-Caveat Lector- Excerpt from letter from Brown University professors to the school's president, attached below: >As you know, the University can use IP addresses to trace the source of >every communication, anonymous or otherwise, on the web. Thus, we cannot >help but wonder why, more than two weeks after the publication of the >inflamatory statement by Horowitz, the University has failed to take strong >action against the injurious racist insults and attacks on the BDH web >pages, against any faculty and/or student who writes against the ad and >other related injurious comments about people of color on campus. Background on Horowitz ad: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0115/vincent.shtml http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/2001/04/16/princetonian/index/index.html -Declan ********* From: "herror" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Brown Profs For Email Crackdown Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:51:29 -0400 Declan, In case you haven't seen this I'm sending a letter signed by a couple dozen Brown U faculty members. Politech readers might be interested in this bunch's logic and proposals. Forget about pursuing the students who stole a press run of the campus newspaper in retaliation for the paper printing David Horowitz's anti reparations ad. Instead the university should be tracking down student and faculty posters of nasty comments campus discussion list. Here's a paragraph from the letter, will paste the whole thing below. Url is http://www.browndailyherald.com/stories.cfm?S=0&ID=4468 "As you know, the University can use IP addresses to trace the source of every communication, anonymous or otherwise, on the web. Thus, we cannot help but wonder why, more than two weeks after the publication of the inflamatory statement by Horowitz, the University has failed to take strong action against the injurious racist insults and attacks on the BDH web pages, against any faculty and/or student who writes against the ad and other related injurious comments about people of color on campus. " I like the "as you know". Do we REALLY know? I doubt the signers of the letter REALLY know anything about the setup of the paper's web discussion pages (bet this paragraph was the work of one to the signers who harbors delusions of tech savvy, something I would also bet is vanishingly rare among their number -- the tech savvy that is not delusions of grandeur, technical and otherwise.) Doubt also they have a clue whether the University has any legal right to access whatever information about posters might be available from those pages or any business doing it even if it had the legal right. They're certainly clueless as to the ethics and morality of doing it. Tom Brennan Phila pa here's the full letter: Complete text of faculty letter to President Blumstein The following is the text of the version of the letter from faculty to President Blumstein obtained by The Herald. The text is reprinted below in the form it was received. April 4, 2001 Dear President Blumstein: We, the undersigned faculty, angered and saddened by the lack of clear leadership from our University, are writing to you to register, in the strongest terms possible, our dismay at the ongoing lack of acknowledgment and of serious proactive countermeasures against the continuing and escalating racist climate on our campus. We believe that you have yet to address fully the gravity of the situation, particularly its impact on faculty, students and staff of color on this campus. If you were to make such an address, it would greatly alleviate this situation and allow for the kind of dialogue you argue is needed. In your press release of 17 March 2001, for instance, you argue that "The most effective response to ideas, however - even to ideas that may be deeply offensive - is not to silence them or intimidate those who espouse or publish them, but rather to develop effective opposing arguments through wider civil discourse." However, your refusal to condemn the advertisement as a forum of harassment has--perhaps inadvertently--led to the silencing of many people of color on campus. At the present time, we are faced with an increasingly tense climate for all people of color and their white supporters, and a situation in which a few students of color have been egregiously selected by the administration as scapegoats for an investigation of violations of the Brown student code of conduct. Allegations against the students include the "theft or attempted theft of personal or University property," a reference to the collective symbolic action by a group of students on March 16th. The scapegoating of a few students, as we are sure you are aware, is in direct contradiction to what is known, both at Brown and throughout the United States, to have occurred: that is, that a coalition of anywhere between 50 and 100 students-one-third of whom were white-removed the March 16th run of BDH newspapers, 3 days after the Horowitz ad came out. As we are certain you are aware, they did so out of frustration, and, consequently, in symbolic protest over both the publication of Horowitz's commercial ad, and the BDH's refusal to provide the students with equal space, free of charge, for a response to the ad's racist and assaultive statements. By taking this action against a few students-and hence intimidating the rest-the University, in effect, is actively taking one side of the issue and failing to address the racist attacks on students, faculty and staff of color. It is no longer only a question, as the University has argued thus far, that it is untenable to control the BDH. Instead, in targeting a few students of color, the University is acting on the wishes of some white students and/or alumni who are motivated by racial hatred and who continue to hide behind a poisonous anonymity. Statements such as "perhaps we should call them 'Third World' ingrates or better yet crybabies. They are humiliating our school, and diminishing the value of our diplomas. That such moronic students should be permitted to step through the Van Winkle gates is the real crime. How on earth were they accepted in the first place? Perhaps affirmative action had a TINY bit to do with it? should be condemned in no uncertain terms. (We have attached, below, the full quote of this comment taken from the BDH web, along with a few others for your information) What kind of message are we sending to the Brown community, if, in the face of such racist behavior, the only real action now being taken