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the editors of the college newspaper were met by a torrent of criticism and calls for funding for the newspaper to be withdrawn.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.
Some people who responded to this article completely missed the point. Of course black lives matter, white lives matter, Hispanic lives matter, all lives matter. We are not arguing that there is no prejudice in law enforcement. 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. When we take away the voice of even one U.S. Citizen we are on that slippery slope to the loss of free speech. If you don’t agree with me, I will be the first person to champion your right to say so. But don’t you take away my right to say what I mean. I can’t believe it has become politically incorrect for anyone to have an opinion about a black agenda.
When presidential candidate Ben Carson said that a Muslim who is committed to Sharia law should not be president, many in the media were sure his run for the presidency was over. Surely his “racist” remarks would ruin his campaign. But a funny thing happened on the way to political implosion: Carson’s support has grown. Stunned commentators have scrambled to find an explanation, and some have concluded that the country really is full of bigots who don’t want to see lily white America fade to brown.
This has certainly been a theme this primary season: Racists seem to be everywhere. Just look at reactions to Donald Trump’s populism. Support for his anti-illegal immigration position has been characterized as nationalistic bigotry at worst and white identity politics—aka unconscious or subtle racism—at best. And now we have people rallying to Carson’s side for saying that he wouldn’t support a Muslim for president who would hold the primacy of Sharia law over deference to the Constitution. What else could this be but American racism rearing its ugly head?
Carson, of course, disagrees. After explaining that he didn’t say “no Muslim” could ever be president—rather, only those committed to Sharia law—he said the real problem is our politically correct culture that doesn’t tolerate dissent. If you disagree with progressive policies, then you’re attacked as racist and silenced by the threat of stigma.
Today, we live in a nation where people who stand up for the rights and liberties outlined in the Constitution are accused of racism. Anyone who supports border security and protection of American values is called a bigot. Anyone who opposes racial policies because they’re fundamentally unfair is accused of hatred and malice. As a result, America is seen as a racist nation, but it’s not the people who are racist—it’s the politics.
Populist racial tensions are rooted in a reaction to a politically correct culture that has used white guilt and identity politics to promulgate policies that are unfair and that undermine the safety, security, and values of this nation.
The fact is, Americans don’t have racism in their DNA, and our traditional American values are not fundamentally bigoted. Populist racial tensions are rooted in a reaction to a politically correct culture that has used white guilt and identity politics to promulgate policies that are unfair and that undermine the safety, security, and values of this nation.
It has been the academic assumption since the years following the Civil Rights Movement that America has not really shed its racist, bigoted impulses so evident in the past; they’ve simply gone underground. People are just as racist as they’ve always been, so the argument goes; they’re just quieter about it now. While it must be said that there are certainly bigots in the world, the assumption that Americans at large are a racist people, subtly or not, is simply wrong. If this were the case, we’d be bereft of the profound advancements in racial relations and equality omnipresent in modern society.
The assumption that America is bigoted also goes against findings of those who have studied the issue and found that Americans are not generally racist, but are open to helping and accepting people who are different when they consider these issues in a personal, and not a political, way. But it’s when these issues are broadened, when people start thinking in group dynamics, and when they look at racial issues through the grid of (PC) politics that they react along more discriminatory lines.
To put it bluntly, Americans are not racists trying to keep America lily white. Rather they are reacting to group dynamics that force them to accept policies based on racial politics that oppose their classically liberal American values. When they are maligned for standing up in defense of those values, they are understandably exasperated.
We have seen this in three distinct policy areas that are all joining at the fore in this election cycle: racial policies that benefit blacks, illegal immigration, and Islamic relations.
The “progressive” position on each of these racially charged issues opposes core American values that have nothing to do with bigotry. Black racial policies and many other “civil rights” issues—such as federalizing local police departments because a black teen dies at the hands of a cop defending himself—stand in stark contrast to the American value of personal responsibility and fairness. Illegal immigration undermines the American values of justice and the importance of legal and orderly integration and assimilation into the civil society. And finally, Islamic relations based on appeasement threatens national security.
We must be able to discuss the deleterious effects of racial policies without assuming that opposition to them is at its core racist.
We must be able to separate racial politics and racism. We must separate how we deal with individuals and how we perceive group dynamics. We must be able to discuss the deleterious effects of racial policies without assuming that opposition to them is at its core racist.
