Hampton crack down on anti-Bush students

Uncle Tom’s Cabin

RB, at 8:31 am EST on November 30, 2005

Strange

Why doesn’t the school just come out and say what they are doing? If it weren’t for their apparent track record, they might have a case in my mind.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 10:11 am EST on November 30, 2005

Application to Protest

“you were observed posting unauthorized materials, which advocated student participation in a protest activity that had not been registered or approved."——————————————————————-

Please, Sir, will you approve my protest?

normalvision, Prof. of English (ret.), at 12:01 pm EST on November 30, 2005

Bennie McMorris is a disgrace to the student affairs profession. Surely he must have had judicial affairs experience in his career leading up to the chief student affairs officer position. Is the distribution of fliers (approved or not) worthy of expulsion?

What’s the sanction is for students who engage in academic dishonesty? A lobotomy?

This article will be great for new student recruitment at Hampton!

Dr. RingDing, at 5:51 pm EST on November 30, 2005

Suppression of Speech

Dear Sir:

Read about the expulsion hearing that is to take place on Friday regarding students who were trying to organize a rally against Bush administration policies.

Democracy is about dissent and building constituencies to challenge and change the status quo. As a University you should be encouraging such activity and debate, not suppressing it.

Lord knows, we have a way to go towards returning civility to political discourse, but your administration actions are antithetical to purpose of your institution.

We need to expose students to ideas, to encourage them to challenge even our most cherised beliefs — we are stronger with dissent...

Please rethink what you are doing.

Joe McNeely, at 8:40 pm EST on November 30, 2005

And what about the real issue...organizing class skipping?

It seems that the administration at this school has commented on the part about organizing class walkouts (which are, at their core, counterproductive to what college is about...learning...IN class...)

Only the author and others are concerned about the flier issue. The administration only cites it in a list that leads up to organized walkouts.

You know, it is sometimes the protestors who are inappropriate...it’s not always “the man".

Robert, at 4:35 am EST on December 1, 2005

I find this incident concerning these students to be appalling, but as a graduate of an HBCU and knowing the character and political affiliation of most HBCU presidents is strongly pro-Republican. Students’ freedom of speech is being violated and they are using their flimsy policy story to shut the students down. If Mr. harvey allows this travesty to proceed, I would strongly encourage those students to sue the University. I thought in our business, we strive to cultivate students who are articulate and creative. Their is no change until the current administration leaves. It is a sad commentary when we beat up our students for speaking their conscience.

Bernard McCree, Director of Financial Aid and Registrar, at 8:16 am EST on December 1, 2005

student protests at hampton

Shades of the sixties and of the central tenets of the nightmare of the Bush era: when free-thinking citizens disagree with the established policy on war, or anything else, they are outlaws. This is inimical to the whole American tradition of free protest. The adminsitration of Hampton should look at their deeper purposes and see that they — like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice — and a host of others highly dangerous and destructive people, find the opinions of the students ‘un-patriotic’ and therefore unacceptable and even criminal. Such non-thinking diregards the fact that a majority of Americans are on the students’ side in their protests at this time. They may be ‘wrong’ in their opinions but the Constitution champions, quite unequivocally, the right to be wrong and speaking about it without persecution. I applaud the students for being much more aware than their masters. The administration needs to listen to the SUBSTANCE of what they are saying,and argue against it constructively or learn from it, not bury its head in the rule-book.

Keith Harrison, Emeritus Professor, Carleton College

keith harrison, emeritus professor at carleton college, at 11:14 am EST on December 1, 2005

Hampton

I sure think thet should get to voice thier opinions.And do not suffer for it.

Romelee, at 2:45 pm EST on December 1, 2005

Someone there needs to contact http://www.thefire.org and get them to step in. They supposedly work for free speech on campus.

David Koepsell, at 4:35 pm EST on December 1, 2005

I thought academia was a leftist snakepit

OR at least that’s what David Horriblewitz says. Guess he’s wrong. Again.

