To Bienen: An open letter about Rev. Wright, from FMO’s coordinator
President Bienen:
I am Zachary Parker, the coordinator of For Members Only, the Black Student Alliance. Although I can not speak for all Black students, I can certainly say that the sentiment among the Black student body is one of contempt, disdain and disappointment for the university’s decision to retract Reverend Doctor Jeremiah Wright’s honorary degree. As a result of your decision, there has been an outcry from undergraduates, which compels me to write this letter. As you read this letter it is my hope that you consider the University’s actions and realize how these decisions negatively impact a large percentage of Northwestern’s student body (not only Black students) and consider the requests that are to follow.
Our mission statement states: “Northwestern is committed to excellent teaching, innovative research, and the personal and intellectual growth of its students in a diverse academic community.” Although Northwestern has and will reward many for their contributions and studies by way of a Northwestern degree and has in many ways provided excellent and innovative learning and research opportunities, the University has and continues to fall short on its commitment to assure the cultivated growth of one both personally and intellectually. Northwestern had a great opportunity to utilize the “controversy” surrounding Reverend Wright to impact change and learning on campus by demonstrating the importance and value of diversity in thought, practice and ideology. Instead, Northwestern decided to opt out of such an opportunity. While I will not speculate on your intentions, I will state from a student perspective that many feel it was to keep either a select few or certain majority happy or appeased.
Alan Cubbage, a spokesperson for the University, has been quoted as saying: “In light of the controversy around Dr. Wright and to ensure that the celebratory character of commencement not be affected, the university has withdrawn its invitation to Wright.” The notion that Reverend Wright’s presence at commencement would have in some way tainted the celebratory activities of the University is both absurd and offensive. Such a claim is absurd for the fact that commencement, yet a time for celebration for students and their families, is a time for the University to celebrate the accomplishments and deeds of deserving intellectuals like Reverend Wright. Such a claim proves to be offensive as well because it implies that those who may have taken offense to Reverend Wright are thereby more important and necessary of appealing to than those who may admire the same man. Northwestern University, an institution that at its inception did not admit Blacks, an institution that currently does not equally admit students of color as their white counterparts, an institution where the journalism dean has come under criticism because of his improper practices in writing, an institution that honors and “celebrates” the controversial figure Frances Willard (and other university presidents), an institution whose own faculty denies the happenings of the Holocaust, an institution that has been the site of many protests for its many problematic decisions and practices, proves to be ridiculously hypocritical in their assertion that the University is steering away from controversy.
It is unfair for the University to place sole blame on Reverend Jeremiah Wright for the controversy surrounding him during this political season, because one has to take into account the role and manipulation of “the media” and those concerned with undermining Reverend Wright’s contributions to his church, his country and his community. Additionally, it is unfair for the University to mount blame on Reverend Wright for its decision to take away the honorary degree that he has proven himself worthy of because it is the university’s job to adequately research candidates for these honors prior to their decision. Is Reverend Wright, a man who has served this country through military and ministry, no longer deserving of an honorary degree simply because some see him as controversial? Has Reverend Wright’s credentials changed since Northwestern originally decided to grant him an honor? If the answers to these questions are no, which I’m sure they are, then I believe Northwestern should reevaluate its decision in retracting Reverend Wright’s honorary degree. It is time for Northwestern to be a leader in thought instead of a follower in thought.
Northwestern is the perfect place for controversy for it is, or at least should be, the place where differentiating thought, ideology and practice meet. Therefore, the University’s concern with commencement becoming “controversial” with the presence of Reverend Wright echoes ways in which Northwestern still follows, instead of leads, in the academic tradition. Furthermore, the University should focus on celebrating academics and one’s deeds to their chosen field of study instead one’s political affiliation. Whether or not you or I agree with Reverend Wright’s critiques of this country’s practices does not negate the fact that his contributions to the field of Sacred Theology are noteworthy and commendable. Therefore, I, on behalf of For Members Only, request that a verbal and or written description of the University’s selection criteria be made public, and that a review board be assembled to reflect and consider the institution’s actions as you hopefully work towards reconsidering your decision.
I leave you with this quote made by Paulo Freire: “Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.”
Sincerely,
Zachary Parker
2008-2009 Coordinator, For Members Only
| Print
Why don't we just get rid of honorary degrees? Or you can return home.
We have a tenured faculty member who denies the holocaust, and we take away Wright’s honorary degree? Talk about hypocrisy. Bienen needs to get his priorities right and stop solely worrying about people who may take away some of the schools endowment, which I still don’t know where it ends up.
Bienen is a hypocrite
May 12, 2008 at 2:11 pm
You’re totally right Zach! Anybody who possesses the intellectual creativity and courage to tell the world that “the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” is surely deserving of an honorary degree from our prestigious university. I cannot conceive of any reason (apart from deeply entrenched racism) that Bienen would use to deny The Most Honorable and Esteemed Reverend Wright a well-deserved honorary degree from this institution.
