Black Lives Matter has become the most powerful movement in the national dialogue. Whether you agree with it or not, its message of detailing the inherent racism in many aspects of American life has kick-started an important conversation about race as it pertains to ideas such as white privilege. In the interest of full disclosure, I support the movement; I have been in situations that would have had a tremendously different outcome were I not white. With that said, the movement has problems that need resolving if it is going to create lasting, meaningful change in the country.
First, the movement is highly unorganized in terms of having a centralized spokesperson or activist leader. There are different chapters based in different cities, which is not uncommon for grassroots movements; however, given the important goals of Black Lives Matter, there ought to be more organization within these chapters. When Bernie Sanders was interrupted in Seattle by a protester ostensibly acting on behalf of BLM — something I witnessed firsthand — it turned out the person was not even associated with the Seattle chapter.
The next issue is a consequence of lack of organization — namely, that the movement needs to evolve. Protesting in the streets to inform the public at large can only go for so long before there is a need to switch gears. In other words, without a substantive platform to change the system through new laws or reforming old ones, the movement will eventually dissipate without accomplishing substantial reform.
Two relatively recent movements show what happens when they reach this crossroad. The Occupy Wall Street operation petered out because it failed to create real change through laws or court cases. Yes, we certainly talk more about the 1 percent, but nothing has happened to alter the circumstances that birthed Occupy Wall Street in the first place. Conversely, for better or for worse, the Tea Party was able to mobilize a group of people who made change within the government by actually electing candidates that reflected Tea Party interests.
Another improvement that could be made would be to distinguish between the Republican and Democratic candidates. I understand the perspective that Hillary Clinton once supported legislation that negatively affected minority communities and broke up families. At the same time, the movement would benefit from questioning the huge GOP field more critically. Attacking only the Democrats that have a better — although not perfect — civil rights record is not productive to the national discussion.
Hillary Clinton’s recent discussion with BLM activists highlights the issues I have already laid out. One activist asked Clinton detailed and well-thought-out questions, beginning a constructive conversation. However, by the end of the conversation, the arguments put forth seem to render the first part useless, making it counterproductive.
I do not want to oversimplify the exchange that took place, and I strongly encourage anyone with a passing interest in the Black Lives Matter movement to watch it themselves. With that being said, Clinton’s response to one activist, who had been maintaining that the movement sought to change the hearts of white people who had been unaware of the black plight, is particularly pertinent. "Look, I don’t believe you change hearts," Clinton said. "I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change ways systems operate."
I am not the biggest Hillary Clinton fan, but as a seasoned politician, she makes an excellent point. Retweets and hashtags are not the same as laws or changing the system; if Black Lives Matter is to have staying power, they need to realize that.
Kevin Foster is a UF political science senior. His column appears on Thursdays.