Jeanette, Student, at 7:57 am EST on December 2, 2005

Fired

Every administrator involved in this ridiculous stunt should be fired. Their actions shame the university and violate the Constitution.

Aside from the problem of selective inforcement of university policy, their proposed punishment is unjust and overly harsh. A normal school would simply warn the students, revoke their ability to engage in sanctioned student activities for a determinded period, or do nothing.

It seems that these administrators are more concerned with teaching their students about following rules than about black history.

Adam Barr, at 11:26 am EST on December 2, 2005

The White Rose

While I applaud Mr. Anderson’s knowledge of the White Rose and while I am sympathetic to the students at Hampton, the comparison to the White Rose is simply not accurate. Hans and Sophie Scholl, two of the founding members of the White Rose, did not live in a free society and did not have a right to free speech. (Whether free speech is God-given is another debate). Violating the laws of a government (or tyrrany) which carry a death sentence in a closed society is different from being expelled from school in a free society. These Hampton students have a recourse and the voices of thousands (mine included) to advocate for them.

Prof. Timothy Scholl, Program Director for General Education at Brooks Institute, at 11:50 am EST on December 2, 2005

looking at it differently

First of all, I think this is a sorry excuse for journalism. This article didn’t even attempt to give the university’s side of the story. It seems based on emails and heresay rather than fact and truth. What’s the university’s side of the story? By reading their statements it seems clear that it was based on procedures for posting material and the call for students to boycott classes, not the politics of it. In fact, if the same exact thing had happened without any reference to Bush and the War, no one would be upset in the least. But because of the heated political climate right now, everyone is up in arms because its been turned into a “pro-Bush"/"anti-Bush” debate. It seems like everyone has distorted this from its original basis. Look, I’m a proud Democrat who opposes the war and can’t wait for Bush and his cronies to leave office. But don’t make this a “left/right” issue when it isn’t. If the students had showed up and held their protest, no punishment would have occurred.They are in trouble because they posted hundreds of flyers around campus without approval and because they advocated the disruption of classes. Secondly, it doesn’t sound like the students were threatened with expulsion. Rather it seems like they jumped to that conclusion themselves by reading that that was the maximum possible penalty under the student handbook.

Byron Austin, at 7:13 pm EST on December 2, 2005

Byron, Most journalism is based on hearsay, so IHE is doing nothing wrong. Secondly, it usually is quite hard to get “the other side” of the story, but I suspect that IHE tried, and was either given the runaround or a “no comment.” Since IHE (in its blog-like format) works on tight deadlines, it probably can’t wait around until a subject consults its lawyers as to what its “position” on a matter should be.

But most importantly, if the politics had been reversed, and a “pro-Bush” rally had been suppressed everyone in the “free speech” crowd would be just as angry. And, it would still be news. Indeed, IHE seems to be covering both kinds of instances, and there seems to be just as much angst either way.

Louis, The strange thing about having students “sign and date” handbooks, is that they are usually vague, and schools often assert that they don’t have to follow them, anyway. Of course actions have consequences, but it is strange that the very people that are suppressing the speech are the ones argue, in essence “if you say something, the consequence is that I will harm you.” But, as you say, these students chose to be there, and since Hampton U isn’t amongst the best of schools (save for in its own mind) they knew what they were getting into. I mean, what did they expect from a school with a reputation for censorship and, apparently second-rate academics?

Bob, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with a president being a Lt. Col. in the reserves, but bragging about it is definitely a little wheezily.

Larry, at 10:04 am EST on December 3, 2005

White Rose exchange

This exchange (over the White Rose reference) concentrates a broader debate in society, especially among those who oppose the Bush regime. In brief, is it correct to compare the trends and dynamics of today to what went down in Germany between 1933 and 1945? What Professor Scholl misses in his reply is that no one is talking about the early years of Hitler’s ascension to power. The White Rose students were executed, as Robert Anderson points out in his letter, during World War II, and pretty far into it at that.

