Crimson Is No Friend of Black People

"To limit First Amendment rights in any way--whether by censoring...speaker[s], demanding a public apology, or acting in a way that intimidates them so that they refrain from speaking freely--sets a dangerous precedent in an academic community... No student, faculty member or administrator should feel repressed on the basis of vague and flexible standards of 'offensiveness'" ("Free Speech at Harvard: Keep Talking," Opinion, March 16, 1993).

A year and a half ago, The Crimson used these words to defend Thomson Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53's right to argue his widely disputed and unsubstantiated theories linking grade inflation to the influx of Black students at Harvard. Misinterpreting the call of Zaheer R. Ali '94, then president of the Black Students Association (BSA), for substantiation or refutation as an attempt to limit free speech, The Crimson rushed to defend Mansfield with lofty references to the benefits of free expression and the guarantees of the First Amendment.

Perhaps it was the First Amendment that The Crimson had in mind when it first reported Mansfield's ideas, unchallenged and unquestionably accepted, earlier that year ("Buell Letter Warms of Grade Inflation," news story, Jan. 15, 1993), or when it later publicized the findings of a confidential study obtained from some unknown source-- a study by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE) issued to member institutions in December, 1991 that analyzed admissions rates and SAT scores according to racial categories ("Report Discloses SATs, Admit Rate," news story, May 7, 1993).

But even then. The Crimson's vocal commitment to "free speech" was becoming muted (and moot) because of its selective coverage. For instance, even though President Neil Rudenstine had expressed his disagreement with Mansfield's grade inflation theory and had offered alternative explanations in a late January, 1993 interview, The Crimson's news staff failed to report it until March 3, 1993--only after the BSA had challenged the news organization's failure to consult more authoritative sources in its treatment of Mansfield's theory. In addition, the news staff's treatment of the confidential COFHE report attempted to reduce the complicated admissions process to a numbers game and was perceived by many as a concealed offensive on Black students at Harvard. But then again, the official position at the paper was that such "vague and flexible standards of 'offensiveness'" should not be the basis upon which students, faculty members or administrators feel "repressed." "Free speech, "The Crimson's staff wrote, "must be paramount."

After reading the staff editorial, "Clarke Should Retract Statements" (Nov. 4, 1994), we were left wondering whose free speech? Whites'? Or just whites who contemplate notions of Black inferiority? Unfortunately, The Crimson's staff failed to heed its own words in its treatment of BSA President Kristen Clarke '97, whose challenge of The Bell Curve, by Charles A. Murray '65 and the late Professor Richard Herrnstein ("Blacks Seek an End to Abuse," opinion, Oct. 28, 1994) elicited the staff's condemnation and the kinds of intimidation The Crimson has warned against earlier: Either Clarke would retract her words and issue a public apology and step down from her position as BSA president or be ousted.

This act of intimidation flies in the face of The Crimson's past support of free speech and is evidence of the staff's adherence to a double standard--one that sanctions public ruminations on theories of Black inferiority while censuring discussion of any ideas that challenge notions of white supremacy.

In combating this double standard, Clarke engages some of The Bell Curve's arguments by offering two major points that should be considered by those examining the book: First, Clarke emphasizes that environmental factors, such as limited access to quality education and society's reinforcement of negative stereotypes, have a significant impact on Black academic performance. Second, by listing five theories and observations that suggest that darker-skinned people may indeed benefit--other than cosmetically--from the presence of melanin, Clarke calls for a more open, comprehensive examination of race and intelligence.

Indeed, as The Crimson staff argues, students' views (as well as the views of others) should be subject to cross-examination. Certainly, The Bell Curve should be discussed, if not for the book's merits, then perhaps for the purpose of allowing free speech the opportunity to disprove its assertions. But the staff turns a deaf ear to Clarke's free speech. Instead of investigating the sources and studies Clarke cites, The Crimson's staff declares that anyone who merely explores those views is guilty of "bigotry, pure and simple." For The Crimson's staff, Clarke's speech is not free and the price of manumission is quite high.

Apparently, this is how things go 'on the Harvard plantation. 'It was only two and a half years ago that The Crimson launched a similar attack on another Black leader on campus, Director of the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations S. Allen Counter, after he had penned a letter that articulated students' concerns about the Crimson's role in exacerbating racial and ethnic tensions ("The Crimson Misinterpreted the Harvard Foundation," Opinion, April 14, 1992). In an attempt to cloud the issues, The Crimson's staff responded with an attempt at character assassination that falsely accused Counter of "anti-Semitism"--a charge recently revisited in another staff editorial ("Counter Drags the Foundation Down," opinion, Oct. 25, 1994)--and demanded that either he retract his statements or relinquish his charge of race relations at Harvard.

Joining a vocal and diverse chorus of student organizations--including the Asian-American Association, La Organization Estudantil Boricual, Raza, the Society of Arab students and even The Peninsula, in a special supplement to its publication--who defended Counter and corroborated many of the points raised in his letter, then-BSA president Art A. Hall '93 charged that "The Crimson has served to exacerbate tensions among racial and ethenic groups," and that the "style of reporting in which The Crimson has purposely engaged itself certainly does reveal a disturbing trend toward the discrediting of the BSA and creating and intensifying conflict between BSA and other groups."

And now, The Crimson, criticized for attempting to discredit the BSA and cited repeatedly for freeing speech which questions Black people's abilities, wants to limit the speech of those who would stand up for Black people? And then have the audacity to attempt to handpick Black students' leadership, under the guise of being concerned about "the BSA's hard-earned credibility"?

The Crimson knows that "Clarke wasn't here for the (CUNY Professor Leonard) Jeffries lecture" in the spring of 1992, and perhaps the staff hopes that by praising the BSA's "Very important role...in the Harvard community" its revisionist attempt to recast itself as the protecting friend of the BSA will go unnoticed and unchallenged by those who were absent during its major conflict with the Black community.

But we are not fooled. The Crimson is no friend of Black people. In light of The Crimson's history and its staff's recent actions, we see through your hypocrisy as if looking through a glass house. And with such a stone thrown as the staff editorial attacking' Kristen Clarke, we are surprised that the house at 14 Plympton Street is still standing. --Zaheer R. Ali '94, BSA president, 1992-93, Art A. Hall '93, BSA president, 1991-92, Tayyab I. Walker '94, BSA historian, 1992-94, Elizabeth A. Kirby '94, BSA secretary, 1992-93, Ouzama N. Nicholson '94, Harvard Foundation Student Advisory Committee co-chair, 1992-93, Lisa D. Ellis '94-'95, African-American Cultural Council co-chair, 1992-93, Alison E. McKenzie '94, AACC co-chair, 1992-93, Aida Bekele '94, HFSAC co-chair, 1992-93.