by the University is directed against a few students of color? Brown faculty have been viciously slandered, including one on the air by a BDH staff member. Yet at no point has the University begun a similar investigation against the BDH students, nor has it demonstrated, through any of its actions, a similar concern for the integrity of the faculty members who have been so publicly slandered. We are truly appalled by the lack of action on the part of the University related to the onslaught of anonymous hate mail, much of which is ostensibly signed by Brown students, alumni, and/or parents on the BDH website. This venomous mail is directed at anyone who even raises questions concerning the appropriateness of printing the Horowitz ad. You have acknowledged the offensive and damaging nature of the web speech. Surely, the University has a greater responsibility to its faculty, staff and students of color to "investigate" those who are publishing such injurious comments, than it does to scapegoat a few students for what was clearly an action undertaken collectively as a symbolic protest against a blatantly racist advertisement that went unchallenged by the University. As you know, the University can use IP addresses to trace the source of every communication, anonymous or otherwise, on the web. Thus, we cannot help but wonder why, more than two weeks after the publication of the inflamatory statement by Horowitz, the University has failed to take strong action against the injurious racist insults and attacks on the BDH web pages, against any faculty and/or student who writes against the ad and other related injurious comments about people of color on campus. In your press release of 23 March 2001, you stated: "Brown University consistently, forcefully and without ambiguity condemns all forms of racism and intolerance. Anonymous threats, racial slurs and harassment of any type will not be tolerated. Such behavior is antithetical to the values of the Brown community. At this time, we believe the anonymous letter mailed to a Brown student was generated by persons outside the University. Regardless of the source, we must take seriously any racist provocation directed toward individuals in our community." However, rather than actively investigating those who have been posting anonymous threats and racial slurs online, which have assaulted and silenced Brown's community of people of color, the University has chosen to investigate a few students who took part in this symbolic act. We find this misplaced investigation shocking. In addition, it is astounding to us that the University has chosen not to respond directly and forcefully to the various sentiments of fear and physical insecurity conveyed in no uncertain terms by Brown faculty, staff and students of color, as a result of their receiving hate mail and messages. Many have stated that they are intimidated and scared to walk across the campus green, to enter the Ratty, to exercise their rights of freedom of movement as full members of this campus. Indeed, it is our considered opinion that the events of the last few weeks have emboldened a group of students, who are now engaging in bullying and threatening behavior directed against both faculty, staff and students of color, and against white faculty who have registered their opposition to the racist Horowitz ad. Moreover, we wonder about the extent to which this decision by the BDH to publish Horowitz, is in fact nothing other than the setting of a treacherous welcome mat for our incoming President. We want to emphasize forcefully to you the seriousness with which we view both the current context and its potentially damaging short and long-term consequences for all of us. Finally, we want to register our extreme frustration at the fact that in spite of the presence on our campus of nationally and internationally recognized faculty members who are specialists and experts on race relations, the University has continued to ignore their suggestions and offers of advice and guidance about how to diffuse this situation. The result is that the tension is being exacerbated on a daily basis, with no end in sight. Consequently, many of the faculty and staff of color on campus, together with their white supporters, increasingly feel genuinely harassed and unwelcome at this institution, to which most of them have dedicated the better part of their lives and efforts. In view of the above, we are writing to you in the belief that you will appreciate the nature and seriousness of the situation we have described, and that you will take the necessary measures to return our campus to some semblance of normality. Putting an end to this investigation of coalition members, including the concomitant psychological victimization of a few students, would be a concrete step in the right direction. Similarly, it is important to acknowledge publicly that there is a pervasive and severe problem about race on this campus which must be addressed. Finally, making a strong and unequivocal public statement to both the campus and the world at large about Brown's unflinching commitment to both the protection of all its members and the fight against racism would also certainly begin to ameliorate this situation. We trust that this letter succeeds in bringing to you the gravity of the times we are living through, and the need for immediate and decisive action against the current poisonous climate on the Brown campus. Sincerely yours, Lundy Braun Paul Buhle Wendy Chun Elliott Colla Christopher Conway Dorothy Denniston Kay Dian Kriz Madhu Dubey Anani Dzidzienyo David Egilman Anne Fausto-Sterling Cynthia Garcia-Coll Lewis Gordon Paget Henry Mari Jo Buhle Rhett Jones Caroline Karp William Keach Robert Lee Suzanne Oboler Julio Ortega Aishah Rahman Amy Remensnyder Susan Smulyan Elmo Terry-Morgan Paula Vogel Sally Zierler cc. Chancellor Steven Robert A FEW EXAMPLES OF HATE SPEECH FROM THE BROWN DAILY HERALD'S ONLINE FORUMS o Daniel, perhaps we should call them "Third World" ingrates or better yet crybabies. They are humiliating our school, and diminishing the value of our diplomas. That such moronic students should be permitted to step through the Van Winkle gates is the real crime. How on earth were they accepted in the first place? Perhaps affirmative action had a TINY bit to do with it? Had the ad been by a holocaust revisionist, there might have been protests, but I highly doubt that papers would have been stolen, and reparations demanded no less. Brown University is pandering to the same