Way back near the beginning of my teaching career, one of my regular classes was grade 11 American Lit. I think I taught it for seven or eight years, and by the end I had developed some pretty good activities. This is one of my favourites – though I could never get away with it now, both because I doubt my students could access the texts and because, well, you’ll see…

First, the background. We read some of Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” and both the Introduction and Chapter One of “Nature”. Students loved lines like “Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist” and “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string” even while they struggled with metaphors  like “Society is a joint-stock company.” One afternoon, their homework was to try to understand Emerson’s insistence that “To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society” by going outside and not reading, writing, or listening to anything. They had cell phones, but at the time they could still go without for a while.

Next, we read Thoreau. We started with a few excerpts from Walden which is an easy follow-on from “Nature.” We read about Thoreau’s cabin in the woods and his beans. Then, the piece de resistance: “Civil Disobedience”. We considered the questions he raises, like, “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?” and “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” Class discussions were sometimes (ok, often) raucous.

Then came the day of days. Students arrived in class and were given these instructions:

I believe that you have a reasonably in-depth understanding of Thoreau.  In particular, I feel that you understand how he relates to Emerson and to nature, why he chose to protest against the government, why he feels protest is necessary, and what he believes the consequences of peaceable revolution are for the protester and the government.

If you feel that you have a good understanding of Thoreau, then you may begin today’s assignment now.  Please do something of which Thoreau would approve.  Class will resume at 2:25.

That is all I will tell you.

Stunned, they milled about the room, trying to figure out what to do. Eventually, year after year, they left the class and went in search of a protest. One group took the athletic trophies from the school display case and paraded them around. “WE won these. They belong to US, not the school” they crowed. One group took control of the PA system and read passages urging self-reliance and rebellion to the entire school. Many students headed outside to find a green space and hang out. Some left campus and found food, claiming they were old enough to go off-campus alone. Many many of them did not make it back five minutes before the end of class. Instead, giddy with their tiny taste of rebellion, they tore in as the bell rang, gathered their things and ran to their next class.

As they rushed off, I yelled after them, “Your homework is to write about what you did!” 

“OKAY!” they called back. And that was that.

The next day opened with exhilarated students sharing their escapades and referring to lines in the text that supported their actions. Never had textual analysis been so worthwhile. After everyone had spoken and the energy had dwindled a little, I drew their attention to a passage we had studied before: 

I know this well, that if… one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America.

Basically, he says that we end unjust laws by standing against them and being punished for our stance. The end of the injustice comes because others are inspired by our unjust punishment. (Honestly, this seems a little naive to me, but we went with the flow.)

Hmm. So, were the students trying to stand up against injustice? And if so, were they willing to be punished for it? I pointed out that I had not even given them permission to leave the room, much less to traipse about taking things and making statements. So, everyone was going to have lunch detention for the next one to three days depending on the severity of their misconduct.

Horror! Outrage! The students were unwilling to accept this! “Ok,” I shrugged. “I’ll make you a deal.” And then I broke their hearts. “The punishment will only make a difference in the world if you think you are an honest person standing up for what is right. If that’s not you, just stand up and say, ‘I don’t believe in what I did’ and your detention will disappear. After all, there’s no point in the punishment then.”

Some students stood immediately. They’d had fun, but they weren’t really protesting. Slowly, slowly, more would follow. The class joined in the debate with those who hesitated. What was injustice? Was this action protesting a law or a government of some sort? Did they think their punishment would actually bring about change? Almost always, everyone eventually stood and acknowledged that they weren’t willing to accept punishment for their actions for one reason or another. 

Of course, sometimes, someone held out. The most memorable of these was Danny. He had, indeed, left the classroom, but he’d sat outside and taken in the beautiful day. He had a book with him, but he argued that Thoreau had nothing against books, and he wasn’t convinced Emerson was saying *never* to read. He said he absolutely believed that students should have more time to pursue their own interests and if lunch detention was the consequence and it made people consider his stance, so be it.

In the end, I always canceled lunch detention – after all, it was mostly a ruse to get them to think deeply – but Danny was having none of my wishy-washy ways. The next day at lunch, Danny sat in the main office, clearly visible through the glass walls, and read a book. He jailed himself for three days and talked to anyone who asked about why students should be allowed more freedom of choice. 

I’ve been thinking about this lesson a lot recently, what with all the news of protests. From where I sit now, I can see its flaws, but it was effective at the time. If nothing else, we all took a minute to think about what civil disobedience really entails and what we were willing to sacrifice for our beliefs. It was a good lesson.