Community Organization and Terror

My state is in the throes of an armed standoff at a federal wildlife refuge over management of public lands. The occupied facility lies in the basin-and-range country in the eastern two-thirds of the state where I have conducted much of my program evaluation in recent years. News reports and my own colleagues say that the local community has been torn apart by the occupation by outside activists. Arguments, threats, and mutual harassment have occurred between pro-occupier and anti-occupier factions. Family members of officials on both sides have moved away for their own safety. A number of local education and government officials have resigned. The situation deteriorated further with the shooting of one of the activists at a roadblock.

I personally support public management of public lands, but I have conflicting sympathies. For one thing, my job depends on efforts to help struggling rural communities, and land-use issues are part of that struggle. For another, outside activists have been crucial to bringing social justice to other situations in America. Finally, the police are as accountable for the death of a sagebrush rebel as they are for the shooting of any other civilian.

So where do we draw the line between community organizers who put their work on their resumes and terrorists who get their activities on a rap sheet? Here is my proposed evaluation instrument for other communities being approached to host a protest:

__ The activists' demands are achievable.

The occupiers of the Oregon refuge wanted the federal government to turn over all public lands to local or private entities. That is not going to happen; it is difficult to imagine what it would actually mean. The proximal cause of the occupation was harsh sentences for local ranchers convicted of burning a firebreak across the refuge. Had the occupiers stuck to that, there might have been some path to a solution.

__Meeting the demands would help resolve the issue.

Conflict over use of public lands is existential. The Oregon refuge was created to protect wildlife under Theodore Roosevelt, at a time when more than 54% of the state's population was rural. Today, only about 16% of the population is rural. The firestorm of protest over surrender of public lands would dwarf the refuge occupation.

__The activists do not arrive with guns.

Without taking a position on interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no discussion that begins with open carry is likely to end well.

I would like to imagine that this blog is just a thought experiment, but I am afraid that there will opportunities to validate this instrument in the future.