Bernadette Devlin in 1969.
Happy St. Patrick’s Day.
I know. Officially it is on Monday.
But they are dyeing the Chicago River green today.
And the Chicago downtown parade is today.
And the kids will be falling down drunk in Wrigleyville tonight.
Which reminds me of Bernadette Devlin.
No, no. Not the drunk part. St. Patricks Day.
Devlin, elected in 1969, was and remains the youngest person ever elected to the British Parliament. And she was a militant Irish Republican.
The year she was elected she came and toured the United States, including a stop in Los Angeles.
I went to hear her speak to a crowd of many thousands, mostly Irish Catholics, in LA’s McArthur Park.
What was most impressive to me was that when Devlin spoke that night, it was mostly about racism and discrimination against African-Americans in the United States, an issue not entirely close to the hearts of her audience.
It was awkward at first. But the crowd could not help but be charmed by her and they soon warmed to her message.
When she visited New York, she was given the keys to the city, which she immediately handed over to the Black Panther Party.
I remember reading a few years later how, while serving as a member of Parliament, she strode across the floor of the House of Commons to punch Reginald Maudling in the face. Maudling was home secretary of the Conservative government. His mistake had been to suggest that the British army had fired only in self-defence on Bloody Sunday when they shot dead 13 civil rights protesters.
“Rebellious, awkward and contrary” is how Devlin was once described.
Contrary.
This week I drove 40 miles up to Lake County to meet some fellow IEA retirees at their chapter luncheon. No speeches. Just hand shakes and exchanges of opinions over issues.
Some agreed with my criticisms of the IEA leadership’s current position on the election of Kirk Dillard. Some did not. But it was all cordial and nobody suggested that the discussion was out of place or inappropriate.
Certainly nobody suggested that dissension was anti-IEA or anti-union.
What is striking about the Haisman/Swanson attack on unnamed bloggers is the accusation that we create dissension.
The truth is I take a certain pride in the charge they make.
Haisman/Swanson say that I only criticize and never support leadership.
Of course, that’s not true.
I have twenty years of filling busses with members of my local in support of IEA lobby days, of gathering and generating thousands of emails in support of IEA legislation – including the fight for our pension.
But I don’t run away from the charge that I create dissent.
Howard Zinn reportedly once said that to dissent is the highest form of patriotism. I would say that as a union member, to dissent from leadership positions that you feel are wrong is the highest form of loyalty to the union.
Where there is 100% agreement there is no democracy.
If you’re celebrating St. Patrick’s Day today, or on Monday, or all weekend – hoist at least one Guiness to Bernadette Devlin (who is still very much alive and active I hear).
And hoist another to our right to dissent.
Fred Klonsky 
Zinn also writes: “If democracy were to be given any meaning, if it were to go beyond the limits of capitalism and nationalism, this would not come… from the top. It would come through citizens’ movements, educating, organizing, agitating, striking, boycotting, demonstrating, threatening those in power with disruption of the stability they needed” (A People’s History of the United States, p. 674).
You don’t create dissension. You give voice to dissension that others already feel, and the courage to express it.
If you do not accept and embrace dissent. Have it become part of the public discourse and process concerning any issue that involves the public. You end up fermenting acts of violence. Once avenues of dissent are shut down or made totally impotent, people lose any sense of worth and react as if they have nothing to lose, because they indeed do have nothing, hence the violence. Look at any act of terrorism and this inability is at the core. The lack of dissent is exactly what we cite and despise in dictatorships and what breeds the violent reactions to the dictatorships. Not that hard to understand.
Of course, that is true Sig. But the other reaction is resignation and apathy. In the case of the IEA and IEA Retired, the intent is to limit the number of people who are active and vocal. And I say intent with intent. Haisman/Swanson intend to drive those who disagree with the leadership’s views into silence. Haisman/Swanson claim that I am a bully. But what power do I have other than my voice? The only threat I pose is that if I demonstrate that you can speak up, then others will too. And that’s what this is about.
Fred my comment is in totally support and promotion dissent. People need to be aware of what happens when dissent is either suppressed or ignored. Much of the violence during the 60’s was due to people’s inability to recognize the importance of dissent and the vital part it (dissent) has to be able to play in any decision process.
I agree.
Thanks for the timely post, Fred. In 2011, I wrote something (somewhere!) about the 100th anniversary of the tragic Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of March, 1911. There was an excellent documentary shown on WTTW, which they’ve rerun every year in March since. (Yeah, ironic, isn’t it? When their corporate sponsors realize the gist of the doc, they’ll probably forbid its airing.) The raison d’etre for unions–to preserve the human rights of every man, woman and child in a country that was founded upon democratic principles.
IEA members–the IEA is OUR union, much like the U.S. government was formed to be “by the people, of the people and for the people.” We, the members, are still strong, and we MUST question and–yes–replace leaders who cause us more harm than good. The passage of SB7 with the agreement of Ken Swanson & Audrey Soglin? Jim Reed’s silence
alongside charter school champion Heather Steans? Non-communication from Communications Director Charlie McBarron (come off it, Charlie, we members pay your salary!)? How are these “leaders” helping our members?
And how about the children we teach, soon to be conscripted to the ever growing number of charter schools, or resigned to fund-starved, test-teaching, no arts curriculum schools?
If you have any really good answers Bob & Ken, we would love to hear them.
Our leadership knew months ago that Quinn believed he was put on earth to “reform” our pensions. And yet they failed to recruit and promote candidates that would be supportive of our rights. And they are incensed that some of us are critical of them? C’mon Cinda, Bob, Ken and the rest. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Thanks, again, Fred for taking “one for the team” by shouldering the attack from Bob and Ken! Of course they don’t want members who think or want anything but the “status quo.” Neither one wants anything but a dictatorship. I remember one RA several years ago, two of us (delegates) stopped the quick passage of the budget. Later, those (Ken included) was overheard discussing how bad this was and how could they get around the “trouble makers” and get the budget passed the next day. This was when I began to realize how contrived it all was. I began questioning where some money was going that was only supposed to be used for one year. I never could get a straight answer or find out where the money was going the current year–just that we needed the proposed budget to pass. You, Fred, have done an excellent job exposing the FACTS about current issues! I truly appreciate it and pass the information on to my colleagues. I wish more people would get their heads out of their ___ and wake up to what is truly happening. An honest discussion cannot take place unless more than one person’s view/information is out there!
I have learned a lot from you and Glenn Brown. I had never heard of Bernadette Devlin. Thank you.
My father always said it’s 10% of the population dragging the other 90% along. You are part of the 10%, Fred. Keep it up.