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the editors of the college newspaper were met by a torrent of criticism and calls for funding for the newspaper to be withdrawn.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.
I don’t read anything between the lines, and the lines are dead on. Black lives matter, brown lives matter, other color lives matter – ALL lives matter. Bird lives matter, snake lives matter, fish lives matter – ALL lives matter. Life matters.
If there is another basis for Mr. Stascavage’s theme, please point it out Here are some quotes supporting his imaginary War on Cops:
Gotta love the worried officer wanting to take the bad guys head on. Just like every brave cop in every B movie ever. I wonder how he feels about gunning down an unarmed man in the back as he runs away. Is that ok as long as the deceased isn’t a cop? Also gotta love the chief who blames a homicide on BLM after what must have been hours of “investigation.” Real, in depth professionalism, huh?
No War on Cops there, huh? Take it from a soldier.
No. It was a handful of people for a few seconds that is being demagogued to tar a movement of millions.
For the author, it’s all about the War on Cops. An imaginary, phonied-up War on Cops that justifies nothing, explains nothing, and accomplishes nothing except distraction for a point of view that desperately requires one.
For me, at least, I have no problem with “Black lives matter” or “all lives matter,” as statements.
What I find aggravating is that there seems to be a willing acceptance of hate mongering and outright criminality within the BLM movement, so long as those hate-mongers and criminals are repeating the accepted and appropriate mantra.
A threat to steal newspapers is a threat of censorship. We can’t be metaphysically certain this will result in actual censorship since that is a future event. But the BLM intimidation tactics, along with the editors collusion / cowardice, make it likely such opinions will not be published in the future. We can see from the editors current reaction that the effort to label them political enemies causes enough fear they will make inaccurate statements to appease their accusers. It’s therefore reasonable to predict this appeasement will effect what they choose to publish.
This is an attempt at censorship as anyone would easily recognize were the shoe on the other foot. It’s enlightening you’ve chosen to reveal your willingness to provide cover for such tactics with such an easily discredited justification. The team must be hurting.
Especially with the imaginary claims of a War on Cops.
Where was the War on Cops claim? In fact the opinion piece includes these statements:
This is not questioning [BLM’s] claims of racism among the police, or in society itself.
Police forces around the country are making more of an effort to be more transparent, have undergone investigations to root out racist officers and policies, and have forced the conversation to the front pages after being buried on the back pages for far too long.
If there are facts to be checked in the piece why not find one instead of inventing one? Did you not read it? Are you relying on the feverish dreams of the other wingers?
In fact the piece is quite measured, intentionally applying the standards BLM fails to the side the author supports.
bigfatmike
This blog didn’t discuss the Cincinnati Case, the most graphic of them all… no place for discussion of that.
And no, most people on here categorically reject the term institutional racism (remember one of the people to coin the term was Stokely Carmichael) so that does not discussed but in passing.
“What seems to be forgotten here by some is how the BLM came into existence. Hence all the videos by Max.”
What Max seems to have forgotten is that many videos much like the ones he presents have appeared here on this web site with literally hundreds of comments offering meaningful commentary on those tragic events. There has been much discussion here on racism, unconscious racism and institutional racism – but you would not know that from the argumentative accusations made by a few here.
What seems to be forgotten here by some is how the BLM came into existence. Hence all the videos by Max. Police abuse toward black males (and females) is and has been abusive for decades, we’ve seen this police abuse of the civil liberties of the black community time after time after time. There are abuses toward other ethnic groups but not in the vast numbers as in the black community. BLM proponents would be well served to take a deep breath and respond in a way that might be a big more measured. They have a legitimate concern and hopefully they don’t antagonize people who would actually be on their side.
It seems to me that the BLM and ALM groups are talking past each other. I really see no contradiction between BLM and ALM. If one believes ALM then one necessarily has to believe BLM. Yet the response ALM brings forth great frustration and anger. I think that anger and frustration is not really over whether lives matter.
It is usually a mistake to try to tell some one what they are trying to say. But I would argue that it is never a mistake to give back a clear statement of what has been understood. That is one simple way of insuring good communication.
I am going to guess that BLM has many messages for us to understand.
