I don't know that I agree with this. Lawyers should no more blindly follow the law than any other profession (indeed, as they are scholars of the law, they are most called to act when they see the law - or the State - perpetuating injustice -- I'm not saying that action has to be civil disobedience, but that is indeed one form of social protest).SFrost wrote:Civil disobedience is by definition against what being a lawyer is about. Lawyers follow and respect the law. I think this is a major character fault (if you had gone through with it).
I would also question the necessity of civil disobedience. Just because you disagree with something does not give you the right to break the law to try and change it. There's a democratic system in place to enact change. If you're a lawyer and disagree with a judge's decision, are you going to strip down in court to make your point heard?
Gandhi was a lawyer, would you say his civil disobedience was inappropriate?
Civil disobedience is indeed a means of protesting within democracy. I would assume most posters already know this, but given the nature of some of these comments I think it's worth bringing up again some of the most famous historic examples of civil disobedience:
- India, as noted above
- South Africa during apartheid
- Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution
- the Civil Rights Movement
I fail to see how participating in justified civil disobedience, therefore, could demonstrate, "a major character fault." You may not agree with the means, and as I understand the point that lawyers are in a particularly complex position, but that does not mean it is a 'character flaw' if the action is taken in the pursuit of justice (aren't lawyers supposed to be working for justice?) I also don't think civil disobedience is in all cases 'by definition' against what being a lawyer is about. Would you say that lawyers in South Africa under apartheid or the Jim Crow South would have been betraying their profession by participating in civil disobedience against those regimes?
Personally I think civil disobedience probably isn't the most effective way for a lawyer in particular to affect change, since they have a particular power to work within the system that they would risk by breaking the law. Still, it's a decision that merits respect, in my opinion - how many people are willing to put their profession and livelihood on the line to fight injustice? Nonviolent civil disobedience means that you agree to take the consequences of your action to demonstrate that a law is unjust.
I'm not sure about the particulars of this situation (I'm thinking it's referring to UT, but don't know much about what's going on) so I'm not sure how civil disobedience is acting as part of a greater social movement in this case. But to "question the necessity of civil disobedience." in general is to ignore the role that this form of protest has played in history.
Personally, OP, I do think your decision is probably the right one, just in terms of considering range of impact. If you think that you could have the most impactful career in PI as a lawyer, and taking part in this act of civil disobedience could harm your ability to pursue that particular career (which it seems that it could), then your longterm impact would be greater by sitting this one out or supporting in other ways.
Also, another side note, I don't know how 500 people is "a few people simply being let go." That's 500 people and families who's lives are about to change, who may have trouble paying the bills and putting food on the table. It may not be a lot compared to other lay-offs, but I think it's great that students stand up for campus employees and should be applauded. And given what's going on with public higher education in many states around the country, it's probably not a simple matter of "letting them go." As I said, I'm not familiar with the particular case but it very well may be product of increasing pressure to decrease funding to public higher education. As such, this protest would fit into a lot of others going on around the country.
