Friendswood Blog Post 2

Who should speak? The citizens of Friendswood? An esteemed Institution? Why?

When is it permissible to dissent?

Often times people are paralyzed by fear to think or act differently from the majority. It takes courage to speak out about the matters one believes in or the people one cares about when no one agrees with them.  However, being vocal about cases of poison in a community, rape, or any other serious matter is essential and need to be brought to light by those willing to be the voice of reason and truth.

 In the case of Friendswood, it is the job of those who know the truth to speak out. It is out rightly the responsibility of the EPA to speak out on the toxins that have infiltrated into the community. But who will speak out when those in power do not protect the powerless? It then becomes the job of the victim to assure that they are heard. In the small town of Friendswood, the knowledge of birth defects and chance of contamination is known by members of the community, but most choose not to speak out. Lee is the dissenting voice who is willing to sacrifice herself for the truth.  Lee has no support and is the only one in town who refuses to believe the EPA’s reports and also act on her beliefs-- she is attempting to tell her truth.

In comparison, East Chicago residents have a similar plight, as their soil has been infected with lead. According to The New York Times article by Abby Goodnough, “the homes in this area are north of a huge former U.S.S Lead smelting plant”, however the residents were not notified of the severity of the contaminated soil until this July. Although the EPA took measures to test and remove soil from the nearby plant and neighborhood and did find “hot spots”, it took them several years to actually begin to take action, all while residents were left blind. The mayor ultimately decided to dismantle the complex and move residents out.  In this situation the EPA failed the people of this community. The mayor, however, presented with the facts, made the decision based on his belief of the truth. It is up to everyone to live by their truth regardless of what the majority or those superior to you have to say.

In the same fashion, the Stanford rape victim told her truth regarding her attacker. When she woke in a hospital bed to bruises and doctors, she had limited facts and knowledge of what happened to her the night before, as she was intoxicated. According to the BuzzFeed article by Katie J.M. Baker, the victim was rescued by two graduate students. Those two students had an obligation to themselves to save the victim and chase down the attacker. They had an obligation to tell the truth. Identically, the victim also had to fight years to even prove her assault to be valid. Even when the institution did not speak out in support of the case and the defendant attempted to invalidate her claims because she was intoxicated, she insisted on keeping her case alive. The victim had to be persistent in order to be heard.

Ultimately, everyone has the duty to not shy away from what they believe is the truth. Even when not many people agree, it takes a dissenting voice to create change.  In all three of these cases, speaking out against the majority was necessary for smaller voices to be heard and uncovering the truth.