There was a whole dynamic, however, that went down in German society in the years preceding the execution of the White Rose students. Step by step and leap by leap, rights were stripped and new norms were put into effect, in what proved to be an inexorable dynamic. Very few, if any, predicted in February 1933 that things would go as far as they did; and many kept denying the dynamic for a very long time after the danger was apparent. And then it became too late to do anything.

Had someone told you five years ago, Mr. Scholl, that students would be threatened with expulsion for daring to pass out “unauthorized” leaflets; or arrested for doing street theater in campus common area for depicting torture carried out by the U.S. government, as they were at Hunter University; or forced to wear an ankle bracelet connected to the LAPD for simply participating in a protest, as Geovany Serrano has been in Los Angeles; or any other of dozens of similar outrages detailed on the site of the organizers of the November 2 protests (worldcantwait.org) – would you have found it unreasonable to say that the U.S. was heading in a fascist direction? Would you have found it wrong to invoke the comparison to the White Rose in pointing to what was at stake, and to where things were heading, if people did not resist? Yet today, through steps, people have been inured to the extreme character of what Vice-President Cheney has labelled the “new normalcy”, and some go to great pains to correct anyone who dares invoke the analogy which irresistibly suggests itself: Nazi Germany.

The danger is real. The need for resistance – extraordinary resistance – urgent. As the Call for the November 2nd protest — that the Hampton students are facing disciplinary charges for distributing — says: “That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn — or be forced — to accept.”

Toby O’Ryan, at 5:41 pm EST on December 3, 2005

response to Larry and A. Parris

Larry, As a journalist, I know what good journalism is. Internet journalism is based on hearsay and rumors but good journalism is not. Blogs and much of the online media have lowered the standards for journalism because there is little, if any, responsibility to verify your information. And having a short deadline is no excuse. In fact, one of the organizers, A. Parris, reinforced my point with her comments. A. Parris, you state that the protest had little to do with the Bush administration and the war. But a simple Google search will lead to dozens of articles about this situation and they all focus on one aspect- the criticism of the Bush administration. The other issues that were to be addressed at the protest have been overlooked. Let’s face it Larry, Americans have stronger feelings (mostly bad) for our current administration than they do about Sudan, homophobia, and HIV/AIDS. I still feel that if the protest was just about those three subjects, made no mention of the Bush administration or the war, and was shut down, it wouldn’t have received the attention and notoriety that this one did. I’m not saying the University handled it well. Rather, it seems they mismanaged it from the beginning. But the university claims it’s not a political issue and one of the students comes on here and states that it had very little to do with Bush. Yet articles like this try to simplify the story to- Students try to ptoest Bush and are shut down. When, in fact, it is much deeper and complicated than that.

Byron Austin, at 10:43 am EST on December 5, 2005

Recent HU Alum

I graduated from HU in ‘03. I was an RA, and the handbook clearly states, no stamp no posting! Thats it thats all. HU is full of rules that I once considered arbitrary, but as a fellow alum mentioned it is just like the real world! While Free Speech is constitutionally protected, so are HU’s rights to enforce any rules they deem necessaary as a private institution.

I believed it while I was at HIU, and will believe it till I die, Hampton is not for everyone.....If you don’t want to follow rules, and you want to start trouble, and you want to ignore the values, responsibility, and respect that Hampton teaches then go to Howard!

Ramona D. Terry, at 3:48 pm EST on December 6, 2005

Hampered at Hampton U.

Amnesty International seems to be following all the right protocols and they still can’t get recognized on Hampton’s campus. This doesn’t appear to be about the infractions themselves since they are relatively minor. Since Greek and social organizations distribute fliers and put up posters all the time, the administration can’t make the “zero tolerance” arguement either.