Justin
May 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I am really tired of FMO acting like they speak for the whole black community. Why not send this letter out to black constituency before attaching us to these remarks.
Do I agree with Reverend Wright getting the honorary degree in the first place? NO!
I am also sick of people saying the media is at fault for Reverend Wright. Did the media sneak in and record his sermons, no himself and his church did. It is disgraceful to use his role as man of God to state slanderous and unproven accounts of American society. This hatred is not what our relationship is God is about and because of his own words, he’s ruined the reputation of not only himself but his church as well.
The one point that I do agree in this article is NU was ineffective with researching Wright as a recipient and should have been more transparent about the withdrawal of the degree. But I do agree with their final decision of withdrawing the degree.
Anonymous
May 13, 2008 at 9:31 am
As a former Northwestern grad student with disability who was treated like crap by the NU administration, I’m not surprised by this behavior. What hypocrites. They choose to award Wright the honorary degree when they feel it will influence public opinion positively, and “retract” the offer when they decide public opinion has turned against Wright (who’s the same guy he was when they originally opted to award him the degree).
Jennifer
May 13, 2008 at 11:32 am
In response to Anonymous’ remarks:
This issue does not concern one’s political affiliation or whether or not they agree with Reverend Wright’s critiques of this country. We call attention to this injustice because of the principles behind it. Reverend Wright’s accomplishments in his field are numerous and his practice has been long, thus more than qualifying him for this honor. He and his church have been a solid foundation for the inner city youth of Chicago, where they sponsor the ONLY HBCU College Fair. Additionally, he and his church have raised millions for the research of Aids, for foreign aid, for the building of the MLK memorial in Washington D.C., for the feeding of the homeless, for building projects to help children and the elderly and to help students through scholarships, which some of our NU peers have benefited from. It is imperative that one does their RESEARCH on the Reverend Doctor Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ before making uninformed proclamations.
Furthermore, FMO is an organization that was birthed out of protest and in many ways only survives as that lifeline is remained intact. You argued that you are tired of FMO “acting” as though it speaks for the Black community in its entirety, and you questioned why we did not poll our Black constituency before sending the letter to Bienen. I suggest that you review FMO’s constitution (Page 2, Section 5, Line 1), where it states: “[The FMO coordinator shall be] the official spokesperson for the Northwestern Black Community and the Executive Board to the faculty, administration, alumni, and community of Northwestern University.” If you happen to find this fact problematic, then you should question why it was, and still is, necessary in the first place. Why do we need a FMO in the first place? Why is that we need a Multicultural Student Affairs and African American Student Affairs? Why are we defined and in some instances confined by race and racism in this country? Just think about it…
Zach
May 13, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Question: “Why are we defined and in some instances confined by race and racism in this country?”
Answer: “Why do we need a FMO in the first place? Why is that we need a Multicultural Student Affairs and African American Student Affairs?” (We don’t need either.
Seems clear to me...
May 13, 2008 at 3:34 pm
What kind of group’s constitution declares its president the official spokesman of a community whose members are not all necessarily a part of the group? Tell me this isn’t how FMO works!
Lotsa people have done good things and raised money for programs that help our students. I have problems with the school issuing an honorary degree to anyone who tells people that the government invented AIDS to kill black people.
???????
May 13, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Greetings all,
“Seems clear to me”: you should elaborate a bit on your suggestion. I suppose you believe that we have reached a post-racial society, huh? What comedy… Or, perhaps you believe that we can’t achieve such a state with these entities in place? This is an opinion that should not be left to dangle without substantiation, context, or clearer indication of intended interpretation. I look forward to a future remark.
“Anonymous”: fair point, but I believe Zach, somewhat incompletely, attempted to relay the fact that he is NOT speaking for all Black students.
A deeper question for me is why the Reverend’s words have sparked such controversy in the first place?
J Hillz in the Buildz
May 13, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“perhaps you believe that we can’t achieve such a state with these entities in place?” Correct, or perhaps that’s overstating it. It would be foolish to say we cannot, there is hardly evidence for that. But it certainly seems ridiculous for a group to moan and wail about being categorized and judged based on their race when that group is organized based on race. Even the name is absurd and hints at a desire to propagate the problem rather than actually work towards a “post racial society”. “For Members Only”? The irony is further compounded by the fact that the groups constitution apparently claims that the president is the speaker for all Blacks on campus. Either the name is disingenuous or its meaning is limited to “For Blacks Only”. Hardly seems to be an organization in pursuit of such lofty ideas as a “post racial society” to me.
Seems clear to me...
May 13, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I have been out all day so I have miss all the posts since my first post.
First I want to thank Zach for responding to me. Let me address the points that he addressed.