types of filth that is so often represented by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and yes Bill Clinton. Shiela Blumstein should be taken out with the rest of the ingrates that sadly populate too many places on the Brown campus. Reality is reality and Brown has followed the national trend of admitting unqualified "Third World" students. The actions of these students are of no surprise to the many of us who have screamed the loudest about this misguided quota system Brown panders to. o Daniel, I think that Robert Byrd, Democratic US Senator from WV has the answer to your query "There are white niggers too!" o It seems to me that Brown should take all of these "Third World" students and send them back to their namesake. .It's time to stop the affirmative action that is letting these unqualified students in to Brown in the first place. The fact that the University yields an inch to these ungrateful unqualified "Third World" students is shameful beyond words. What has happened to our school? o SLAVERY WAS THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO AMERICAN BLACKS -Otherwise they might still be in africa infested with AIDS instead of pretending to be princes and princesses of that land here in the USA. A note to the Hefty white girl in the picture picking up the papers, Will you care when the black savages such as in the Fat Tuesday riot of Seattle are at your door or will you still want to "help" them then? o I can't pronounce any of these names. Please provide a phonetic spelling "Supporters of the coalition, including Amit Sarin '03, Asmara Ghebremichael '01 and Robert Herreria '02, refused to comment for this story" I am offended by the term used in the article "People of Color". This is a racist term used to exclude only White people. African-Americans are notorious for their anti-educational attitudes (it is acting white) their lack of a family unit and crime & violence. At my university, the Math, Computer Science, Engineering and other departments are mostly Asians, Arabs and Indians. I live in a neighborhood (in NYC) with a lot of all three above mentioned races and amazingly I have never been insulted, mugged, harassed, offered drugs, or witnessed any shootouts involving them. In fact they are quite family oriented, non-violent and put a big emphasis on education and work. More so than some "White neighborhoods" that I have lived in. You must be a product of affirmative action if you are actually a student at Brown. o Or maybe you are a product of affirmative action which would explain your limited ability to rationalize. I feel sorry for Brown because they have obviously lowered their standards for admission. That would explain the TWC membership and their inability to deal with opposing viewpoints in an adult manner. o Well - if I, a White Non-jewish male, and if I stole some periodicals which I had a "racial" problem with, I would be charged with a "HATE CRIME" - If a "person of color" says "nigger", that's OK. But if I call a nigger a nigger - Woah .. there's a problem - I'm so fed up with all of this "you owe me for slavery" - I don't own a nigger and wouldn't want one in my house. SO GET A LIFE or go back to the "Africa" that you all want the title of. Us "Proud Ignorant White" folks are getting sick of the NAACP/BET/UOWEME" screaming for rights that only you have. I paid for my college education at a real school - If you didn't have these "nigger studies", you wouldn't pass. Racial Regards, Keep it Pure! Morgan C. LaMorte o Well maybe if you anything goes dick in the ass liberals had not spoon fed welfare and cultivated a totally dysfunctional underclass maybe we wouldn't have all of this. As for Africa being a family oriented nice place. Well go there and take your whore wife and daughter with you Bill. I'm sure the Zulu tribe will have a blast with Hill and Chelsea. Talk about the world's largest gang bang. o If this country were left to minorities to run we would in short order see the whole nation turned to a filthy dysfunctional third world. Just look at the native countries of all these whinning minorities. These countries have been around longer than in the US and they are all mostly primitive uncivilized savage grubby little third world sewers. Look at Africa, they still have tribal wars, sell their own as slaves and kill at will. Look anywhere south of our borders. Latino countries are live in sewers full of incivility, violence, dysfunction and constant violent power struggles between power hungry left wing facist mobs and right wing dictators. If not for civilized whites from western europe, there would be no US for pussies like you to bitch about. Why dont you take all your libbo leftie pals and go live in Africa or Central America. Then you can be around all the homies you so love to defend. I just wonder how long it will be before they rape the libbo girls and beat you all to death in the streets before robbing your cold dead corpses of anything you may have. o second rate undeserving affirmative action flunkie, o The few so far (toadies) haven't been too articulate and their ebonics doesn't translate too well. o Are you all just Dumb Beasts??? o These ignorant savages o Is our minorities learning? This appeared in The Brown Daily Herald on Thursday, April 12, 2001 Blumstein gets letter criticizing U. handling of Horowitz matter UCS calls on U. to dismiss charges against coalition for Herald theft Rally calls for working-class tax cuts AFL-CIO's Chavez-Thompson speaks on revitalizing labor Journalist speaks on Vietnam-era pols 'Womanism in Brooklyn' examines feminism The forums below are designed for real-time user discussion about news and commentary contained in The Herald. All comments below are generated by users of the site, and in no way reflect the views of The Brown Daily Herald Inc. The presence of comments in the Heraldsphere forums does not imply any endorsement or advocation by The Herald of the ideas or opinions contained in the posts. Please read the full forums policy before reading or adding comments. There are 27 reader comments. A Censor Committee at Brown? Posted: Tuesday April 17, 2001: 12:46 AM By: Kel Mactell After reading "Complete text of faculty letter to President Blumstein," my thoughts are.... To Brown's PC Censor Committee: Lundy Braun Paul Buhle Wendy Chun Elliott Colla Christopher Conway Dorothy Denniston Kay Dian Kriz Madhu Dubey Anani Dzidzienyo David Egilman Anne Fausto-Sterling Cynthia Garcia-Coll Lewis Gordon Paget Henry Mari Jo Buhle Rhett Jones Caroline Karp William Keach Robert Lee Suzanne Oboler Julio Ortega Aishah Rahman Amy Remensnyder Susan Smulyan Elmo Terry-Morgan Paula Vogel Sally Zierler The only catch to your demands are that you want to be the judge and jury of what is considered racist and intolerant, and we already know you consider anything you do not agree with to be racist and intolerant. That leaves very little expression allowed for those of us who have a wide range of differing opinions and thoughts, all of which you would censor simply by calling them racist. You have devised a devilishly simple way to shut down any debate or opposition to your opinions and thoughts. Are you sure you have read the Constitution? How boring your Brown campus would be! