Harvard Law Students Demand University Drop University Seal Due To Connection To Slaveowner
November 20, 2015 by Jonathan Turley
Harvard Law students have started a campaign to drop the historic seal of Harvard because it is tied to an 18th-century slaveholder. The students organization, Royall Must Fall, have held campus demonstrations demanding the removal of the seal. The three sheaves of wheat on the seal come from the Royall family crest. Third-year law student Alexander Clayborne insists that the effort is part of “[o]ur larger goals include decolonization of the law school in general and decolonization of the law school curriculum.”
Isaac Royall Jr. was a wealthy merchant who donated his estate to create the first law professorship at Harvard University. He was not simply a slave holder but made much of his wealth through the slave trade and owned dozens of slaves at its Massachusetts house. His home is now a museum. After his father’s death and his taking over the “Ten Hills Farm” estate, Royall acquired a large number of slaves. Dan Coquillette, a visiting professor at Harvard’s law school, has accused Royall of brutality, including burning one salve at the stake. While Royall was known to support the Patriots in the revolution, his ties to royalists led to his inclusion on the list of those under the Massachusetts Banishment Act of 1778. He fled to Nova Scotia. He would ultimately die in England of smallpox in 1781. In his will of 1779, Royall left land to Harvard College to establish the first professorship in law at the school.
Notably, Coquillette does not agree that the seal should be removed because he doesn’t “like sanitizing history . . . To obscure the history of the school obscures how far we’ve come.”
However, the students insist it is time for the seal to go. Third-year law student Alexander Clayborne insists that “Our larger goals include decolonization of the law school in general and decolonization of the law school curriculum.”
I do not subscribe to the efforts strip portraits of Framers or others who were slaveholders. Such ownership is a dark and sad part of our history. It is something to be taught with the positive elements of history for a better understanding of the life and context of our foundation as a nation. While it should not be erased, it should not be ignored. These students are doing the school a service in reminding everyone of this past and the crimes committed against African-Americans. I simply disagree with the effort to strip the historical reference of the seal.
In the meantime, Harvard Law School is facing what the dean has labeled a “hate crime.” Dean Martha Minow said that portraits for black faculty were “defaced” by the placement of black tape over their faces. Professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. posted the water below to say “This is my portrait at Harvard Law School” showing a wide piece of gaffer’s tape placed diagonally across his face.
This was replaced however by a positive action from the student body
Harvard police are investigating the “hate crime.” There is no evidence of who was the culprit or why these acts of defacing occurred.
Recently, protesters seeking to force Harvard to drop its seal put black tape over the seal at various spots in the law school. It is unclear if the two acts were related or whether the recent taping of the portraits was in response to the earlier taping of the seals.
Currently, the assumption is that this was an act by someone wishing to deface the pictures of black professors as a racist act. It is possible that the defacing could have been viewed by some as a statement of a different kind: part of earlier protests against racism at the university. Would it still be a hate crime if the portraits were defaced by someone protesting racism? What if the intent was to make it appear an act of racism? Clearly the intent is a critical element in the definition.
The assumption continues that this is a manifestation of the racism that students insisted pervades Harvard University. I do not share that view of Harvard University, but protests have increased after the portrait defacement.
First-year law student Michele Hall wrote “This morning at Harvard Law School we woke up to a hate crime.” Rena Karefa-Johnson, head of Harvard Law’s Students for Inclusion said that the incident reveals that the culture of exclusion and racism has been alive and well at Harvard.
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/20/harvard-law-students-demand-university-drop-university-seal-due-to-connection-to-slaveowner/#more-94809
——
Persona Non Grata: Princeton Agrees To Explore Removing Woodrow Wilson’s Image and Name In Agreement With Protesters
November 20, 2015 by Jonathan Turley
Princeton University has agreed to explore the removal of the name and images of former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson from buildings and school programs under a deal signed with protesters who objected to Wilson’s support of segregation, which was legal at the time. This action occurs as Harvard Law students have demanded the dropping of the school seal due to a connection to a slaveholder.
Princeton has long (and rightfully) been proud of its association with Wilson. Wilson, besides being the 28th President of the United States, was the thirteenth president of Princeton. He was also a member of the Class of 1879. As president, Wilson helped transform the school into a major world-class university, including a restructuring of departments and investment in new innovations and buildings.
The recent protests were led by “Black Justice League” and involved a 32-hour sit-in outside Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber’s office. The students also demanded a cultural competency and diversity training program and to designate space on campus for “cultural affinity” groups. Eisgruber agreed to consider stripping the school of its most renown association and praised the protesters for their “willingness . . . to work with us to find a way forward”.
