The pilot of the plane was angry at the government and its historic inability or reluctance to treat its citizens fairly. You may read his letter, apparently meant to be his suicide note, here. It’s six pages but is not rambling. Don’t get me wrong: Mr. Stack rants. I’m sure those in the class will have the same experience that I have had: I could not help but think of Thoreau again when I was reading Stack’s letter. This morning I had just led the class through a careful consideration of the last few paragraphs of Thoreau’s essay on civil disobedience.

Paragraph 52

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak, who i capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the sasonable experience and the effectual complains of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations.

Paragraph 53

…There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived…

No, I don’t think Thoreau would be a suicide bomber, which is what I’m calling Joe Stack. But I can imagine Thoreau listening to Mr. Stack. I can imagine him as an FBI negotiator talking to Joe Stack. Thoreau doesn’t seem to be the kind of guy who would resort to endangering other individual’s lives to make his moral and political point. But it’s pretty hard not to imagine vast areas of agreement between these two men.

Maybe that’s what’s creeping me out.

Well, after startling myself while reading the first few paragraphs of Civil Disobedience aloud in class, I’m here to tell you that the Mr. Henry David Thoreau needs no help from me!

Let’s take a look at two excerpts. The first came back to me just now as I was reading an essay by Prof. Lawrence Lessig, who, unfortunately for me, is no longer at Stanford, but is now at Harvard. The essay appears online at The Nation magazine’s website. The essay is quite long. [To my students: I will assign the essay for you to read. It'll provide great fodder for argument analysis. But please finish reading Civil Disobedience first.] Thoreau writes:

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

This is part of Lessig’s call, and the magazine’s subsequent call, to action. Note how Thoreau tempers his earlier (I hate to say it) diatribe against government. Who can forget these lines?

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, “That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, – “That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

In other words: “Limited government is cool. No. Strike that. What we need is no government! But you slackers aren’t mature enough to handle that. You lack the personal integrity and the independence of mind to deal with there being “no government”. As Jack Nicholson screamed: “You can’t handle the truth!”

The second excerpt:

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?-in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable?

And here comes Thoreau’s simply devastating critique and challenge, one I believe Lessig makes today to our elected officials and to ourselves:

Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right.

As the great philosopher Scooby-Doo once said: “Ruh-roh!”

What am I first? An African American woman or a human being? Am I a woman first or a human being? Am I a philosopher of Ancient Philosophy first or a human being? What am I first? A citizen or a human being with a conscience?

And as for our elected officials, what are they? Lessig spells out in gruesome detail what he thinks many (not all) politicians are first. (Hint: It has nothing to do having a conscience!)

Oh, for good measure, I’ll end with this next little snippet from Thoreau since Lessig addresses the influences of corporations in government and, now, sadly, in elections.

It is truly enough said, that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.

Kind of creepy to have lived when this US Supreme Court decision was announced and to be reading Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience.

I haven’t read the Supremes’ document yet (a pdf file of 183 pages). [Note to class: Later on we will be reading some of the Court's decisions central to the issue of segregation and civil rights.] Normally, it would be a Scalia who would include a juicy quote from an unlikely or seemingly unrelated source. He did an amazing job of including the lyrics from West Side Story in an opinion on loitering! Hilarious! Did he remember this essay while he was preparing his opinion? (I don’t mean to suggest that this current Supreme Court, all on their own, gave corporations the status of persons. The issue goes way back.)

The convergence today of these essays, one by Lessig and one by Thoreau, leaves no doubt in my mind that what I do for a living, and what we discuss in class, are not “academic” exercises.

This is some serious stuff. As well it should be. These are serious times.

I know that some in the “traditional” civil rights community (read “African American” civil rights leaders) reject the notion that gay rights involve civil rights. This is partly due, of course, to the profound influence of religion in the historical civil rights movement. We’ve seen the influence of religion on King.

We also examined the philosophical foundation of King’s thinking about civil rights. Now, some think that King would not include LGBTQ issues under the rubric of civil rights. Others think that he would take seriously his own words, “injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.” From my perspective, the answer to WWKD? – what would King do? – is as complicated as the question I asked at the end of the semester: would either Thoreau or King have tried to convince Socrates to escape from prison? There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.

Here is a description from the Chronicle of Higher Education of a recent boycott against a hotel that was hosting a meeting of the American Historical Association because the hotel owner fought strongly against same-sex marriage.

Tension over gay-rights protests and a depressed job market set a dismal tone at the American Historical Association’s annual conference…

About 75 activists chanted “boycott” and cheered when Cleve Jones, the well-known gay-rights activist, said his message for the association was that “history is on our side.” In an interview, Mr. Jones said the association’s decision to hold a session on gay and lesbian history only “added insult to injury.” As for the scholars of gay and lesbian history, Mr. Jones said that he was sure they were “well-meaning” but that history would record only that they chose not to honor the boycott.

“They took the best years of my life but they could not take my mind and heart — I would not let them.”

A new comic book, er, graphic novel, is out on Mandela’s life. Can’t wait to see a copy.

Excerpts are here.