When Americans oppose policies that redistribute wealth or create artificial opportunities based on race, this does not mean they’re racists—they’re concerned about fairness. When Americans don’t want a Muslim to be in a leadership position because he opposes women’s rights, they’re not racists—they’re concerned about protecting our natural rights. When Americans don’t want illegal immigrants to cross our borders and take advantage of our welfare programs, they’re not racists—they want to protect our nation and keep it solvent, socially and economically.
For years, however, their true motivations have been ignored and mischaracterized. This has worsened during the last seven years as the Obama administration has invoked the race card at every turn. For a long time, Americans have been cowed into submission because of white guilt and subtle—and sometimes not-so-subtle—threats. Much of the nation—and even part of the Republican Party—is ruled by political correctness, by the fear of being called bigots. But many are rising up, refusing to be accused of hate when all they seek are policies that reflect American core values, values that are not in themselves racist but have been cast that way by those who oppose them.
The populism we see today does have a racial element, but “white identity politics” is a misnomer. The accusation of a subtle racism is misplaced and belies a false understanding of what’s really going on. The truth about American racism isn’t that white people don’t like brown people, but that racism itself has become a political tool used to manipulate and control to the detriment of America.
The frightening reality is that the unintended consequence of politically correct oppression that seeks to root out the evils of racism will, in fact, resuscitate them.
The frightening reality is that the unintended consequence of politically correct oppression that seeks to root out the evils of racism will, in fact, resuscitate them. While some people might not be racist at the outset, if they are continually pushed to embrace unfair and even dangerous racial policies under the threat of being called a racist, they may be tempted to resentment and hostility. Their anger, which was at one point fixed on policy and only generally directed at the racial group due to group perception, will turn from the policy and the group to individuals. This will cause race relations to deteriorate and conflicts—even violence—to increase.
Who is at fault when such a situation arises? Certainly the individual. But society must also take responsibility for creating a politically correct environment that stokes the flames of racial hostilities.
America doesn’t have a racism problem as many have described it. What we do have is a politics-of-race problem. Those of us who cherish American values must remain steadfast and diligent in opposing racial policies that undermine our nation’s freedom and prosperity, despite the attendant stigmas. If we don’t, divisions will grow, our freedoms will dwindle, and racial conflict will erupt in every corner of our once great nation.
Denise C. McAllister is a journalist based in Charlotte, North Carolina. She is a guest contributor to Conservative Review and a senior Contributor to The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @McAllisterDen.
– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/09/the-truth-about-american-racism#sthash.zR6tj6B7.dpuf
What utter foolishness it is to imagine that if the “wise men” who made up the ten commandments were alive today they would come up with the same rules, and nothing, say, about slavery or rape.
The same applies to Jesus, Lincoln, the founders and authors of the Constitution, and so on. All those people were a product of their time, and if they were truly wise in any way, they would see the current world as it is and change their thinking.
Of course, that makes you free to imagine that a modern day Jesus would be a well-armed, rich, white republican more like Joel Osteen than Pope Francis. But that would be disgusting, now wouldn’t it?
“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.”
TWO OF THE WORLD’S GREAT RELIGIONS:
1. Catholicism
2 Environmentalism
BOTH CENTERED ON THE WRITTEN IMAGININGS OF MAN.
BOTH DEVOID OF FACTS.
The comments here do prove my point that the extreme left is out of control, vicious, nasty, stalking, bullying, and threatening anyone who dares cross them. They only approve of the First Amendment when they can benefit from it. If you disagree with them, you are some sort of an entity to be squashed. Like the diversity training tactics of Jane Elliott they are trying to turn those who cross them into non-people with constant criticism and harassment.
It’s a defense mechanism; a feeble one.
KCFleming – “Inga Annie again with yawning?Emotional responses as always.No argument, no evidence, no dialectic. Feelings, nothing more than feelings. Typical SJW, unable to argue except by pointing and shrieking, shouts and tears.
The intellectual heft of sixth grade.”
Lmao! Sooo true or passive aggressive responses, usually put downs.
The Internet is “meds”.
OMG…everybody….SHUT UP!
Free speech means, “you don’t have the right to not be offended.” I’m sad for the college students of today who have to self-censor their thoughts and speech due to the constraints imposed by those residing in the Ivory towers. I do not agree with the op-ed written by the 30 yr old war vet, but I do not have the right not to be offended.
Max and Chipkelly…..man, get a room, will ya please! Don’t know if the two of you are in cahoots, but, come on…me thinks a true Bromance is brewing. Max, I hope you are white as your avatar picture indicates, cuz if you are black, chipkelly will trade you soon (sarc).