This would involve removing a large number of portraits and references, including Wilson’s name on the university’s world renown Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
While Wilson was a leader of the Progressive Movement he also supported racial segregation, which was not banned until the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I believe such an effort would unfair to Wilson and deeply regrettable for the university. Wilson was truly a great leader both for his achievements as an academic and a world leader. This included his foundational work on the League of Nations and the creation of new international principles to avoid wars. Many people at the time — not the least of which was the United Supreme Court justices — believed that “separate but equal” was constitutional. Brown v. Board of Educationwas not handed down until 1954 in finding that segregation violated the Constitution. That was 30 years after the death of Woodrow Wilson.
The effort to sanitize our history ignores one of the key components of the intellectual exercise on campuses: to consider sources and writings in their historical and social context. This does not mean that Wilson should not be identified as a segregationist and his legacy balanced against such views. However, it is important to consider the time in which he lived and lead. There is much about Wilson to be celebrated and honored, particularly at the school that he helped make one of the world’s greatest educational institutions.
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/20/persona-non-grata-princeton-agrees-to-explore-removing-woodrow-wilsons-image-and-name-in-agreement-with-protesters/
——
Georgia Southern Student Fired From Job And Reportedly Disciplined By University After Criticism of Black Lives Matter Protests
November 20, 2015 by Jonathan Turley
A student at Georgia Southern University has triggered a controversy that has led to her being tired from her job and charges that she has engaged in hate speech because she criticized protesters at the University of Missouri and Black Lives Matter activists. Emily Faz, a senior, was critical of social media postings where Missouri protesters objected that the terrorist attacks in Paris were taken too much media attention away from their story.
Various media sites reported how Missouri protesters were posting angry messages about the fact that attention had shifted to Paris following the massacre. Some of the messages and tweets included:
“Racist white people kill me, you want everyone to have sympathy for YOUR tragedy, but you have none for ours,” one user tweeted, adding “#Mizzou.”
“Disgusted @ white conservative Americans using Paris as a ‘see black people, your woes here w/ us could be more extreme,’ but not surprised.”
Many protesters, including Black Lives Matter national leaders, said the racial injustice at college campuses and the attacks in Paris were both acts of terrorism.
“Interesting how the news reports are covering the Paris terrorist attacks but said nothing abut the terrorist attack at #Mizzou.”
“Paris attacks were terrorism. black students getting death threats on their college campuses (A SUPPOSED SAFE SPACE!!) is also TERRORISM.”
Many people was shocked by the sentiments expressed in such messages, including Faz who went to social media to complain. She shared a published story (here) and lashed out at the protesters:
“I swear if I see this B.S. at Southern I will make you regret even knowing what a movement or a hashtag is, and you’ll walk away with your tail tucked. The whole black lives matter movement is misguided and out of hand. Maybe no one likes or takes y’all seriously because no one can see past your egotistical [expletive]. Some people might just look past it, but fair warning I am not one. All lives matter, that has always been the case, and you part of the problem if you think other wise [sic].”
Various students at GSU accused Faz of “hate speech” and threatening violence. I do not take the tweet in that sense. The statement “you’ll walk away with your tail tucked” seems rather obvious hyperbole. Her comments appear largely directed at those students (who clearly do not reflect the views of all Black Lives Matter protesters) who objected to the coverage of the massacres. Her language is chosen poorly to be sure in issuing a “fair warning” but her added comments that “all lives matter” take away from the notion of an actual threat of violence.
A campaign ensured targeting Faz, including posting her telephone number and her work location. One user stated “We gotta find this Emil Faz.” Others called for her to be expelled.
The campaign worked after the number of the manager for Wild Wings Cafe was posted. The restaurant prompted fired Faz even though she had made no reference to the restaurant in her tweet.
The GSU NAACP in response staged a “Black Out, Walk Out” on Tuesday and issued demands to the school, including hiring more black professors and expanding the African Studies program.
In the meantime, Jean Bartels, GSU’s interim president, is quoted as saying that some of the speech circulating over the past 24 hours (including the original post) “has resulted in a call for disciplinary action against the speaker.” She added “will not tolerate behavior that is in violation with our Student Code of Conduct.”
It is not clear what discipline had been given to Faz for exercising her free speech on social media and the basis for the university in meting out such punishment. The story is part of a trend that civil libertarians see in the erosion of free speech on campuses.