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- A Censor Committee at Brown? Posted: Tuesday April 17, 2001: 12:42 AM By: Kel Mactell After reading "Complete text of faculty letter to President Blumstein," my thoughts are... To Brown's PC Censor Committee: Lundy Braun Paul Buhle Wendy Chun Elliott Colla Christopher Conway Dorothy Denniston Kay Dian Kriz Madhu Dubey Anani Dzidzienyo David Egilman Anne Fausto-Sterling Cynthia Garcia-Coll Lewis Gordon Paget Henry Mari Jo Buhle Rhett Jones Caroline Karp William Keach Robert Lee Suzanne Oboler Julio Ortega Aishah Rahman Amy Remensnyder Susan Smulyan Elmo Terry-Morgan Paula Vogel Sally Zierler The only catch to your demands are that you want to be the judge and jury of what is considered racist and intolerant, and we already know you consider anything you do not agree with to be racist and intolerant. That leaves very little expression allowed for those of us who have a wide range of differing opinions and thoughts, all of which you would censor simply by calling them racist. You have devised a devilishly simple way to shut down any opposition to your opinions and thoughts. Are you sure you have read the Constitution? How boring your Brown campus would be! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Students of Color Posted: Friday April 13, 2001: 5:49 AM By: Anon Let us remember who the true facists are on campus, students of color. This ridculouslness which claims the horowitz ad is so dangerous that we must take matters in our own hands to supress it denies the ability of others to evaluate the arguments he makes, and is a sign of the morally bankrupt positions students of color seem to embrace. We WILL disagree, we are a society of many different viewpoints. Recognizing that we should insure that we have a set of rules that allow us to express our opinions, and maintain some semblance of a civil society. We do, and those principles have been trampled by third world community and its accomplices. Fight for equal justice, and never forget who the facists are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- UNITE AGAINST FASCISM Posted: Friday April 13, 2001: 3:50 AM By: ALUM 2000 This message is for people who are fearful of the rise of fascism in this country and in our universities, a fear I believe is warranted. Many of you have been duped. Horowitz' design here is clear: to have a politically naive group of white liberals and centrists fall for a bunk interpretation of the First Amendment, thereby unwittingly aligning themselves with ultra-right racist forces that they would normally reject out of hand. Horowitz' ad appears under the guise of a policy piece against reparations because its meant to ensure that any students of color that respond appear as separatists. And since the white center holds up the constitution without an understanding of its content or purpose, these students are also portrayed as anti-American. The cries of "send them back" or "kick them out" soon follow. Don't any of you proud liberals feel odd that your position precludes you from distancing yourself from overtly racist elements? You can unite with white supremacists in calling anti-racist students "Fascists" all you like, but the political reality is actually something quite different. The matter on the table is: who will stand up, at this crucial moment, to say that this university is not a place where only white people are welcome. Political correctness, which I happen to detest, is not the issue. Surely, posturing language police come out of the woodwork during a controversy like this. However, the real issue is whether or not it is possible for a "liberal" institution to recognize and condemn behavior that emboldens racists. Facts: A small group of white editors work for a paper that has strained race relations with many communities of color. They follow the Horowitz ad as it moves from campus to campus. They know the Horowitz ad will come to Brown eventually. They are well aware of the effect it has had at other schools. They DECIDE to print the ad without editorial comment. Recall--they are students. No matter where they work, they are responsible for upholding tenets of behavior that bind them to a specific community. A multi-racial group of students demands a substantive apology for behavior that falls short of the campus' high standards of social responsibility. The editors refuse, saying they will print a Holocaust denial ad. After printing an ad that uses misinformation to diminish the brutality of a crime against humanity (which the New York Times cannot do as a matter of policy), the editors adopt a stance of "professionalism." They use their paper to intimidate, harass, and criminalize anyone who takes a public position against them. The anti-racist students are condemned as anti-American and the white editors cast as national heroes. Fascists burn books devoted to political equality and intellectual freedom. Fascists also have fascist presses that intimidate minority populations. "Kick them out" "send them back": this one seems simple to me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- again to Bubba Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 10:11 PM By: student I agree with you. In fact, I think the faculty are guilty in this letter of (a perhaps more civilized form of) name-calling to the extent that they use words like "slander" and "symbolic" irresponsibly. Your post is much more based on facts and standard use of words than their letter is, and it's nice to see a rebuttal of their letter with such a nice argument. Even if one does not agree with it entirely, it's laid out such that one who disagrees can cite specifically where they disagree. That's how debate goes forward. Unfortunately, many who criticized the Horowitz ad and the faculty letter ignored this, and simply resorted to name-calling. To the extent that the faculty letter contains more allegations than argumentation for their principles, I would have to say that their letter is an example of the kind of unconstructive dialogue that has been going on (side-to-side with the constructive dialogue that some have chosen to engage in). