[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.
____________________