[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 30 (Thursday, March 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     FIGHTING RACISM AT THE SOURCE

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, for more than a year now, the world has 
watched the horror of ethnic cleansing continue daily in war-torn 
Bosnia. Despite the tragedy of these events, many in the United States 
have learned little about the consequences of racial and ethnic hatred. 
Indeed, we have seen hate crimes and bigotry persist in this country 
almost undaunted.
  The remarks of Khalid Abdul Muhammad, a minister of Louis Farrakhan, 
at Howard University last month triggered an extended debate among 
columnists, editorial boards, and community leaders about free speech 
and racism. While it is easy to watch this battle be fought in the 
abstract on the printed page, we must also accept responsibility for 
fighting it in concrete terms. Spokespeople can fight this battle for 
us, but generals alone do not win wars.
  None of us is a passive spectator in the war on racism and bigotry, 
we are all active participants. To borrow a military term, this is not 
a limited conflict, it is an expansive one which involves every person 
opposed to bigotry.
  Martin Niemoller once wrote:

       First the Nazis came for the Communists and I didn't speak 
     up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews 
     and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came 
     for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I 
     wasn't a trade unionist. And when they came for the 
     Catholics, I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then 
     they came for me. And by that time there was no one left to 
     speak up for anyone.

  Howard Jenifer, the president of Howard University, concurs. In a 
recent essay on this subject he asserted: ``History has taught us that 
when people fail to speak out on issues of oppression, abuse, and 
hatred, they, in effect, acquiesce and condone these evils. Thus 
`neutrality' becomes `complicity''' which does not come without its 
consequences.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Jenifer's thoughtful essay be made a 
part of the Record following these remarks.
  There being no objection, the essay was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                         Decrying Anti-Semitism

                        (By Franklyn G. Jenifer)

       As we move toward a more global community, one barrier that 
     remains is the legacy of prejudice and discrimination.
       A great philosopher once said that the natural state of man 
     is conflict. That conflict has been fueled by racism, 
     xenophobia, chauvinism and ethnocentrism, as we see so 
     poignantly today both at home and abroad.
       Through the ages, many viliant efforts have been waged to 
     ameliorate these destructive forces. In fact, my institution, 
     Howard University, was created 127 years ago as a means to 
     combat racism, and we remain committed to that noble fight 
     today.
       Recent events in this nation and on our campus have shown 
     us that bias does not just come in one flavor. It is my 
     belief and the overwhelming belief of others in the Howard 
     community, that all forms of ethnic bias, especially 
     antisemitism, violate the principles on which our institution 
     was founded. Those of us who are committed to social justice 
     do not have the luxury of responding to prejudice just when 
     it is directed at our own group. We must respond to this 
     issue wherever it emerges and whatever the cost.
       One of the strengths of America is that it has always 
     attracted people from diverse cultures and backgrounds. 
     However, one cannot and should not step on another to promote 
     one's own agenda. To get ahead on the back of someone else is 
     not getting ahead. It is callous exploitation, pure and 
     simple.
       History has taught us that when people fail to speak out on 
     issues of oppression, abuse and hatred they, in effect, 
     acquiesce and condone these evils. Thus ``neutrality'' 
     becomes ``complicity.'' Moreover, we must recognize that a 
     socio-political climate in which it is acceptable for any one 
     group to be vilified is a climate in which all other 
     groups are vulnerable as well.
       At the same time, we must remember that the right of free 
     speech is inviolate, no matter how outrageous or offensive 
     the message. Howard University, and indeed all Americans, 
     should uphold and protect the principle of freedom of speech 
     and thought. The nation's universities must remain places 
     where all views and perspectives can be aired, even those we 
     find abhorrent. Though this right is sometimes abused, it is 
     so critical in the history of our nation and the struggle of 
     our people that it must be protected, especially when it is 
     not popular to do so.
       While upholding the First Amendment rights of those with 
     outrageous or offensive views, we must recognize the 
     responsibility to challenge these views. In doing so, we must 
     be wary of providing the individuals who espouse them with 
     more exposure than they would have had otherwise. It is a 
     timeworn propaganda technique to say something outrageous 
     just to be provocative. These individuals use the outrageous 
     to bait us. We should not jump for the bait.
       One of the most disturbing aspects of this phenomenon of 
     outrageous speech is that a small number of students on our 
     campuses tend to be cavalier and even nonchalant about the 
     implications and impact of these provocative utterances. 
     Perhaps, reflecting popular culture, they buy the idea that 
     the more outrageous the statement the more entertaining it 
     is.
       Two of the primary missions of our academic institutions 
     are to teach critical thinking and to teach humanistic 
     values. The present controversies demonstrate how important 
     it is for university administrators and faculty to recommit 
     themselves to these missions--for the good of our 
     institutions and for the future of our country.
       James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner--an 
     African American and two Jewish Americans--paid the ultimate 
     sacrifice almost 30 years ago in the struggle against bigotry 
     and oppression. In their memory and in the memory of all 
     those other valiant foot soldiers in that struggle, we can do 
     no less than to decry the seeds of antisemitism that some 
     would plant on the nation's campuses.

                          ____________________