There is a first amendment controversy that has erupted at Wesleyan University over a column written by Bryan Stascavage, a 30-year-old student who served two tours in Iraq, penned an op-ed in the school newspaper that criticized the Black Lives Matter movement. Stascavage is a sophomore majoring in philosophy and political science at Wesleyan and staff writer for the Argus. He wrote a piece criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement — a position shared by many who view some in the movement as espousing anti-police sentiments and, as discussed on this blog, often denouncing people for declaring that “all lives matter” as racists. However, Stascavage and the editors of the college newspaper were met by a torrent of criticism and calls for funding for the newspaper to be withdrawn. To its credit, the University stood strongly with free speech. However, the editors then issued an abject apology that clearly portrayed the decision to publish Stascavage’s column as a mistake.
The controversy began with that op-ed, “Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You Think,” published Sept. 14 in the Wesleyan Argus. Stascavage wrote:
“It boils down to this for me: If vilification and denigration of the police force continues to be a significant portion of Black Lives Matter’s message, then I will not support the movement, I cannot support the movement. And many Americans feel the same . . . Is it worth another riot that destroys a downtown district? Another death, another massacre? At what point will Black Lives Matter go back to the drawing table and rethink how they are approaching the problem?”
Stascavage criticized those who taunted police and leaders who did not condemn such chants. He was also self-critical of himself and conservatives:
I realize that moderate conservatives need to speak up more as well. If we had, gay marriage might have been legalized years ago. Instead, I got the feeling that a lot of moderate conservatives were afraid of speaking up about the issue and being labeled as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). . . .
Kim Davis, the misguided clerk who is refusing to hand out marriage licenses, is a perfect example of this. As a conservative, it is infuriating to see one clerk in one city out of the thousands in conservative states making headlines, when the rest are handing out licenses with no issue. One clerk is making headlines and is being held up as evidence that conservatives hate homosexuality. Kim Davis generated a couple hundred supporters, a very small showing.
The result was a firestorm of condemnation and a petition that demanded the defunding of the newspaper — signed by 172 students and staff. The petition included demands that, if the newspaper is allowed to continue to be funding, the school would guarantee that all newspaper editors and writers take a mandatory “once a semester Social Justice/Diversity training” and “open spaces dedicated for marginalized groups/voices if no submissions: BLANK that states: ‘for your voice’ on the front page.”
In the meantime, the WSA member Sadasia McCutchen reportedly joined others in the Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) meeting to denounce the newspaper and the university president who defended free speech during the controversy. McCuthen is described as stating “We said that Black Lives Matter is not something that can be negotiated. It’s not a maybe, it’s a fact. . . . We also noted Pres. Roth’s blog posts which is quite disgusting.”
The “disgusting” blog was actually an highly articulate and balanced statement by President Michael Roth entitled “Black Lives Matter and So Does Free Speech”. Here is part of that truly insightful blog:
Debates can raise intense emotions, but that doesn’t mean that we should demand ideological conformity because people are made uncomfortable. As members of a university community, we always have the right to respond with our own opinions, but there is no right not to be offended. We certainly have no right to harass people because we don’t like their views. Censorship diminishes true diversity of thinking; vigorous debate enlivens and instructs.
One would have thought that such a blog would give the editors of the Argus the high ground and reinforce the decision to give a conservative voice a forum on campus. Instead, editors-in-chief Rebecca Brill and Tess Morgan wrote an apology and suggested that the column should not have been printed in this fashion. Brill and Morgan should have defended the right of the writer to express his views and steadfastly kept their views (which are irrelevant) out of the column. Instead they affirm: “The opinions expressed in the op-ed do not reflect those of The Argus, and we want to affirm that as community members, we stand in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.”
They then kick Stascavage to the curb and declare that he misrepresented facts without specifying what those “facts” might be:
That being said, we acknowledge that the way in which the op-ed was published gave the writer’s words validity. First and foremost, we apologize for our carelessness in fact-checking. The op-ed cites inaccurate statistics and twists facts. As Wesleyan’s student newspaper, it is our responsibility to provide our readership with accurate information. We vow to raise our standards of journalism and to fact-check questionable information cited in articles, including those in the Opinion section, prior to publication.
Additionally, the piece was published without a counter-argument in favor of the Black Lives Matter movement alongside it, and this lack of balance gave too much weight to the views expressed in the op-ed. We should have addressed the unevenness of the Opinion section in Tuesday’s issue prior to publication. In the future, we will carefully consider the context in which articles are published and work to represent a wider variety of views, even if this entails holding off on publishing a particular op-ed until we have appropriate material to run with it.
The statement raises the question if every piece published from the other side will also be accompanied by a counter conservative view. Most opinion pieces create an “uneven” view. Does every column now have to have a counterpart or just columns that conflict with popular views?
