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the editors of the college newspaper were met by a torrent of criticism and calls for funding for the newspaper to be withdrawn.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.
Uh oh!
I predict the weekend will be ruined for some … Kim Davis decides she is a Republican.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kim-davis-republican_560596fbe4b0dd8503077eec
Annie: “To deny that our police forces have overreached their authority in an abusive manner nation wide is also ludicrous.”
What about the guy who killed officers Liu and Ramos after citing Black Lives Matter slogans?
[Annie] countered with, “You can’t judge an entire movement off the actions of a few extremists.”
I responded with, “Isn’t that what the movement is doing with the police? Judging an entire profession off the actions of a few members?”
Hence, my concerns that the movement is not legitimate, or at the very least, hypocritical.”
http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/14/of-race-and-sex/
Hear hear BFM! To deny that institutionalized racism and classism exist is ludicrous. To deny that our police forces have overreached their authority in an abusive manner nation wide is also ludicrous. BLM has a legitimate reason to exist and if the more extreme elements can rein themselves in their movement can actually do a lot of good. If police forces can take a good look at their practices and rein themselves in we would all be better served.
“Institutional racism and classism exist.”
Marxism is the opiate of the masses.
BFM: “I really see no contradiction between BLM and ALM. If one believes ALM then one necessarily has to believe BLM.”
BFM,
Excellent (and obvious) point.
However, don’t you know that you can’t use logic to convince a person of the idiocy of a position if he didn’t use logic to come up with it in the first place?
OMG. I have got to find an apt on another planet. This one has gone bat**** crazy.
[Max-1] countered with, “You can’t judge an entire movement off the actions of a few extremists.”
I responded with, “Isn’t that what the movement is doing with the police? Judging an entire profession off the actions of a few members?”
Hence, my concerns that the movement is not legitimate, or at the very least, hypocritical.”
http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/14/of-race-and-sex/
Correction *Their solidarity with people who OPPOSE police abuse*
John Smith,
It isn’t unreasonable to see the black and white protestors being equally negatively affected by the militarization of our police forces. When the tear gas canisters were flying and the air was thick with tear gas, it went into the eyes of both black and white protestors. White people were there to support the black community and to express their solidarity with police abuse in the black community. BLM started off as a direct reaction to our militarized, out of control police forces.
finally, I think the black lives matter movement, is a racial-conflict distraction from the bigger issue, which is the militarization of police departments. that is going to bite white folks in the butt too, sooner or later. white folks need to stand with civil liberterians on condemning cop abuse.
and the black lives matter people, ought to get off their victim high horse and quit turning an issue of civil liberties into one of group conflict. that’s not in black folks interest, either, since they are vastly outnumbered.
and judging from Latin America, cops are even less respectful of human rights than white American ones by far, so, I don’t think the rapidly changing demographic favoring Latinos is going to be a sign of future tolerance for black folks. Indeed we have seen in a lot of these videos, the cops doing the roughhousing, are Latinos. Nothing against them, I am just saying they are not going to bend over backwards for blacks like whites who are conditioned against being racist, and, if they know or remember what life is like in lawless places like Mexico, they are going to act in a far more authoritarian manner. Human nature.
I think the BLM movement is one that is manipulated for other reasons, capitalist pigs like Geo Soros out there creating social conflict which masks their increasing wealth and power.
At one time, Marxism used to unite the working class peoples of different races, now it’s a bunch of warmed over deconstructionist nonsense that shadowy capitalists use to divide the proletariat. And all you middle class folks out there who think you aren’t proles too, you’re kidding yourselves.
I’ll add another comment since posters like Max felt free to post multiple times on their own belaboring the same dubious points.
Most white folks are too chicken to admit, their defense of cops is impelled by racial feelings.
I’m not. I’ll say it like it is, there is a real racial tension between whites and blacks, and at least the blacks have the communal instincts to hold up their own lives as mattering.
white folks are too self doubting and weak to say that white lives matter. and that is behind all the apologizing for cop abuse. well, I’ m against cop abuse, but I also gotta say it again:
white lives matter
look it up the facts that every cop knows, and most people with sense do too
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
its why the women clutch their purses at night. etc.
public safety is really important– maybe even more important than hurting peoples’ fragile feelings?
“look it up the facts that every cop knows, and most people with sense do too”
You might want to be more specific.
The stats show that violent crime has greatly, greatly declined since the early 1990’s. In big round numbers I can tell you that homicides in NYC declined from about 2200 around 1992 to about 400 around 2012. That level of decline is wide spread over the country and apparent in large metropolitan areas, medium cities and an small communities.
That does not mean there are no problems or that the decline is uniform. But it is important to keep some perspective. There are some here talking as though it is time to bar the door. In fact most communities are much safer than they were only a few years ago.
