “shooter incidents," alerting cops and shooters alike to avoid targeting teachers. (Students, apparently, are fair game.)

The campus e-mail reaction was immediate.

Why weren’t we consulted?

Have we been unsafe all these years?

Utterly Orwellian!

Demeaning!

Someone worried that badges might electronically monitor faculty work hours.

The badges, far from protecting faculty from shooters, actually single out teachers as clearly identified targets.

Badges promote a “culture of fear” in “the spirit of George W. Bush.”

Someone in the communications studies department crafted the following, in jest, I hope.

“…in my opinion, the content of (the president’s) communiqué to us fails to contextualize in academic, instructional, and pedagogical terms the need to wear badges when, as he states, wearing such will serve students best and would provide them with greater safety and security while on campus.”

An instructor in the metals program flatly refused to wear the dangling badges “for safety reasons.” (Picture being dragged into a metal press by your ID badge.)

After a few days of withering attacks, pro-badge forces counter-attacked.

Badges needn’t dangle. They can be clipped to clothing.

Name badges are a good way to let others know — your name. (They say, "I'm here to help, and by the way, don't shoot!")

Corporations have used badges for years.

As for the “culture of fear” argument, one person suggested that by not wearing badges would promote the “culture of ostrich.”

Finally, in desperation, someone wrote: “Are there not more important issues? Who really cares about wearing badges or not?”

The debate fell silent after that; a few days of calm ensued.

Then someone wrote to say he had just received his new badge. He wasn’t happy.

His first name was in big letters. In much smaller letters, under it, was his last name. He was concerned that his students would start addressing him by his first name and cease referring to him as “Professor.”

Apparently there are all kinds of fear in a “culture of fear.”

As for me, for years I have insisted my students call me by my first name. My fear has been that they might "contextualize" me as "Professor."

Now, if they forget my first name, they can refer to my badge.

How convenient.

Seven books for the New Year

A windfall in the form of a massively generous holiday check from my mother-in-law prompted me to go on a book-buying binge.

The purchases were made on Amazon, at the downtown Powell’s, and in Multnomah Village at Annie Bloom’s Books and Post-Hip store of used CDs and remaindered books.

Here’s what whim and interest led me to purchase:

Ellen Lupton's “Thinking with Type,” because type is beautiful and, McLuhan-like, conveys a message within the message. The carefully crafted book’s design and illustrations celebrate the topic.

D.J. Taylor’s “Orwell,” which I hope deepens the answer to the question: Why does the world need another biography of Orwell? Before I read the book, my own answer is that the world can never know too much about Orwell and his works...and is in danger of knowing too little.

Jeffrey Sach’s “The End of Poverty,” which was remaindered at Powell’s. A bad sign for a topic of this timely weight. Solemn fact: 15,000 children die of malnutrition and starvation each DAY in Africa. Fifty will have died in the time it takes you to read this post.

“The Lessons of St. Francis,” also remaindered at Powell’s, an equally bad sign for similar reasons relating to our times.

S.J. Perelman’s “The Swiss Family Perelman” with illustrations by the estimable master of line, Al Hirschfeld...also remaindered, a good sign for me. Conclusion: with astonishing flourish, acerbity and accuracy, Perelman was the fastest word slinger in the East.

P.D. James’ “The Children of Men,” proclaims on the cover, “soon to be a MAJOR MOTION PICTURE.” A review of the film, with a description of the plot about a childless world, inspired me to buy the book.

Peachpit Press’s Visual Quick Start Guide to HTML….This one’s for you, dear Red Electric reader. I hope it will tell me, among other things, how to center a photo’s caption and “flush right” its credit line.

This modest pile now teeters atop earlier piles. Because they are on the uppermost stratum, these volumes will be the first I reach for. Either directly or indirectly, I hope to share their eclectic content in the weeks to come.