In fairness to these students, it is not easy to find oneself at the epicenter of such a national controversy. They clearly are sensitive to the feelings of many in the community that their lives are devalued and feel responsible for their newspaper magnifying those feelings. However, this is not an uncommon position for editors and the coin of the journalistic realm is found in the neutrality of the newspaper.
Moroever, if Brill and Morgan are going to accuse one of their writers of twisting facts, they should explain what those facts are. The column appears to rest squarely on Stascavage’s interpretation of events and statements. That is what an opinion column does. If he has misrepresenting something, an editor needs to be clear about what was misrepresented rather than conclusory denouncing their own writer.
Rebecca Brill and Tess Morgan reads like a fawning attempt to appease a clearly anti-free speech effort by critics. The answer should have been clear. They gave space to an unpopular viewpoint but that is very function of a newspaper: to generate discourse and debate. That same space is available to opposing views. Instead, there is an effort to blame their class schedules and volunteer staff for allowing these unpopular views to be published without some undefined editorial curtailment or limitations. Instead of being proud that their paper airs sharply opposing views and does not shy from controversy, Brill and Morgan seemed to abandon both their neutrality and their responsibility in the face of an attack on their newspaper.
Universities are supposed to be free speech zones where ideas and values are expressed without fear of retaliation or censorship. What Sadasia McCutchen and others reportedly found “disgusting” is the very guarantee of academic discourse, as explained so well by President Roth. What concerns me is that these critics immediately sought to defund a newspaper for publishing views that they do not like. It is further evidence of the erosion of free speech values on our campuses and a raising intolerance for opposing views.
Well, I just listened to an interview of Rebecca Brill, editor of the Argus. On a factual point, Stascavage is a member of the Argus staff, not just a student writing a guest editorial. I don’t want to be to hard on Brill, she’s just a college student, but she is not the sharpest arrow in the quiver. The interviewer is from Here and Now, a Public Television venue, and quite liberal. But, the interviewer made several points that free speech needs to trump hurt feelings. The Argus, according to Brill, has no black staff. So, as a sort of reparations I reckon, the Argus is doing an edition written entirely by black students. The one bright spot was Brill did admit her generation focuses more on feelings than honest discourse. Well, no kiddin’!! How many times do you hear a young person say, “I feel” when it should be “I think.” They don’t think, they FEEEEL.
Well, duh!
“The editors were cowards that caved to the pressure of the illiberal left.”
Bob Stone,
Please allow me to introduce you to American history since Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror.”
__________
“Racial demagoguery is a blight on the American mind.”
Bob Stone,
Please allow me to introduce you to the original American thesis (since corrupted) of freedom and
self-reliance, facilitated by an
entirely unbiased and neutral government –
Justice, Tranquility, Common Defence, Promote General Welfare (utilities),
all in basic form sans embellishment,
with a very private charity industry, not a nationalized welfare state.
Nick,
Racial demagoguery is a blight on the American mind.
And Bettykath,
Once again: The author’s point about BLM’s use of the fallacy of composition to indict all police officers, while using a rejection of the same informal fallacy as a defense for itself, truly captures the fraud and hypocrisy on display.
Bettykath,
This is the line from Turley threw me: “They then kick Stascavage to the curb and declare that he misrepresented facts without specifying what those “facts” might be”
Regardless, your comment that “the editors were right” completely misses the point of free speech and opinion pieces entirely.
The editors were cowards that caved to the pressure of the illiberal left.
Bob, I discovered McWhorter on C-Span 10 or so years ago. There’s another common sense, intellectually honest, black professor named Glen Loury. He teaches econ @ Brown and has a video blog called bloggingheads. He and McWhorter discussed Ferguson, Baltimore, BLM, etc. this past Spring, It is worth watching. Just Google “bloggingheads” and you’ll find Loury.
I have black friends who are appalled @ what goes on in the inner city and how the MSM covers it. Black folk have a huge silent majority who think like Loury and McWhorter. But, you know what they’re called if they speak up. And many of the people screaming, “Tom” and “Oreo” are white people who don’t associate w/ any black people and wouldn’t venture into the inner city if you gave them $1k and an armored vehicle.
Bob Stone
1, September 26, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Bettykath: “The editors were right”
To fire the author of an opinion piece because his opinion offended certain people?
Where’s the liberalism in that?
———————————————————————–
There is nothing that suggests the author was fired. Actually, there is nothing that suggests that he was on staff. Op-eds are frequently(?), usually (?), always(?) written by guest writers, not staff.
“There is nothing liberal or progressive about shutting people up.” That is so 60’s/70’s mindset. Again, I went to college in the early 70’s when liberal meant free speech. I was pretty liberal. Hell, I was a Vista volunteer right out of college. But, when liberals from the 60’s/70’s got into administration and tenured positions on campus, IT ALL CHANGED to Stalinist speech and thought control. Camille Paglia speaks eloquently and passionately, albeit pretty rapidly, on this topic. Going back to college in 1998 was a shock!