The videotaping of the event makes a strong case for Intimidation. It says, “We’re not just watching you, we’re building a file on you. We can pass it on. This file can live long after your college years.” The expulsion trial, too, was an extreme response. I believe it was Intimidation Part 2—a dangling over the balcony of sorts to demonstrate not what the administration will do, but what it can. No doubt, that was designed to scare the protest pants off the young ones.

Hampton has always been conservative, but I have been generally pleased with the direction Dr. Harvey has taken the institution. Now, it seems I should be paying closer attention.

Glenda, at 1:57 pm EST on December 21, 2005

I deeply emphathize with the plight of the black students at Hampton. I’ve seen this situation before, and my study of our history reveals that it is a long standing problem.

I am an African-American professor who graduated from an HBCU before doing graduate work at Vanderbilt. And I have taught at numerous HBCUs. While the draconian measures taken by the Administration against Hampton students are more extreme than I’ve seen elsewhere, they are really exaggerated expressions of a pretty common practice. Of course, universities are generally hierarchical and authoritarian—increasingly so as their governance is patterned after the autocratic and hierarchical structure of corporate America. But for a number of historical reasons, this authoritarianism often assumes exaggerated proportions in Black universities. Unfortunately, there is a long history of this repression. W.E.B Du Bois wrote on the issue on administrative authoritarianism at our HBCU’s early in the previous century. The Booker T. Washington regime at Tuskegee Institute was probably the most notorious example. (David Levering Lewis’ biography of Du Bois offers insightful background on the “Tuskegee Machine” of that time). Social control by Negro administrators (often at least in part at the behest of powerful while politicians and businessmen) has often taken priority over intellectual freedom and creativity—-not to mention basic civil liberties of students and faculty. Many people outside of Black America may not know aside from repressive white police and politicians, some of the most stubborn opponents of black student activists during the civil rights movement of the 1960s were administrators in Black colleges. Administrators often took repressive measures—including expulsions—to deter black student protests (usually nonviolent in nature) against segregation and discrimination. Some black college officials were not even above calling the police against student civil rights activists. That faculty were not safe from such measures was certainly discovered by progressive white historian Howard Zinn (author of NEW ABOLITIONISTS), who was suddenly fired from Spelman for his support of student civil rights activities. Indeed, a part of the black student movement involved a struggle against the Black Estsblisment as well as the more powerful white racist Establishment. To advance the cause of freedom black students in the 1960s had to oppose self-interested negro officials who controlled them on behalf of the white political and business power structure. More recently I recall administrative threats against students of Praire View A & M U who sought to protest the first Gulf War. More recently than that I saw a flyer or memo warning students of expulsion from Morgan State University if they engaged in even peaceful assembly with the intent to protest or dissent. Apparently, they’ve never heard of the Constitutional right to peaceable assembly. We are rightly proud that HBCU’S have harbored such luminaries as W.E.B. DuBois, Ralph Ellison, Martin Luther King, Jr., Diane Nash, Toni Morrison and numerous others. But we must not forget how the administrations of those schools have also stifled young black minds and spirits. If I could directly speak to the Hampton students, I would recommend that they take to heart the suggestion made by someone here that they seek legal measures against the university if the repression doesn’t stop. And do not be deterred by the often repeated but disingenuous arguments that you will somehow betray a black school or even the black community by taking these petty despots to the white man’s court. Those who would rob you of the rights for which your parents or grandparents fought and died in the 1960s are the real traitors. They betrayed your predecessors when they tried to stifle earlier generations of black students who were striving for the emancipation of their people. Moreover, it seems to me that the time has come for the resuming of the tradition of civil disobedience. A fine American—and African-American- tradition. Hampton students can win if they marshall their courage and unite. Repressive authority must be resisted. The century old tyranny of conservative negro officaldom must be ended if we are to live and prosper. And I can only hope that the current students at Hampton and elsewhere can rediscover the defiant and dissident spirit of their 60s predecessors, and that “divine dissatisfaction” with injustice for which Dr. King rightly praises Du Bois

R. Birt, Repression at HamptonU, at 9:32 am EST on January 19, 2007