George -

In response to Valerie L’Herrou’s letter regarding sit-in protests, I have a differing opinion of sit-ins. I tend to think of them as good old-fashioned wastes of time.

First, sit-ins indicate unwillingness to compromise. It’s a “My way or the highway” approach. Recent compromises by environmental groups and big business have led to some great breakthroughs (like Paul Anderson of Duke Energy endorsing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions).

It’s part of an evolution of cultural thinking that acknowledges that competing views can both have some validity; ie., there aren’t evil men plotting against us in smoke-filled back rooms. Duke Energy doesn’t want to destroy the environment; environmental activists don’t want Duke Energy employees jobless and homeless.

Sit-ins are counterproductive to negotiation (and are not remotely comparable to the sacrifice of our military as L’Herrou claims). They indicate a black-white mentality that I just do not think is productive today.

Sure, they may make you feel good about yourself. “Look at how dedicated I am!” But they are unlikely to change the debate, and I don’t even think that they do a good job of attracting attention to a cause. How widespread is the publicity surrounding a sit-in these days? I would argue that they are so unremarkable as to not even warrant news coverage in many cases.

If someone is willing to get arrested and have that on their permanent record, that indicates that they are either 1) extremely passionate or 2) don’t have to worry about losing their job.

I am more inclined to think it’s the latter, and I do have to worry about losing my job, and don’t want to get lectured by some flower child in a Prius. I also just realized after typing that sentence just how jaded I’ve become.

Maybe some sit-ins do still have their place. But I think they are used far too often. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Maybe protesters should put a few more tools in their repertoires.

Matt Leighty (electronic mail, March 5, 2007)