Dissent

When is it permissible to dissent? Who should speak?

     Most people are aware of the previous belief that the earth is flat. This was a commonly accepted fact in Greece, India, and China, arguably the three most intelligent civilizations. When did this notion lose its motion? Did the entire world turn around and say, “our planet is round” simultaneously, as if the paradigm of a single plane had fallen off the edge of the earth itself? Of course not! Somebody, an individual, had to speak against the popular beliefs in order to make a significant difference in “what the world believes.” Pythagoras and Aristotle respectively invented and helped carry on the idea of a spherical earth. This information may seem irrelevant to the topic at hand, but this is the point: without dissent, the world would have believed that the earth is flat for much longer than it did. Dissent is essential to the progression of society and mankind as a whole. 

     

     In René Steinke’s Friendswood, Lee Knowles is the only person in her community who is willing to fight against the construction of residential properties near an unsafe, chemical-ridden building site. She is practicing dissent, because while she fights against the building, most of the others advocate for the construction to stimulate the economy and create jobs. The people believe the EPA’s constant claims that the land is safe, despite the evidence that Lee has presented of a large chemical tank sitting on the surface of the land. Her dedication to this problem is fueled by her daughter’s death, which was brought on by the very chemicals in Banes Field. Although her reason for dissent is personal, it is also in the best interest of the public to not be exposed to dangerous toxins, and therefore this reason to speak out is very valid.

     

     If any person’s welfare is compromised, there is reason to dissent. However, this statement cannot be taken at face value. If a person or persons are in danger or placed in an unnecessarily uncomfortable position, there may be grounds for speaking out. This truly is a “play it by ear” scenario, as there are many factors that can play into how a person reacts. Just because a train is running late does not mean that the people shout riot against SEPTA. There is a difference between inconvenience and compromised living conditions. If a person or somebody they know is being hurt physically or emotionally, then somebody should say something in a way that is both conducive to the cause and equal to the harm being done. For example, if a person slips because there isn’t a wet floor sign, and the person does not get seriously hurt, there are not grounds to call for the termination of the company in offense. The person who dissents should only make a stand as large as the problem at hand. But who is the person who dissents?

     

     Based on the evidence in the novel so far, it seems that the EPA knows about the chemicals and unsafe living conditions, but is being paid by the rich construction company to keep quiet. Although Lee is the one speaking out about the diseases that can be caused by the toxic waste that was buried in Banes Field, it is the job of the Environmental Protection Agency to “ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work….” (Our Mission). If this government program does not tell the people about the dangerous conditions, then who will? Any bystander who allows wrongdoing to be done is in as low of a standing as the wrongdoer him/herself. It is the job of any person who sees a problem to report that problem to the proper authorities. If nothing is done, then it is time to share your dissent with a greater population, and gain more support. Every person that believes in your position is another step closer to solving your problem, because there truly is power in numbers. 

     

     In the extremely troubling case of Brock Turner and the woman he assaulted, who should dissent? Who is there to speak out against what is going on? This Olympic hopeful committed an act which calls for ten years of prison, only five of which are usually served. With a potential fourteen years behind bars, Brock served a measly 92 days. Why? Because he was a good swimmer? Because “boys will be boys?” Because she was drunk and doesn’t know if she gave consent? Consent cannot be given while drunk, and Brock’s ignorance of that fact does not affect is status as a fact. The victim and her family spoke out against the judge’s decision to give Brock a short sentence. When they did this, others saw and joined their cause, and they had one million people vote to remove the judge from his position. Despite the voters’ inability to remove him from the bench (as of now), the support means a lot to the victim and her family, and the dissent from the judge’s decision has brought the issue to the attention of many more people.

     So to give the most straightforward answer available, it is okay to dissent when harm is being done to a person, as long as the dissent is equal to the harm being done. If people begin to make a lot of noise about smaller events, dissent will become trite. It is the moral responsibility of any person witnessing wrongdoing to speak out against it and advocate for the well being of the people being offended. 

Works Cited

"Our Mission and What We Do." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 18 Aug. 2016. Web.

Baker, Katie. "Here  is The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read Aloud to her Attacker." BuzzFeed.com BuzzFeed, 3 Jan. 2016. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.