I am fully aware of the positives that Reverend Wright has done for community and I commend him and his church for it. But when evaluating whether to give a degree to both good and bad things must be evaluated. Julian mentioned that he doesn’t really understand what Wright said was so wrong and I respect his opinion on it. But NU is not only comprised of people like Julian and we must acknowledge the uneasiness and disapproval that some people have with Wright. I don’t think it’s wrong for NU administration to take that under consideration when giving this honorary degree. This degree is obviously not given by some numerical score, but is the collective opinions of a group of NU faculty and staff.
I think another point to discuss is the arguments of faculty hires to justify the wrongness of giving an award to Reverend Wright. I don’t really understand the Butz being brought up since he doesn’t teach anything about Holocaust, he teaches Electrical Engineering. So his opinion on the holocaust has nothing to do with his role at NU. But you could justify that Dohrm and Lavine are definitely faulty in some of their actions. But the key here is that neither of them are receiving an honorary degree. They are not being recognized and celebrated for their work in NU commencement to the world. Giving this honorary degree is saying that NU as an institution looks positively at the contributions of the recipient. Lavine and Dohrm though causes of debate are not rewarded for their blunder but kept to help NU keep the diverse academia at NU. Giving a honorary degree to Wright is giving a stamp of approval from NU as him as a man. Now some may feel he deserves that stamp, I have reservations about that.
Now on the last point regarding FMO. I am fully aware of FMO’s history and role in NU community being a former executive board member of the student organization and having worked with staff at Multicultural Student Affairs. I also totally disagree with above comments that believe For Members Only is not a needed student organization. I believe FMO is still needed. I do believe though that FMO must re-evaluate it’s effectiveness on campus. I do question the very forward approach of FMO on this instance but not during other circumstances. The inconsistency of FMO’s activism is disappointing, I blame myself as a member for not making FMO answer to that call and do hope that Zach with his new board can do this more effectively. This is something that can be gone into more detail on another day though.
I do commend Zach for his letter and for debating about it. I just wish he limited his representation to his executive board and had used quarterly general meeting or some other forum to get an idea of what active FMO members’ opinions of the situation.
I personally feel that NU’s error was not being more forward and transparent about their honorary degree process and not doing their research on Reverend Wright. Hopefully they will learn from this situation for future commencements.
Anonymous
May 14, 2008 at 1:11 am
These comments are focused in the wrong direction. Awarding honorary degrees are part of the academic tradition. There was a process for deciding to award the degree, and there should be a process for deciding to remove a degree. A quick google search shows that other universities (when deciding whether an honorary degree candidate should have the degree rescinded), engaged in a scholarly faculty driven process. If Northwestern engaged in such a process, they have failed to disclose the process and which specific information came to light five months later to warrant withdrawing the degree. Therefore the proper focus should be what did the University know, when did they know it, and how did they come to this conclusion?
The issue is not whether awarding the degree to Rev. Wright is controversial. Universities are hotbeds of controversy. A number of controversial doctorates have been handed out, including an honorary degree to Kermit the Frog, from South Hampton College at the University of Long Island. What deserves closer inspection, is the process that the University engaged in when determining that Rev. Wright was not deserving of the degree that they had granted just five months earlier.
One of the glaring things in this issue, is that the University appears to be punishing a controversial black man, while allowing a clownishly controversial white man to be the commencement speaker at the law school. If controversy is the real reason for this action, then it seems that University should be held to the standard of being consistent on controversy. Of course that is a silly argument. As silly as the University saying that in spite of the academic tradition, the importance of the 24 hour news cycle carries the ultimate weight in deciding who is worthy to receive an honorary degree.
Across the country, the awarding of honorary degrees and commencement speakers is being made political. Controversial speakers are being denied the opportunity to speak. This country was founded on controversy. It is up to this generation to ensure that the academic tradition, and the role of the University as being a place to sort out controversy in upheld.
Lastly, the number of comments that have questioned why there is a need for an organization like FMO, means that we have not had the conversation on race that should have been had in this country. While people will raise questions about a group like FMO, it would never occur to them to question at the same time and for the same reason a german, polish or irish culture club.
Black is for black Americans both race and ethnicity. Other ethnic groups can separate their race and ethnicity, and therefore fail to understand that those things are not separate for black Americans. FMO exists for cultural reasons, and because contary to all of those who have declared racism in America an issue of the past, those who experience it, know it to be alive and well.
Ce Cole Dillon
May 14, 2008 at 12:50 pm
My Lord. I surfed here after reading a simply awful piece in today’s Sun-Times about this subject. My Lord…I’m embarrassed to have an NU PhD after reading how Black students have responded to the Wright situation.
I pray and trust that an Obama presidency will not catalyze the same response, from Blacks, when things don’t go their way.
And I am an Obama supporter–but the response the the NU Black alumni/community is astonishing in its stupidity and irresponsibility. Am I clear on this?
Joseph Andrews
June 8, 2008 at 12:23 pm