But it seems clear to me that one of the most important is the messages is that black lives are at risk.
To be more specific, in situations where other other lives are secure, black lives are taken in proportions and with regularity that should outrage all of us.
Yet the fact that black lives are at risk, in ways and in situations that most of us would never dream, is not being discussed. That vital point is not being discussed for many reasons including arguments over which lives matter, and accusations that only inflame the discussion.
To BLM, that is what I copied – black lives are at risk. To everyone, there is much to discuss. But it has little to do with which lives matter or straw horse accusations.
Rick,
Thanks for the response. I don’t understand how you claim censorship of ideas you later claim are “common sense supported by the vast majority of Americans.” Where and how are these ideas being censored?
Your very claims of fact-checking not being necessary belie your claims of censorship. Except that fact-checking in this discussion is certainly necessary. Especially with the imaginary claims of a War on Cops.
You pretty much have to go to “common sense” to justify a War on Cops because the actual numbers tell a quite different story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/09/10/once-again-there-is-no-war-on-cops-and-those-who-claim-otherwise-are-playing-a-dangerous-game/
There is no War on Cops. It’s as invented as the War on Christmas. It is, however, a useful distraction. Unfortunately, it crumbles upon even the slightest examination. Which is, of course, why the discussion must be morphed into invented claims of censorship.
Because censorship is much easier to attack than Mr. Stascavage’s phonied-up War on Cops is to defend.
I am so tired of white people being Villianized for any and all comments against any minority.
And Pogo, if you want to characterize your daily attacks on SJWs regardless of the subject matter as substantive “argument”, I suggest you think again. It’s boring and repetitive. Yawn.
Inga Annie, your responses are all blah blah blah.
You fight like a high school girl.
Up your game or go away.
Your definition of mob action is intentionally narrow, erroneous, and mendacious.
No Pogo, I won’t go away. It’s not your place to tell any commenter to go away. It’s not your blog.
Pogo,
Still angry about Justice Roberts and his decision on the ACA? Let it go, all that anger makes Pogo a dull boy.
KCFleming
It’s rather humorous to observe the lack of awareness as you and the authors here characterizing a response an article is a mob.
I’m guessing y’all aren’t even remotely aware of actual mob actions in the United States… Including
– thousands of lynchings throughout the North and South. Well over 3,000
– East St. Louis Riots
– Omaha and chicago Riots
– Atlanta Riots
– Tulsa Riots (Black Wall street destroyed)
That was just the 20th Century…
Inga, I cannot express the Olympian indifference I have regarding your insults, how you view me, or how you think I should feel about my posts.
You are never able to respond with actual argument, just rhetoric.
Go away.
Note that the major “beef” here appears to be the notion that a counterpoint should have been contemporaneously published and some fact checking been done. Neither of those is censorship, so why the histrionics?
No, this is not the “beef”, but it is revealing of how the left manages to justify their radicalism.
I put the over / under on the BLM position being covered in the school newspaper without a balancing opinion at 5. Yet somehow we’re supposed to believe this opinion piece must be balanced? It’s such an obvious bias that non-leftist positions must be balanced while radical positions must be included (as per the BLM demand) is ridiculous. People who make such claims are unable to understand the environment.
Further there was no “fact checking” necessary nor is it routine in an opinion piece. Further there are literally no facts in dispute, so it’s clear this is simply another dodge of the issues.
Not only was there nothing wrong with the statements highlighted they are common sense supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Inga Annie doesn’t like the truth about Progressives as social justice warriors (i.e., SJWs).
The Wesleyan students and BLM issue is of course an SJW issue.
Nearly everything you yourself post about is an SJW issue.
Prof. Turley has SJW leanings which cause discomfort with his defense of free speech.
The Democrat party platform and everything Obama does are SJW-oriented.
The mass media re mostly SJWs, even ESPN for pete’s sake.
I wish it were otherwise, but there you go.
Prove me wrong, Annie.
But you won’t. And can’t.
Heck, you don’t even seem to know the difference between autonomic and autonomous.
You are free to express yourself Pogo, but when you start in with personal insults and observations, don’t be surprised if some of that blows back onto you.