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Hate Horowitz, love Horowitz, revile, regale, revere - but do such in a civil fashion Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 10:08 PM By: Jeffrey Purcell BDH is free, so it is difficult to "steal," yet I doubt any of the thieves (there is no equivocation; those papers were stolen) would claim that their actions were anything but theft. What happened is antithetical to the tenants of civil disobedience. What confuses me most is why the BDH was stolen at all. If those who destroyed it believed the argument to be so profane, vulgar, degrading and fundamentally racist that its very publication is an affront to Brown students of color and the Brown community - then shouldn't they have let the Brown community and Brown's students of color realize it for themselves rather than attempt to deprive them of the opportunity to judge Horowitz's argument for themselves? If Horowitz's argument were so insulting and illogical - then it would be obvious to readers, and no protests, no crimes, would be required in the situation. Wanting to silence Horowitz is illogical in the most abecedarian of ways. The decision to steal the BDH was impetuous and inane - the conspirators neither deprived the Brown community of Horowitz's argument nor succeeded in presenting their own. Was it their intention to mute Horowitz? If so, their actions amplified his voice. Was it their intention to punish the BDH for printing the ad three days prior? If so, they again failed, as the BDH has received more free press around the nation than it could have imagined. I do not applaud BDH for printing the ad, nor should any words of praise or indignation be spoken or written on the subject. A legitimate and objective news source must print any advertisement that is neither vulgar nor fabricated. This is what makes the news source creditable; its objectivity gives readers the chance to sample myriad ideas, viewpoints, and ideals. Furthermore, I condemn the decision of college newspapers throughout the nation for their apologies after printing the ad, and others for the refusal to print it in the first place.. Indeed, the reputations of your papers have suffered, as the subjectivity and predilections of editorial boards has supplanted a dedication to journalism and the diffusion of news and ideas. Stealing newspapers is an abomination. Requesting free advertising space is ridiculous. I am bewildered that students could have the audacity to make such an outrageous request. President Blumstein and future President Simmons should allow BDH to monitor itself, and should pursue policies to ensure that every student (regardless of color, creed, and nation of origin) is given the same opportunities for scholarship at Brown. They must pursue punishment for all those who attempted to silence (while inadvertently making his unconventional ideas appear rational when juxtaposed with the radical actions of so many across this nation) a legitimate advertisement. BDH should be a veritable news source for the Brown Community and no group should be permitted punish the BDH for doing what it should have done all along - print the ad. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- to KT Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 6:45 PM By: white female How exactly do we know that this is not the final draft? I have it on pretty good authority that it is, in fact the final draft received by President Blumstein. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- In a spirit of civility. Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 6:27 PM By: Bubba To student: that last sentence -- where I said that I don't know what in the world you were reading -- was harsh. I take it back, because I agree with you that ad hominem attacks have no place, particularly where the faculty letter is so clearly susceptible to substantive critiques of the letter's logic. As has been mentioned, it is pure spin to say that criticism of the Coalition (and supporters) equals slander, but theft equals a symbolic act (no longer civil disobedience, for that implies willingness to accept punishment). Both characterizations seem to suggest that two sets of rules should apply -- one for the Coalition, and another for everyone else. This is a very provocative theory of rules, and until these faculty members formulate a principled defense of this proposition consisting of more than conclusory statements, my position will remain that we should strive to devise one single set of fair and morally defensible rules, do our best to apply them uniformly, and when existing structures prevent uniform application of rules, abolish these structures. Unfortunately, the faculty substitute faulty logic for careful argumentation, saying the Coalition "acted out of frustration, and, consequently, in symbolic protest" over the Horowitz ad and the BDH's refusal to give free ad space. Are we meant to believe that any time a person acts out of frustration, it follows as a consequence that the act was "symbolic" and, by extension of the faculty's logic, immune from punishment? By the same rationale, a white person frustrated with uppity blacks might burn a church in frustration and later claim immunity on the basis that his act was fueled by frustration. It is easy to see how meaningless the faculty's statement really is. Perhaps what they are saying is that only "oppressed people" are immune from punishment for so-called symbolic acts arising from frustration. However, if this were the case, the argument suffers from the reality that the world is not neatly divided into "the oppressed" and the "non-oppressed." Moreover, such a theory of justice would create massive resentment among those who are not protected by the same rules that bind them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- to Bubba Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 5:55 PM By: student You are certainly right that there have been a lot of constructive comments, and I misspoke the extent to which the comments were mere insults, especially in this particular thread. (Some of the other threads, including the one yesterday were not nearly as