BFM,
I forgot to mention that I agreed entirely with this:
“Those who attempt to prevent others from speaking out ought to raise serious questions regarding the validity of their own position. If their position were sound then why would they fear putting it to the test of open discussion with others?”
Thus prompting me to write:
I think the original author’s point about BLM’s use of the fallacy of composition to indict all police officers, while using a rejection of the same informal fallacy as a defense for itself, truly captures the fraud and hypocrisy on display.
Minister Louis Farrakhan –
“…then we must rise up and kill those who kill us,” he said. “Stalk them and kill them and let them feel the
pain of death that we are feeling.”
Rev. Jeremiah Wright –
“Not God bless America, God damn America. That’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent. Think about this, think about this.”
Abraham Lincoln –
“If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” “…he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
Moses had the Israelites out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers.
Moses led the Israelites back to Canaan.
Moses took his people back to the “Land of Milk and Honey.”
Moses was a great, visionary leader.
Moses foresaw the adversity and incongruence for Israelites remaining in Egypt.
Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt immediately after slavery.
Smart man.
“You have disagreed strongly on several issues in the past.”
I must be writing too fast today. Where is an editor when I need one. The first few words of the first sentence should read:
“You and I have disagreed strongly”
“…open season on crackas…”
NEWSFLASH – WSB-TV
A Black Lives Matter activist was arrested after police in Clayton County, Georgia, reviewed a video she allegedly cut that declared “open season on crackas” was a call to violence that crossed legal lines.
The woman, who’s also reportedly an activist with the “F–” Yo” flag movement, goes by the name of “Eye Empress Sekhmet” and also threatened to kill police, WSB-TV reported.
I haven’t followed this closely. Was the author fired?
Bettykath: “The editors were right”
To fire the author of an opinion piece because his opinion offended certain people?
Where’s the liberalism in that?
@Bob Stone: “To fire the author of an opinion piece because his opinion offended certain people? … Where’s the liberalism in that?”
You have disagreed strongly on several issues in the past. But I have to agree with you here. There is nothing liberal or progressive about shutting people up..
I would argue the more offensive and dangerous the speech the more important it is to get it out in the open so we can engage and demonstrate the flawed logic and erroneous facts.
Those who attempt to prevent others from speaking out ought to raise serious questions regarding the validity of their own position. If their position were sound then why would they fear putting it to the test of open discussion with others?
BFM,
I think the original author’s point about BLM’s use of the fallacy of composition to indict all police officers, while using a rejection of the same informal fallacy as a defense for itself, truly captures the fraud and hypocrisy on display.
“He wrote a piece criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement — a position shared by many who view some in the movement as espousing anti-police sentiments and,…, often denouncing people for declaring that “all lives matter” as racists.”
I don’t know that all those who disparage the Black Lives Matter movement are racists, although some of them are. More likely they are enamored of their white privilege and just don’t “get it”. The point is that white lives have always mattered, unless very poor or with a mental illness. Now is the time to acknowledge that Black lives matter, too. I’d also add Native Americans, Hispanics, the poor/homeless, and the mentally ill, but now it’s time for Black Lives.
The editors were right but I’m not sure about adding opposing opinions in the same issue. Such a controversial letter is bound to liven the editorial pages in subsequent issues and the editors should look for the best letters, pro and con, for publication. Fact checking should be done when “faux facts” are used as the basis of the opinion. I have written letters to the editor and received a phone call to ask about the facts I used. I provided them with the info they needed to clear the letter. The same should be done with all controversial letters.
Nick Spinelli,
I might have lost a friend of 15 years over that McWhorter article. He went off on a rant saying it was racist and attempted to defend the works of Ta-Nehisi Coates. To which I replied that he was proving McWhorter’s points.
“We are living in an era where it has almost become frightful for a white person to speak his or her mind. Especially when it refers to any black agenda.”
I very much agree. They also keep saying we need to have a conversation about “race” but it’s on their terms and one sided. They don’t want to hear another prospective because they believe they are being discriminated against on a insurmountable level. . . that’s untrue.
There are no slaves, slave traders or pro-slave believers in this country, but to erase the history around it, which they are doing because they feel it’s racist, will only erase the cause and effect of that culture so long ago. There’s a story behind it and how it came to be and how we fought to eradicate it. To tell the whole story would show how whites also fought to eradicate slavery and how we had a civil war over it.
According to the skin merchants of DC, slavery still exists! How can we have a conversation about it, when they are basing their talking points on lies.
They want to punish all white people for something that occurred and was ended so long ago. Racism will always exist but it exist on both sides. The skin merchants of DC enrich themselves keeping that lie alive and use politically correct speech to shut down opposing arguments.