In discussing race, let’s momentarily put aside the details of the individual cases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. The specifics of Brown’s death are disputed, and Garner’s are more disturbing on the surface. But the magnified focus that the media and masses have put on their two cases has distracted from their larger significance as symbols of America’s strained race relations.

Black teens are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than white teens. Blacks also make up 12 to 13 percent of the US, but 40 percent of its prison population. And racism is still very much alive in America. These realities are beyond justification, and the deaths of Brown and Garner have the potential to be rallying points for this cause. However, the movement in the wake of their deaths, and specifically since the police officers’ acquittals, has so far failed to address these issues adequately.

Demonstrators have swept social media and marched through America’s largest cities. Harvard has experienced this firsthand, from a protest that shut down the Square, to a die-in outside Memorial Church, to a march down Mt. Auburn Street. Much of the student body has gotten involved, and both University President Drew G. Faust and Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana issued statements last week.

The moral necessity to fix the racial issues leading to recent events is clear. But these demonstrations—both at Harvard and nationally—have lacked the defined leadership and concrete plans necessary for progress.

Brown and Garner’s deaths are on track to be just more catalysts of unrest. Each day the situation looks eerily closer to the 1991 case of Rodney King, when King’s brutal beating at the hands of Los Angeles police, and the acquittal of three of the four involved officers, sparked massive riots but failed to propel any substantial social change.

On the other hand, Brown and Garner’s deaths are still fresh, and the public unrest they have caused has the potential to materialize into something more productive. When the 14-year-old Emmett Till was murdered in 1955—at the hands of two racially motivated men who were also not indicted—it became a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement.

King and Till are similar cases with significantly different results. So we must ask what differentiates these two cases and how to apply these lessons to recent events.  

First is the presence of defined leadership. One hundred days after Till’s death, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus. And when a citywide bus boycott started, a 26-year-old minister named Martin Luther King Jr. was called in to help lead.

The post-Ferguson movement needs a strong leader. Al Sharpton “pouring gasoline on the fire” through TV appearances does not fit the bill. President Obama, in the midst of legacy shopping could fill the role by making racial issues a top priority during his last two years in office. But a social leader—as seen in MLK—could also emerge on the national scale and lead the charge. Irrespective of the individual, this leader must have the necessary skills and experience as well as credibility.

Second is the establishment of definitive means of attaining justice. While Rodney King’s case merely unleashed anger regarding race relations, Emmett Till’s murder helped spawn a campaign with tangible legislative aims. The civil rights movement gave rise to actual process because its objectives of equal protection under the law and an end to segregation were concrete.

In recent weeks, some of the scores of petitions—arguably the most effective organization of demonstrators since Ferguson—have proposed putting body cameras on police. Others have advocated an end to racial profiling. An end to mass incarceration has also been mentioned. However, there has been little coordination as to what exactly the movement’s steps should be going forward.

At the Harvard Square demonstrations protesters shouted, “What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!” The need for justice is clear, and the value of promoting awareness cannot be understated. But at a certain point it is necessary to start focusing more on action.

Columbia Professor Fredrick Harris asked: Is this going to be a moment or a movement? Unless the political or social means of attaining justice are defined and pioneered by organized leadership, the continuous cycle of America’s troubling race relations will persist. America’s black citizens will continue to be subjected to racism and its consequences, and every once in a while a particular case will spark national uproar. First Trayvon Martin. Then Michael Brown. Now Eric Garner. Breaking this cycle requires more than just the noise of protests; it requires taking a step back to analyze the weaknesses of the current movement, make the necessary changes, and accordingly move forward.

Aaron J. Miller ’18 is a Crimson editorial writer living in Grays Hall.