good as sticking to content, IMHO.) Still, I would say that calling the faculty "hacks" and "vile and hypocritical authoritarians" is counterproductive to worthwhile debate. It's similar to the claims that David Horowitz is a racist and such. Even if the faculty are hacks, even if Horowitz is a racist (I don't believe either to be true, but who knows?) ... that's not what is being debated. What is being debated are ideas (be it reparations or university administration policies). And I think it's really teriffic that a lot of people have added insightful comments to the debate that have focused on the ideas involved. But "venting" or whatever you want to call using personal insults is really destructive to good debate, and it's becoming frightingly common and acceptable in American debate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Responses to Faculty Letter Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 5:42 PM By: Bubba I disagree with "student." There have been plenty of substantive responses to the faculty letter (though some have used this board to vent, which to me is understandable). Matt noted that silencing free speech is not necessary to make people feel safe. "Suppression" pointed out that many kinds of statements were once thought of as "dangerous." Mark McDonough '78 pointed out the totalitarian ring of justifying restrictions on free expression by invoking "the people." Alex revealed the hypocrisy of attacking others for anonymously posting while seeking to keep their own communications secret. "Mister Sensitive" noted, in essence, that the faculty was making the mistake of confusing a handful of nuts on the message board with the prevailing student opinion, and "white female" added that the faculty letter underestimates the ability of readers to see inflammatory and racist posts for what they are: attempts to get a rise out of people. "Chris '01" noted that the faculty letter tends to essentialize people of color, with the implication that the "people of color" on campus are monolithic and all think and react the same. "Alum '99" observed the dubious nature of the claim the the BDH intended to undermine Dr. Simmons's presidency. This is just a handful of the posts. There is plenty of analysis in the posts. I don't know what in the world "student" is reading. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- irony? Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 5:09 PM By: student I find it ironic that the replies to this letter have focused more on insulting the faculty and suggesting they don't belong here than countering their argument. Kinda like the response of many to the Horowitz ad, no? I disagree with almost all of this letter, but isn't it good for us to hear an opposing point of view? I think that, in taking an interest in a key issue on campus and expressing their opinion, these faculty contribute something to the debate. Yes, I think there are many poor arguments that should be rebutted. But no, that does not mean these professors don't belong here or anything of the sort. This (like the Horowitz ad) is what freedom of speech (as an ideal, not necessarily a legal principle) is all about -- we let people speak their minds on issues and don't condemn them for HAVING AN OPINION. That's why we don't say David Horowitz's ad doesn't belong here and that's why we don't say this faculty letter doesn't belong here (though I wonder how many people actually are saying neither). That's why we rebut the poor arguments that are made in both cases, and think a little harder about the good points that are there (even if not always developed). And, yes, there is some real content in both Horowitz's ad and the faculty's letter. How many of us (and I've had to ask this of myself quite a lot during the debate on this issue) are really looking at things with an open mind and thinking rationally about all sides? (Maybe even willing to try to find a way to tolerate and resolve some of the conflicts of interests that have naturally arisen...but I have become, I fear, overly optomistic...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- WTF? Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 4:00 PM By: KT We know for fact that this is not the final draft of the letter. So why the hell is the BDH printing it as though it is. Geez, guys, wait for the final draft to come out, the one that our president will actually have to consider, and print that one. What is the point of printing this? Let's see what the final one has to say. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Singled out Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 3:05 PM By: Bubba The faculty letter suggests that the University is improperly "singling out" students of color for punishment. (Note: we don't even know whether the University is going to do anything, but assume for the sake of argument that it is.) The "singling out" rhetoric suggests that the University is being irrational and acting with a pernicious motive. Nope. It is acting against the students who were unlucky enough to be photographed. When a crime involving many actors is committed, it is common that authorities will not be able to identify every actor. All that can be done is punish those you can identify. Not long ago there was a well-publicized incident in Central Park where a mob took to attacking and groping women. After reviewing photos and videotape of the incident, the police were able to arrest some of the culprits. The fact that every single person involved was not punished does not mean that those who were punished were "singled out." It simply means that the police were unable to identify every person involved. Should all of the Central Park gropers go free because a large number will never be identified? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Th cabal of 57 Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 2:59 PM By: Old Alum The thieves almost look harmless when compared to this cabal of 57. Are they planning a coup d'etat with all this backchannel, eyes only(if you have the right eyes), confidential razz-ma-tazz----give us all a break! If I were S. Blumstein I would only accept their three hump camel letter with the understanding that it and her reply would be made public in the NYT. Today we have a great letter from Professor Ken Miller and yesterday some doctors did the same. Seems all those who understand what it means to be a liberal are in the science departments. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Huh? Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 2:50 PM By: Alum '99 The part of the letter where the faculty accuse the BDH of laying out a "treacherous welcome mat" for Ruth Simmons is asinine. Not only is it rank speculation, it does not make sense. If the TWC-itstas had simply written an articulate rebuttal without stealing newspapers and attacking free speech -- as they should have -- this would not be a scandal. It would be a good example of civilized and mature debate. It is the immature, myopic Coalition members and their faculty enablers who have laid out the treacherous welcome mat for Dr. Simmons. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- My sensitivites have been offended Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 2:23 PM By: Hurt As a believer in free speech, reading the letter from the faculty has hurt my feelings and offended me and it therefore must be considered "hate speech" . I would now expect that all signers will rally to protect me from this verbal harrasment and demand that all issues of the BDH containing this letter be stolen in order to protect my feelings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- essentializing apparatchiks... Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 1:48 PM By: chris 01 i find it amusing (or perhaps somewhat sad and disturbing) that humanities professors who otherwise subscribe to anti-essentialism pomo dogma (ok, so i don't mean everyone who signed the letter, obviously, but those few whom i have taken classes with) make repeated statements here about "students of color" on this campus, assuming this group to be uniform in its sentiments and opinions. what about the anti-coalition group formed by students of color, a group with at least 100 members last time i checked? i suppose that must have slipped their minds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Saddened to see... Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 1:36 PM By: anon As an alum and the parent of a Brown student, I am constantly amazed at the total disconnect between Brown and the real world. In the real world the First Amendment is vigorously defended to afford all parties the opportunity to say (sometimes) outlandish things which serve to infuriate a large proportion of the population. At Brown, a newspaper which does just that (albeit for a profit) is harshly critized for remaining true to same ideal. In the real world, people are punished for breaking the law. At Brown, the enforcers are critized for trying to punish wrongdoers. My $35,000 a year should be utilized to allow my child to realize the benefits of a liberal arts education, where all views and opinions should be expressed freely. Instead, we have to put up with this drivel. Please grow up! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- think hard before your answer Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 1:29 PM By: white female I am saddened to read the racist and hateful comments at the bottom of this letter. But as a thinking white woman I can read them and reject them as such. The faculty need to give the student body a little more credit I think. Do you really believe people are fearing for their lives? I mean really? Do you really believe people on this campus are filled with racist hate filled hearts? I mean honestly? If you're so uncomfortable even here at Brown University, then maybe you should find someplace else to work/learn. Good luck. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Lunatic fringe on the right AND left Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 1:15 PM By: Owen Gray, ALum 97 As disgusting as I find the above listed quotes, I could offer these "professors" some choice samples from the likes of "16suns" and others. I am shocked that faculty (not tenured, I hope) would call for this sort of represseve measures on one hand while whining about their own confidentiality. Once again, the Herald will get my contribution this year untill the administration restores some dignity to this iunstituion. Thank God for the Herald, I'm glad you guys chose financial independance with all the risks that enatils rather than be subject to the dictats of UCS sycophants and the vocal fringe of (mainly humanities) faculty. You have all danced a jolly little jig to Horowitz's tune, elevating his status in the national spotlight and making a public mockery of yourselves and some very worthy ideals. The school and the country have been dealt a great disservice by the coalition and these 60 faculty hacks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Oh jeez Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 12:59 PM By: Mister Sensitive OK, so some of these are shall we say, a little racist and over the top. Some are merely misguided complaints, and some are humourous or legitimate criticisms. Apparently criticizing affirmative action is hate speech. But how seriously can you take these comments? They are anonymous postings on a student newspaper. The ones making the really racist comments are yahoos who don't have the guts to leave their real names. They are absolutely pathetic. Why would one ever can enough what these losers think to feel insulted? The professors and coalition students need to realize how unimportant in the big scheme of things these comments are. These are some misguided idiots posting. Please do not confuse them with real legitimate posts or with David Horowitz. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Alice in Wonderland? Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 12:18 PM By: Alex Schulman I have a har time believing these people are (tenured?) faculty. It's past childish, and just plain bizarre: how can you request that the University trace IP adresses on the BDH forum and then cry about your own privileges of "confidentiality"? How can you slander the Herald, suggesting it be punished and those who stole it coddled (dare I say... commended, Prof. Gordon?) and then call its mere publishing of the letter "adversarial" journalism? Who's adversarial here? Who's slandering who? The BDH, aligned with David Horowitz, is trying to undermine Ruth Simmons' entrance as President? Is this a fucking joke? The Herald published a genuine draft of the document (standard journalistic practice) so if that act was "inflammatory," I can only surmise that the Professors realize that what was IN THE LETTER was inflammatory. The BDH simply printed parts in a news story; it didn't editorialize. So the inflammation must be coming from the Professors, who sadly seem to have a lot to learn from students at Brown, rather than vice versa. Once again, the message: free speech and safety and all that is wonderful, but it's much more wonderful if we're all holding hands on the left. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Investigate the Faculty, not the BDH Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 12:12 PM By: Mark McDonough '78 I am also appalled that faculty members would sign this letter. Freedom of speech as long as no one is offended and it doesn't harm the interests of "the people." Sounds like the first amendment filtered through Joseph Stalin. This sort of totalitarian thinking, whether from the left or the right, has no place in a university. Ironically, in protesting Horowitz's rather foolish intellectual prank, the Usual Suspects on the Brown faculty have revealed themselves to be creepy left-wing authoritarians -- a truth long known on campus, but rarely discussed. This is *precisely* what Horowitz hoped to accomplish, and I'm sure he's falling on the floor laughing. Forget investigating the BDH (for what?). I think Brown is long overdue for a good old-fashioned Red Hunt. Eliminating these vile and hypocritical authoritarians from the faculty might save Brown from being an international laughingstock, which is pretty much what it's been reduced to. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- sad Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 11:19 AM By: alum69 After reading "Complete text of faculty letter to President Blumstein," my thoughts are...I am truly saddened that intelligent people could write or endorse such an appalling letter. These faculty represent the nadir of academia. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Suprising Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 9:52 AM By: Supression Not only does TWC seek to suppress free speech, but they now seek to suppress the speech of those who condem them? The points made in the attached "hate speech" comments are good ones. The efforts to prohibit this "dangerous" speech on campus, including efforts to limit the dissemention of the Horowitz add, do not do justice to brown students ability to evaluate for themselves what is credible and what is not. And lets not forget earlier examples of "dangerous speech" that were fought tooth and nail. Anti-slavery messages, a women's right to vote are but a few that come to mind. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- disgrace Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 9:01 AM By: matt I can't believe the idiocy inherent in this letter. Calling for the U. to stop disciplinary actions against a group of students who admittedly violated the code of conduct? The worst thing this university could do for race relations is to not punish the coalition for their actions, thereby setting up a double standard - it's ok to break the rules as long as you're doing it for a liberal cause. I don't know about the BDH slandering anybody, but some of the comments I have read that were made by Lewis Gordon come mighty close to slandering the BDH editors. Maybe the university should investigate him. I would like to hear how a BDH editor "slandered" a Brown professor. I am thankful that no professors that I actually respect have attached their names to this garbage. About the only thing that I agree with the authors on is campus safety - if anyone (coalition member or BDH staff) feels afraid to walk across campus then something should be done - but that something is not silencing speech in the form of advertisement - maybe increasing the hours of safewalk or the escort service. I would also like to remind the community that there are plenty of respected professors in the community - Ed Beiser and Ken Miller come to mind who have denounced the actions of the coalition instead of justifying violations of the code of conduct because it is ideologically appealing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Investigate what? Posted: Thursday April 12, 2001: 8:31 AM By: Student Investigate BDH for what? Placing an ad? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- The Brown Daily Herald / Serving the Brown University community daily since 1891 *********** From: "herror" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re Brown Profs for Emial Crackdown Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 05:27:40 -0400 Sent the follwoing to the Brwon Daily Herald discussion list: There are 28 reader comments. "As you know'' , they bluffed Posted: Tuesday April 17, 2001: 5:21 AM By: Tom Brennan I'm interested in the contention by 27 of Brown's uh, most tenured, that: "As you know, the University can use IP addresses to trace the source of every communication, anonymous or otherwise, on the web. Thus, we cannot help but wonder why, more than two weeks after the publication of the inflamatory statement by Horowitz, the University has failed to take strong action against the injurious racist insults and attacks on the BDH web pages, against any faculty and/or student who writes against the ad and other related injurious comments about people of color on campus." WHO really "knows" this. Do the signers? I'd be willing to bet that this paragraph was the work of one of the signers who harbors delusions of tech savvy , something I would also bet is vanishingly rare among their number, technical savvy that is not delusions of grandeur technical and otherwise. They would also seem to be talking out of their collective hat in contending the university has any legal right (you can bet they didn't waste anytime worrying over the ethical scruples of it) to access whatever info might be available. The BDH posts the following on its site: "Though identifying information from users - including but not limited to IP addresses and routing records - is not revealed on the site, this information may be released to law enforcement authorities with proper cause." Unless the University is a recognized law enforcement authority in it's spare time, a kind of institutional Batman, and unless the lawmakers of Rhode Island have criminalized nasty comments in open online discussion groups, I can't imagine how Braun, Buhle et al picture the University proceeding with its investigation. I was also dismayed by the rank alphabetism displayed by the signatories to the communique. And they misspelled "inflammatory." Oops, how spellist of me. Tom Brennan Phila Pa [EMAIL PROTECTED] ********* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