I don’t envy the job cops have to perform. I think I can empathize a bit. I am an Emergency room RN. I deal with the public daily. I make a thousand decision/choices a day from dosage calculations to how I tell a worried father I have no room yet for his very ill daughter who has already been in the waiting room for 2 hours. I like to think I make good decisions 98% of the time, but….Ooooh, those 2 wrong decisions in 100 can lead to terrible consequences, and are the ones you can’t stop thinking about after your shift, many times leaving you sleepless and self-flagellating, tossing in bed at 3 am…what if I had taken this path instead of the chosen one…things would have turned out so much differently.
I do believe our brothers and sisters of color are disproportionately targeted by LEO’s. And I do believe that LEO’s mentality is/has evolved from neighborhood patrolling to inmate pacification. I’m no longer patrolling my neighborhood but walking the beat on the shoe in a prison. Those about me are guilty until proven innocent. Local LEO’s have the ability to monitor where you have been by tracking your cellphone location (google Stingray)…illegally, but they are doing it…so they pull you over, and ask you where are you going, where did you come from. It’s a simple stop for speed/rolled thru stop/expired registration, but now they are cross examining you to see if you may be deceiving them…prove your innocence. Better get more MRAP’s and assault weapons from the DOD.
Let us disagree, but let’s not be disagreeable. Let us continue the conversation without attacking each other personally. OMG, I’m not even Catholic, but I think Pope Francis is getting to me…so be it…I could use more equanimity and peace and love for my fellow man, especially the dispossessed.
“There has an undeniable anti-police sentiment since Obama took office.
This escalated after Ferguson.”
Sorry, I don’t think I can agree that there is any significant increase in “anti-police’ sentiment since Obame took office or more recently.
I think the vast majority of us realize that most (not all) police officers do commendable work under difficult and dangerous circumstances.
What some erroneously claim as ‘anti-police’ is recognition of clear evidence that some police are abusive and that some LE tactics may be more suitable for occupation in war but are not useful in US cities.
This concern is not in any way ‘anti-police’. It is a demand that everyone including police be subject to the law and a demand that investigations of police mis-conduct must be rigorously investigated.
These newly voice concerns in response to (largely video) evidence, that raises troubling questions, is in fact supportive of the vast majority of LE officers who are trying to do their jobs the right way. It only takes a few bad apples to tarnish the good work of the majority. LE officers depend on the support of the community. It does not take many bad officers or many abusive incidents to make an entire community fearful. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be more supportive of officers than to get the bad apples out of the force.
Brave Sir Fiver ran away.
Yep. I remember you. Have a nice day.
“Balko refuted the War on Cops myth. Simple stuff, really.
Until you edited it.”
So you agree with me.
Balko refuted something no one was discussing, certainly not in the Stascavage article.
Thus your ‘ridicule’ was -as I had previously stated- without any basis in fact.
Your defense is weak; now run along.
“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.”
1. Why is “anti-police sentiment” in quotes?
Do you agree it exists or not? The scare quotes suggest otherwise.
2. If you do not think there is any “anti-police sentiment”, then how can you claim a source for it?
3. “That appears to be…” An assertion without proof. Not entirely unreasonable, but like Balko’s data, the cell phone episodes can be seen as arguing from anecdote, thus a ginned up controversy.
4. The FBI data you post are old (2013). The data I posted about a massive increase in murders were current. Grow up.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/Homicides-1-746×800.png&w=1484
The bracketed portion was cut by you right before you appear to pretend not to understand what I meant. The comments were ridicule; Balko refuted the War on Cops myth. Simple stuff, really.
Until you edited it.
I’m beginning to see why you change screen names. Good luck with that.
Have a nice day. I’m done with you for now. Again.
Lisa, I am happy your dad got the disability he deserved. With so many people fraudulently collecting disability it hurts to see worthy vets getting crapped on by the govt. while whiners w/ “back injuries” feed off the public trough.
I grew up about 10 miles from Wesleyan. A high school football teammate of mine went to Wesleyan and played football for 4 years. He’s now a cardiologist. It was a more down to earth school than the Ivy League schools in New England. Wesleyan, Trinity, Williams were highly respected schools. I don’t know WTF happened?
Your statement also makes no sense, as you conflated support for the latter with my stated denial of the former.
“You appear to have equal support for both.”
So do tell, what’s your threshold for a war on civilization, given that a 60 percent rise in homicides in one year isn’t sufficient?.