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the editors of the college newspaper were met by a torrent of criticism and calls for funding for the newspaper to be withdrawn.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.
Bob Stone, If people like John McWhorter were invited to the WH instead of racial pimps like Sharpton[one of the most frequent visitors to the WH] this country would be in much better shape. The problem is, Obama is embarrassed by poor, black folk. He doesn’t like them. He grew up in Hawaii away from ghettos. So, he farmed out his race relations to Sharpton.
There are racist cops, and there are unjust killings by cops. But, that does not even make the Top 10 list of problems in the black community. This BLM is simply enabling and pushing aside the personal responsibility issues no one wants to talk about, like a 76% illegitimacy rate for black people. The irony is, the BLM movement has caused cops to take a hands off approach and black on black murders are skyrocketing. And, w/ increased violence and crime, Republicans always do better @ the polls. “Be careful what you wish for.”
fiver
I’m not sure whether we agree or disagree. You seem to accept the point that there is no War on Cops yet your rhetoric regarding the “fry ’em” chant makes me think otherwise.
The fact that there is not a literal War on Cops doesn’t mean the extremist antagonism that clearly does exist is not a problem. I would not support any movement whose adherents made such statements on multiple occasions and whose supporters refused to cast them out. Nor do I think you or anyone on the left would make similar excuses for groups on the right.
In fact as I recall when the Tea Party formed the left was sufficiently motivated to uncover instances of racism they sent people into the crowds to find some. The vast majority of this effort proved the opposite of their hopes but on one occasion someone did say something racial, which was immediately condemned by the others at the protest in real time. Nevertheless the left tried to claim this “proved” Tea Partiers were racist. Now we have worse comments, wishing death on people, and you and the BLM leaders make excuses and otherwise minimize them.
You appear to have equal support for both. Not only is it a historically safe time to be a cop, it’s also occurring during a period of historically low crime rates.
About that “anti-police sentiment”? That appears to be less a result of BLM, and more a result of the proliferation of cell phone video. Cops are being exposed more and more. It’s hard to keep playing a hero TV cop when video after video reveals yet another sadistic Barney Fife on a power trip. That’s not BLM. That’s Bad Cops. That’s Criminal Cops (or maybe just “weepy” cops who never should have had a badge except that daddy was a cop). But it becomes even more pronounced when the police response isn’t to eliminate the “bad (or even the “weepy”) apples,” it’s to protect them. And then attack us with an invented War on Cops if we complain about it.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/06/08/theres-no-evidence-of-a-new-nationwide-crime-wave/
“My comments on those quotations of Mr. Stascavage’s column were not meant to be a refutation”
Then your comments served no purpose at all, because Balko’s post didn’t “refute” the the Wesleyan Argus article by Stascavage in any way.
They are not even the same topic.
So you ‘ridiculed’ Stascavage using an unrelated article? Huh?
The Stascavage piece was a modest if even-handed discussion of both sides, whereas Balko was debunking a claim that cops were being killed in greater numbers (though I am unsure who beside the left actually made such a claim, except precisely to provide it for debunking, i.e., a straw man).
NYTimes:
Your “refutation of the mythological War on Cops is a straw man.
The article in question never used that phrase.
Balko is only showing that officers are not dying in greater numbers in the line of duty.
So what?
There has an undeniable anti-police sentiment since Obama took office.
This escalated after Ferguson.
That’s what the article was discussing, along with the assassinations of cops that have occurred, an entirley recent phenomenon.
More, the sentiment led to reduced aggressive policing in cities like Boston and Detroit and other left-liberal enclaves, resulting in massive increases in murders for the first time in decades.
It’s not a war on cops, but a war on civilization.
*Troubled, not “doubled*@4:26 PM, sorry typing too fast on an iPad.
Rick,
I’m not sure whether we agree or disagree. You seem to accept the point that there is no War on Cops yet your rhetoric regarding the “fry ’em” chant makes me think otherwise.
KCFleming, or Pogo, or whatever you’re calling yourself today,
My comments on those quotations of Mr. Stascavage’s column were not meant to be a refutation of the mythological War on Cops. Those comments were simply well earned ridicule.
The clear refutation of this fantasy is in the numbers presented in Radly Balko’s piece to which I’ve linked above. If you have statistics which show differently, please let us know.