As I discussed yesterday, there is a growing concern over a double standard in addressing controversial statements made on campus or on social media. We recently discussed the case of Saida Grundy, an incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies at Boston University who released a series of tweets denounced by many as racist and sexist, including calling white males the main problem on college campuses and admitting how she tries not to buy anything from white people. While many called for Grundy to be fired, some of us defended her racist and sexist comments as an exercise of free speech done outside of her teaching responsibilities. However at the time, I noted “released a series of tweets denounced by many as racist and sexist. “White masculinity isn’t a problem for america’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for america’s colleges.” Now we have such a case and it does appear to confirm some of our concerns that the same standard is not applied to those with opposing views. Duke University professor Jerry Hough has faced called for termination as racist. Meanwhile a Memphis professor, Zandria Robinson, triggered the same debate after denouncing whites and insisting that “whiteness is most certainly and inevitably terror.” However, in Robinson’s case, she was rehired by Rhodes College, which seemed to view her controversial comments as a positive element supporting her appointment.
The point is not to support any of these comments but to raise again how universities respond to controversial statements from students and faculty. There appears to be no consistent or coherent standard being applied in such cases. Moreover, the free speech implications are increasingly dismissed in this debate.
What do you think?
http://jonathanturley.org/2015/11/20/georgia-southern-student-fired-from-job-and-reportedly-disciplined-by-university-after-criticism-of-black-lives-matter-protests/
—-
Occidental Faculty Back Radical Student Protests
20 Nov 2015 by ADELLE NAZARIAN
Occidental College President Jonathan Veitch says he isn’t going anywhere.
But on Thursday, the faculty council at Occidental College unanimously approved a resolution indicating their “full support of the Oxy United for Black Liberation students’ actions and the demands for the culture around racism and diversity in the institution to change,” according to the Huffington Post. Students have demanded that Veitch resign, asone of their 14 demands.
In an email sent to students Wednesday night from Veitch, co-signed by Board of Trustees Chair Chris Calkins and other officials, the administration attempted to respond to students’ demands. The response to the demand for Veitch to step down was clear: “No. The President is committed to addressing the critical issues of diversity and cultural sensitivity at Occidental.”
Every other demand received a green light–including promoting of the chief diversity officer to a vice president level, and the introduction of a new minor in Black Studies.
In his letter, Veitch proposed inviting “a neutral mediator to work with administration, faculty, and student representatives to help restore trust and pathways for dialogue. We welcome your active participation in that process.”
On Wednesday night, student occupiers, joined by Black Lives Matter, descended upon Veitch’s office to demand his resignation. Veitch had been willing to talk to the students, but his efforts proved fruitless, as he was faced with a relentless crowd that refused to negotiate. Veitch eventually left campus, escorted by the Los Angeles Police Department, which was called to back up the (unarmed) campus security force as a helicopter hovered overhead to ensure the president was able to leave unobstructed.
On Wednesday, professors held class on the grounds outside of Oxy’s now-occupied administration building in a show of solidarity with the students’ demands for change.
Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz and on Facebook.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/11/20/occidental-faculty-back-radical-student-protests/
—–
Campus Protesters To Media: Sign This Loyalty Oath, Or Else
NOVEMBER 19, 2015 By The Federalist Staff
Campus protesters at Smith College banned reporters from covering a 12-hour sit-in on Wednesday unless they explicitly agreed to cover the protests favorably.
According to MassLive.com, the event, which drew between 300 and 500 participants, was organized to show support for Mizzou students who have been protesting what they say is racism on campus.
One of the sit-in organizers at Smith College told journalists that they were being banned because of “the way that media has historically painted radical black movements as violent and aggressive.”
“We are asking that any journalists or press that cover our story participate and articulate their solidarity with black students and students of color,” said Alyssa Mata-Flores, a senior at Smith College. “By taking a neutral stance, journalists and media are being complacent in our fight.”
Protesters at Mizzou attempted to bar reporters from covering the ongoing protests and entering a designated “safe space,” a public outdoor area in the middle of the taxpayer-funded public university. Given the wholly public nature of the public university, the Mizzou activists attempting to muzzle media eventually failed. However, since Smith College is a private institution, it appears that student agitators may actually be able to ban on-site media coverage of their antics.
Stacey Schmeidel, the school’s director of media relations, said the college was supported the decision of students to ban reporters who refused to take the students’ proposed loyalty oath.
“It’s a student event,” Schmeidel said, “and we respect their right to do that.”
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/19/campus-protesters-to-media-sign-this-loyalty-oath-or-else/
Tagged: abortion, al-Qaida, “Muslim Mafia, benghazi, Caliphate, Chemical Weapons, Christian, collapse of America, Constitution, dictator, Ebola, foreclosure, Hamas, immigration, IRS, ISIS, Islam, Islamist, Israel, jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi, NSA, Obama, obamacare, radical Islam, rights, Second Amendment, Syria, Tea Party, Tyrannical Government, voter fraud, White House