From:Lewis_Gordon at brown.edu
23 March 2000
It has come to my attention that my actions over the past week have been grossly misrepresented by some members of the media and the Brown University community. I am accused of being an enemy of free speech, of saying things like "the First Amendment is antiquated. . . ." I have no recollection of saying such a thing. Here are the facts. I was contacted by students who felt that there was not support for them at Brown because of the Acting President publically condemning them last week without also including a condemnation of the racist assaults and rebuffs they had received prior to and after the incident. They wanted to meet with the Press but felt there was no safe environment in which to do so. So, I offered a room in the office building over which I am director. The students met with the Press but refused to be filmed in order to maintain their anonymity. I was concerned that they were not filmed because they were a multiracial group of students (Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Asians), but the national coverage was constructing them as exclusively Black and "Black Extremists." In my interview with ABC and New England Cable and Fox, I said that what concerned me was that the ad was both hate speech and a solicitation for financial support to develop antiblack ad space. I was concerned that it would embolden white supremacists and antiblack racists.
The next day I received hate phone calls, hate mail, and the situation has become such that I have to take precautions for the safety of the staff in Afro-American Studies at Brown and my family. I subsequently found out that Black students were being harassed by virtue of the mistaken claim that the "coalition" consisted only of Black students-in spite of, again,the fact that it was multiracial. In other words, I was concerned that Black students were becoming scapegoats for whatever other hostilities people outside of the Brown community may have against, perhaps, Brown's identity as a "liberal institution" or against the presence of Black people at Brown.
I spoke out against the harm suffered by Black students and staff since the emergence of this conflict, and I stressed the need for the Brown community to defend their right to assemble, work, and in some cases (e.g.,students) live on this campus. I received many letters of support from Brown faculty who were, however, afraid of speaking publically. In other words, tenured professors were afraid of voicing their opinion in public! Thus, I became the only public critic of the university's handling of the situation, until March 21st, where another faculty member came out as a voice of dissent.
My public position is that what happened last week reflects both questions of the parameters of responsible versus irresponsible activities on the part of the press and the question of racism. I was also concerned that the public spaces at Brown were being bullied into white spaces versus spaces for the entire Brown community regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, and class. I am concerned that some critics of my actions defend newspapers, television, and radio-media through which funds to purchase time are costly-over another important free speech issue: rights of assembly.
People who cannot afford, as Horowitz was able, to purchase space to air their points of view rely only on places of assembly with the hope of coverage from the other venues. I am also concerned that Horowitz has been presented by many of my critics as a "minority" voice when in fact the position that Black people should not receive reparations is a majority position.
The distinction between a minority version of a majority opinion and a racial minority, for instance, was blurred in the conflict.
I have become a scapegoat on these matters. No matter what I say publically, I am attacked as an enemy of free speech-as the continued flurry of derisive mail attest. The record is that I am being attacked by such critics for exercising my right to disagree with them. In effect, they attack me because I do not share their point of view. Free speech for them seems to mean only their point of view.
The Constitution protects free speech and our right to assemble. There is also an equal protection clause. The events that have unfolded are clear indications that racism is still such that equal protection of Black people is still in the making.
Finally, I should like to make a statement on the forum held on March 22, 2000. The Dean of the College organized the forum to address the fragmentation of the Brown community and affirm that the campus is not meant to be for "whites only." He also wanted an environment in which the members of the school paper, the coalition, the rest of the Brown community (faculty, deans, workers) can meet and speak honestly without threat. That I have been so severely rebuked for simply demanding both an affirmation of free speech and a condemnation of racism signaled to him and the other organizers how nasty the situation was and there was fear that no one would speak out from such threats. My role in the organization of the panel of experts was to demand that it include white faculty with diverse views on these issues. That is what was assembled, and that is what we had last night,a panel designed to articulate the issues at stake since there were so many heated positions floating around the campus.
The Dean of the College told the Press that they could have a press conference after the panel, but there was concern about their presence harassing people who may not have wanted to be on camera or for their identities to be made public. The students met. The Dean and others came out afterward. And the Press wasn't there. They waited in the rain, and then went home.
The next day, I was shocked to find out that a student from the campus paper went on a talk show and imputed to me inflammatory words that I simply did not say. That student's lie stimulated an environment of fascist, violent reaction that included sending a black student a threatening letter with a picture of a mutilated black child; countless telephone and email threats of violence to black students; and my receiving an intensified rush of hate mail. The circumstance exemplifies my early observation that hate words are not in the spirit of speech but harm. I subsequently met with several stations. I am answering the many phone calls from press officials. It is taking me time. I have, after all, as do many other professors, obligations to my family, my students, my colleagues, and, through my effort to defend the right of assembly and speech for those in the genuine minority, the community.
Now, to my chagrin, I am being vilified. I am being accused of things I did not say, and I am being attacked for not only being a minority, but a minority who speaks out and has taken the risk of trying my best to assure that students can assemble peaceably at Brown with the assurance that it is an institution in which each of them is welcomed as a full member.
Sincerely,
Lewis R. Gordon Professor of Afro-American Studies, Religious Studies, and Modern Culture and Media