Now we ought to talk about something real. The fact is the government and LE do not serve all communities equally. The fact is that in many communities simply not being white greatly increases ones chances of being stopped, abused, arrested, convicted and sentenced to long jail terms. That is a problem and ought to concern everyone.
Further we should not forget the class aspect. In some communities it is not tax dollars that support the criminal justice system but fees charged to the accused. As a result simply being arrested can have devastating consequences for those of lower socioeconomic status. An arrest for not very much can lead to not being able to make bail or pay a fine which can lead to incarceration, loss of a job, eviction and disruption for an entire family. Disrupt enough families and you disrupt entire communities.
Whether intentional or not the fact is one could hardly design a system more destructive to entire communities which are – can you guess – disproportionately black. Institutional racism and classism exist. The institutional racism is part of what puts black lives at greater risk. The question is what are you going to do about it.
Do all the white people who are victims of violence committed by blacks matter? You can add in all the cop shootings on the other side of the ledger and it won’t even come close. Check the FBI crime statistics if you think I lie. The simple reason why cops over react to black men, is that demographically they, person for person, are disproportionately responsible for violent crime far beyond any other group.
It’s time somebody mention this in the socalled “Debate” which is mostly nothing more than an attack on white people. It’s not really about cop abuse, which is definitely bad and a problem regardless of victim’s race.
Or if I may say, “white lives matter” too.
Banning serial posters seems like a good idea. Wading thru their garbage is tedious.
“An imaginary, phonied-up War on Cops that justifies nothing, explains nothing, ”
Your post did not refute any of the points of the Wesleyan article, but merely added your comments that boiled down to saying “No it isn’t.” over and over again.
“No. It was a handful of people for a few seconds that is being demagogued to tar a movement of millions.”
Entirely wrong, and a lie easily disproven.
CBS News: “Marchers chanted in unison, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.””
DailyCaller: “Black Lives Matter protesters marching on the Minnesota state fair on Saturday spewed violent anti-cop rhetoric just hours after a Harris County, Tex. sheriff’s deputy was ambushed and executed at a Houston-area gas station.
“Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon,” activists with the St. Paul, Minn. branch of Black Lives Matter chanted while marching behind a group of police officers down a highway just south of the state fair grounds.”
DailyMail: “An organizer behind the Black Lives Matter march outside the Minnesota State Fair stood by the group’s chant at the fairgrounds in St. Paul to treat police like ‘pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon’.
BLM St. Paul organizer Rashad Turner said on Monday that law enforcement officials were cherry-picking a brief chant from Saturday’s four-hour march to find fault with what was a peaceful protest.”
The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LYvnqyIZc
For the author, it’s all about the War on Cops.
For you it’s all about the War on Cops because that makes his point easy to ignore. His point however is that the BLM movement needs to call out the anti-cop extremists. Anyone interested in better relations between cops and the black community, which would lead to many fewer deaths, should support this. Escalation isn’t the answer.
It was a handful of people for a few seconds that is being demagogued to tar a movement of millions.</i.
Are you jealous someone appropriated your tactic? If it's just a handful of people why not call them out? In truth there have been many instances, including a march of a hundred or two people in NYC. It should be embarrassing for you to minimize people chanting for killing others.
War on Cops that justifies nothing, explains nothing, and accomplishes nothing except distraction for a point of view that desperately requires one.
This is certainly true, but it’s within your discretion to simply drop it.
To dismiss the validity of the BLM movement is simply a display of ignorance. How many more shootings in the backs of fleeing unarmed black and tasing in the back of elderly black women do we need to see before admitting to a real problem? Perhaps one day the police will have an issues with white males, then we will truly see the outrage.
chipkellyshouldgoogleleibniz,
Green supremacy, purple supremacy, magenta supremacy or turquoise supremacy will ultimately be a physical axiom, not open for debate.
Your opinion will have no weight and will not bear.
“What seems to be forgotten here by some is how the BLM came into existence. Hence all the videos by Max. ”
1. BLM was based on lies about the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson (i.e., the “Hands up! Don’t Shoot!” fiction).
2. BLM was funded by Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), a George Soros organization, which paid protesters $5,000 a month to demonstrate in Ferguson.(MORE was the re-branded Missouri branch of ACORN, which had filed for bankruptcy in 2010 after James O’Keefe exposed their voter registration fraud.)
3. The videos by Max have nothing to do with the topic posted, and intended to evade the issue of censorship by BLM supporters.
“KCFleming”
“Inga Annie, your responses are all blah blah blah.
You fight like a high school girl.
Up your game or go away.”
__________
KC,
Hear, hear!
Now round up the “Sunshine Band,” head over to the “Extreme Court” and
begin pervasive remediation there.
__________
Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”
Ben Franklin, 2015, we gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”