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the editors of the college newspaper were met by a torrent of criticism and calls for funding for the newspaper to be withdrawn.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.
@Nick: Indeed. Mental muscular dystrophy.
(KCF aka Chief Consort, Pogo)
KCFleming, He fashions himself as our Touchstone, when in reality he’s our Jerry Lewis.
Does anyone actually read Max’s posts or view his endless videos?
Unable to defend the attack on free speech -the subject of the post- he must divert the discussion with, not evidence/dialectic but emotion/rhetoric.
Tedious but in essence a lie, a diversionary tactic (flooding the zone).
But he is a SJW so there’s a ready explanation for the mendacity.
I hate the hating haters who hate hate. Hate-em.
Throughout the world there are individuals who know how to exploit and who do exploit. To exploit a political situation for one’s own ends is what I am getting to. In this case I am referring to the likes of Al Sharptongue who is trying to grow a fat arse at the expense of others.
Thank you Max for proving the Turley blog won’t be silenced by narcissistic and childish rants. Keep on posting and never forget that “All Lives Matter”. 🙂
During the early 70’s I attended a college that reached out to many Viet Nam vets. Many of my classes had men in their mid 20’s to 30’s who had fought in Viet Nam. For those not old enough to remember, these are the men who were vilified and spit on by anti-war protesters. Coming from an ethnic, blue collar, family I had many members who were military. My father and his 2 brothers fought in WW2. My Uncle Dom was in the Battle of the Bulge. He nearly died, spending 6 months in a UK hospital. Uncle Dom carried shrapnel in his body until he died. My mom had 4 brothers who fought in WW2. Her twin brother, Mike, fought island to island in the Pacific. Anyone who knows anything about WW2 knows that was hell. So, while I had good friends who were anti-war protesters, I could not vilify the military. My cousin, Scott, was in Viet Nam @ the time. Scott was like a brother to me.
College was MUCH different than it is now. These Viet Nam vets had an entirely different take on the war than many students and professors. The discussions got very heated. They were “frank and honest” as they say in diplomacy. NEVER were there any PC constraints on speech. Some of these vets were black so you had a cross rip of issues. We ALL learned a lot from these discussions.
In the late 90’s, I returned to college to get my education credits to teach high school history, something I planned to do when I entered college in the early 70’s. I did not recognize college. Class discussions were antiseptic. Professors were openly hostile to me, since I had real world experience and posed a threat to their dominance. Not all profs were that way. i had one adolescent psych graduate school prof who was glad I was in her class and we had some great discussions. But, in the 15 years or so since I went back to college, PC has exploded. Understand, these intolerant and ignorant students who suppress free speech will be teaching your kids. They will be attorneys, judges, doctors, politicians, NEWSPAPERS REPORTERS, and more.
Like WW2, this war started in Europe. We were blessed that WW2 never came to our shores. Well, this war on free speech has come to the US. And, we are in danger of losing.
The answer to speech one doesn’t like, is more speech. Not pathetic petitions.
“If you question or raise questions about some movements, you’re a bigot and a racist. If you support the free speech rights of others who engage in such criticism, you are a racist and a bigot.”
I only see you claiming this — today at least — in apparent preemptive self-defense. Well, Nick also continuously claims this — along with DustBunnyQueen. But Nick’s starting to shout lately; probably can’t hear that well which leads to his repetitions of claims.
Many commentators on this blog consider any ruffle of disagreement to be as you claim yet don’t see their own involvement as such — deal with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJBtMrCbPho
Mr. Turkey never said “black lives don’t matter”. Unfortunately, we have come to the point in our country where if you don’t use the approved words, you’re a racist and a bigot. If you question or raise questions about some movements, you’re a bigot and a racist. If you support the free speech rights of others who engage in such criticism, you are a racist and a bigot.
The only way in which the concept of free speech protects my or your right to voice an opinion is for both of us to make sure that even speech with which we may disagree or find offensive is protected.
“Those who are sure quick to demand that any newspaper be shut down on account of one particular editorial need to consider what would happen when “their” newspaper is demanded to be shut down by their ideological opponents.”
Brilliant prose, Darren! Can you state something other than the obvious in less words? Must these arguments always be based on, “it could happen to you, too.”
It seems Bryan Stascavage couldn’t write his way out of a wet paper bag, but that’s fine. I’m sure the retorts, that should be encouraged in the very same publication, would be of no less quality.
Defunding the newspaper would be absolutely against the notion of free speech, and it is often the threat of removal of funding that is used. Rather than criticize the newspaper’s reporting or editorial, the answer is the extreme to destroy the newspaper. That is what is more of a global concern, that such absolute, polar measures must be taken. There is no room in this mindset for dissent or proportionality. It is an approach that is harmful in more ways than the narrow scope of this newspaper controversy.
I remember back in the 1990’s when the republicans took over congress. It so immediately afterward, appearing almost reflexive, that they went after the Public Broadcasting System and made many threats, some acted upon, to defund PBS. For whatever reason it seemed to them as a thorn in their side, they proclaimed it was nothing but a left wing shill so they attacked it because they sensed now was their opportunity. It was just as shameful as the calls for defunding this newspaper, but it was worse because instead of ordinary people who hold strong emotions and can be understood why they might advocate the defunding, those in congress should hold themselves to a more professional level where they consider more of the nuances of what their decisions might lead to. But, of course, we unfortunately don’t see such benevolence in the run-of-the-mill politicians of today.
Those who are sure quick to demand that any newspaper be shut down on account of one particular editorial need to consider what would happen when “their” newspaper is demanded to be shut down by their ideological opponents. It can happen just as fast if we allow such an environment to persist where a news medium can be destroyed so easily.
http://time.com/3942688/black-church-burning-mount-zion-ame-south-carolina/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/30/black-churches-fires-charleston-shooting/29516267/
Of course the civil liberty that is freedom of religion, does not matter when blacks are involved – no discussion of this story.
Even a place that publishes JT wrote about this story, the concerned law prof. focusing on civil liberties?? ………………………
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-v8T0oyciE
Hopefully this doesn’t get scrubbed, but here’s one of the leaders of the movement that has spawned from Ferguson. An academic (with Harvard and Stanford roots) evinces backbone… A rarity.
Max-1,
You make a great point. Look at the theme of both articles.
For JT it’s #DarrenWilson’sLifeMatters #MikeBrown’sLifeDoesn’tMatter
Sorry JT
Black Lives Matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chip,
The excuse, he should have complied, is often the excuse given as to why a police officer is justified for killing a black man. Althogh, I haven’t heard anyone toss that into the mix when we’re talking about black lives murdered while already in custody, be it in the back of the car, van, or jail cell. So you see, even complying while handcuffed or under police care can get you killed, if and when ‘while being black’. However, we’re supposed to feel sorry for the police that do this… smh!
chip,
Now, now… JT covered the murder of Mike Brown. You just have to know how to execute the search.
You see, using the victim’s name you get one hit.
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/03/06/police-consider-charges-against-brown-family-in-ferguson/
Using Officer Daren Wilson get’s ten articles, including the one mentioned above.
http://jonathanturley.org/?s=Darren+Wilson
Weight can denote worth… worth can denote value… value matters in today’s society.
max-1,
That’s a good point. Dylan Roof gets more due process than Mike Brown (FYI to the Turley Blog, Mike Brown was never charged or convicted of killing anyone)… This blog says nothing.
This blog should really just come out and support Mr. Roof for upholding the sacred values of the American Empire… This place doesn’t care about people, but the Empire at all costs. Has not even Condemned roof, when it condemns numerous other alleged criminals.