On September 14, the Wesleyan University student newspaper, the Wesleyan Argus, ran an editorial written by one of its staff, Bryan Stascavage. Called “Why Black Lives Matter isn’t what you think,” the piece argued that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, created in reaction to fatal shootings of black citizens like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, was producing as a byproduct a damaging demonization of the police. Here’s an excerpt from Stascavage’s editorial:
I talked to a Black Lives Matter supporter, Michael Smith ’18, who recoiled when I told him I was wondering if the movement was legitimate. This is not questioning their claims of racism among the police, or in society itself. Rather, is the movement itself actually achieving anything positive? Does it have the potential for positive change?
There is evidence to support both views. 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.
On the other hand, following the Baltimore riots, the city saw a big spike in murders. Good officers, like the one I talked to, go to work every day even more worried that they won’t come home. The officer’s comments reminded me of what soldiers used to say after being hit with IEDs in Iraq. Police forces with a wartime-like mentality are never a good thing.
Smith 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?”
. . . It is apparent that the man who shot the reporter and her cameraman isn’t a representation of Black Lives Matter. The question is whether or not the movement is setting the conditions of the more extreme or mentally disturbed individuals to commit atrocities.
. . . Smith does have a point, though. An organization cannot be labeled based of a small percentage of their membership. There is a reason why so many have shown up to protests across the country: there is clearly something wrong, and wrong enough to motivate them to exit their homes and express their frustration publicly. That is no small effort. The system is clearly failing many, and unfortunately they feel like they will only be listened to if their protests reach the front pages of the news. And so far, they are correct.
. . . 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. I should repeat, I do support many of the efforts by the more moderate activists.
. . . At some point Black Lives Matter is going to be confronted with an uncomfortable question, if they haven’t already begun asking it: Is this all worth it? 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?
As you see, this is hardly strident (giving points to the other side), and even if you strongly disagree with or completely reject its thesis—I for one think that the BLM has raised valuable questions about police and societal racism—the question raised by Stascavage is surely worth considering and discussing.
Or so one would think.
But that ignores the tremendous offense that even questioning the BLM movement would arouse in the “offense culture” of today’s American college campuses. As Boston.com reports, many students were infuriated. They signed a petition demanding that the paper be boycotted, its funding be cut, and that the paper institute training in social justice and diversity as well as create a a perpetually open space on the front page “dedicated to marginalized groups/voices.”
The expected happened. The paper caved, issuing a groveling apology for the editorial, for the lack of a simultaneously appearing counterargument, for “giving the writer’s words validity,” and for failure to make the paper a “safe space for the student of color community.”
That wasn’t enough. According to the Hartford Courant, on Wednesday the Wesleyan Student Asseembly voted to slash the Argus’s budget more than 50%: from $30,000 to $13,000 a year, a move the Courant called a “knee jerk reaction”.
It is. The Argus is being punished for promoting free speech, in this case a form of free speech that some students found offensive. But whether you agree or disagree with Stascavage’s editorial, by no rational criterion can it be seen as “hate speech.” It’s simply the kind of conservative editorial you find in newspapers throughout the country, and its thesis does merit consideration. Once again the Campus Thought Police have succeeded.
It’s curious then, that although the student government punished the paper and is trying to censor what it publishes, the University’s own president, Michael S. Roth, issued a statement defending the right of the paper to publish that editorial. Roth’s personal university website, Roth on Wesleyan, said this in a piece called “Black Lives Matter and so does free speech“, and the article was co-signed by Wesleyan’s Provost as well as its Vice-President for Equity and Inclusion. In part it says this (after mentioning a panel discussion on the issue):
Earlier in the week The Argus published an op-ed that questioned whether “the [BLM] movement itself [is] actually achieving anything positive? Does it have the potential for positive change?” Many students took strong exception to the article; it was meant to be a provocative piece. Some students not only have expressed their disagreement with the op-ed but have demanded apologies, a retraction and have even harassed the author and the newspaper’s editors. Some are claiming that the op-ed was less speech than action: it caused harm and made people of color feel unsafe.
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.
In the long run, Wesleyan will be a much more caring and inspiring community when we can tolerate strong disagreements. Through our differences we can learn from one another.
“There is no right not to be offended”: a paraphrase of Salman Rushdie. The article by Roth and his university colleagues is a wise statement, one echoing the University of Chicago’s position on free expression. The bullying tactics of the Wesleyan students are reprehensible, but I do feel sorry for those who feel that even newspaper editorials must conform to their opinions. What happens when they enter the real world and are exposed to rough-and-tumble journalism? If this is bad, what will they think of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter? There’s no censoring them!