*MPD, not MPF.*
Bob,
My comment doesn’t judge every single police officer as being among those who abuse. My comment states that the police forces nation wide do not adequately rein in or get rid of their bad apples. There is a difference. My brother was a Milwaukee cop for 30 years, he was not one of those who agreed with the use of excessive force and abusive practices, as a matter of fact toward the end of his career with the MPF he counseled doubled cops. Your logic here is faulty, not mine. It’s obvious you hold some animus toward the black community evinced by many of your comments I’ve read over the last couple of years that deal with policing issues.
Annie
“[Annie] countered with, “You can’t judge an entire movement off the actions of a few extremists.”
Bob Stone, why do you assume that I would disagree with this statement no matter WHO said it?
Because it contradicts 90% of your comments.
Annie: “why do you assume that I would disagree with this statement no matter WHO said it? The sentiment is accurate.”
Sentiment: “You can’t judge an entire movement off the actions of a few extremists.”
Contrast:
Annie: “To deny that our police forces have overreached their authority in an abusive manner nationwide is also ludicrous.”
Thus the followup…
“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/
As I said, I’d say your logic was flawed were I not convinced that it’s completely absent here.
“[Max-1] countered with, “You can’t judge an entire movement off the actions of a few extremists.”
“[Annie] countered with, “You can’t judge an entire movement off the actions of a few extremists.”
Bob Stone, why do you assume that I would disagree with this statement no matter WHO said it? The sentiment is accurate. To speak about police abuse is not judging the entire LEOs across the board. However, organizations of any kind lose credibility when they don’t rein in their loose cannons.
KCFleming: “Given its nonfalsifiability, “institutional racism” is a religious belief, not a fact of any sort.”
Antiracism, Our Flawed New Religion by John McWhorter
Opposition to racism used to be a political stance. Now it has every marking of a religion, with both good and deleterious effects on American society.
“An anthropology article from 1956 used to get around more than it does now, “Body Ritual Among the Nacirema.” Because my mother gave it to me to read when I was 13, of course what I remember most from it is that among the Nacirema, women with especially large breasts get paid to travel and display them. Nacirema was “American” spelled backwards—get it?—and the idea was to show how revealing, and even peculiar, our society is if described from a clinical distance.
These days, there is something else about the Nacirema—they have developed a new religion. That religion is antiracism. Of course, most consider antiracism a position, or evidence of morality. However, in 2015, among educated Americans especially, Antiracism—it seriously merits capitalization at this point—is now what any naïve, unbiased anthropologist would describe as a new and increasingly dominant religion. It is what we worship, as sincerely and fervently as many worship God and Jesus and, among most Blue State Americans, more so.
To someone today making sense of the Nacirema, the category of person who, roughly, reads The New York Times and The New Yorker and listens to NPR, would be a deeply religious person indeed, but as an Antiracist. This is good in some ways—better than most are in a position to realize. This is also bad in other ways—worse than most are in a position to realize.”
Continued: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion.html
There is a fellow here at the bar in New Orleans who wants to chime in. He says that his question is from a movie from 30 years ago called something Saddles. His name is Arty.
“Where da White women at?”
The populace there needs a newspaper funded outside the control of the so called university. Some donor needs to come forward and fund it. Some alumni would be good. Set forth Free Speech Protocals. Let anyone write a letter to the editor and to the public– within bounds of space. Maybe forget the print version. They have toilet paper on campus already. Go with an internet news outlet.
Annie: “Bob Stone, you attributed Max’s comment to me, but he’s right, so it’s ok.
Annie,
Had you bothered to read the article at the heart of Turley’s discussion you would have known that those words were not written by Max, but by Bryan Stascavage.
I’d say your logic was flawed were I not convinced that it’s completely absent here.
Bryan was right, the BLM movement is illegitimate; or at the very least hypocritical.
“Institutional racism” is indefinable and nonfalsifiable, it means that if you treat people the same, you are racist; but if you treat them differently, you are racist.
You are racist no matter what, even if you don’t say or do anything racist.
Given its nonfalsifiability, “institutional racism” is a religious belief, not a fact of any sort.
That is, just another SJW lie.
Mike, LOL! Good riddance.
Bob Stone, you attributed Max’s comment to me, but he’s right, so it’s ok. I have said a few times now that the BLM movement would be well served to tone down the rhetoric a bit and not unnessisarily antagonize those who see their movement as being legitimate.