Banning Desmond Tutu is NOT Minnesota Nice. It's Downright Icky.
Coleen Rowley
Huffington Post
Last Tuesday, a couple of friends and I went to see the fantastic movie biography "Pete Seeger: the Power of Song". It featured great musical clips that told the unique life story of the folksinger and songwriter whose rendition of "We shall Overcome" inspired the civil rights movement (and anti-war movements). The inspirational movie also served as a timely reminder of the painful repression and vicious backstabbing that resulted from Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunt back in the early 1950's. For a huge chunk of Seeger's life--17 years! -he was blacklisted. It was not until late in 1967 that the repression finally ended when the Smothers Brothers (courageous Comedy Hour) invited Seeger to perform on their TV show. And even then one of Seeger's songs, "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy," was censored. Only months later was he allowed to sing it on TV. No wonder the 88 year old Seeger has come to appreciate so much-as reflected in his lyrics-"the right to sing my song" that exists in America.
Interestingly enough, Natalie Maines' comments of appreciation for Pete Seeger's musical contributions in the movie do not refer to her and the Dixie Chicks' own continuing struggle against radio blacklisting. The Dixie Chicks continue to sing out even though time has not yet healed their wound (or the price paid) when they were told to "shut up and sing" or their "lives would be over."
Still, there's something so weird and surreal about the type of repressive actions engendered by McCarthy and his House Un-American Activities Committee that, even being reminded like this, we still prefer to think that kind of blacklisting could not occur any more. The illusion ended for us, however, the very next day when we opened our Twin City newspapers to find Nobel Peace Laureate Desmond Tutu banned from speaking on the campus of one of our major (albeit private) Minnesota universities. The University of St. Thomas, we were stunned to learn, had banned Tutu, one of the most important voices responsible for peacefully ending apartheid in South Africa but also one of the strongest continuing voices for peaceful change and reconciliation in the world. Moreover, St. Thomas officials had gone so far as to demote the director of their Justice and Peace Studies program who had invited Tutu to speak.
Our papers and blogs were soon abuzz with comparisons of the fact that the very same campus had welcomed right-wing hate monger Ann Coulter a couple of years ago. (Coulter is known for her controversial and violent speech directed toward a variety of groups, including advocating the "wanton" bombing of Muslim countries, the execution of their leaders, public torture and a nuclear attack on N. Korea as a "warning" to the rest of the world, as well as her famous 2004 response that "I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days" to talk to liberals.) So it was especially weird-to the point of even being noted by conservative editorialists-when St. Thomas gave its reason for banning Tutu and subsequently demoting the professor who oversaw their "Justice and Peace Studies" as due to the fact that persons on the Minneapolis Jewish Community Relations Council, when queried, found some of Tutu's public remarks "hurtful." Also quickly noted was the apparent hypocrisy of the St. Thomas Law School in hiring (and then staunchly defending its hiring of) Robert Delahunty, a former Department of Justice attorney who co-authored the "torture memo" with John Yoo which memo recklessly and erroneously concluded that the laws of war did not apply in Afghanistan, and international law has "no binding legal effect on either the President or the military". Wouldn't most people say torture is, by definition, "hurtful"?
(Continued here.)
Huffington Post
Last Tuesday, a couple of friends and I went to see the fantastic movie biography "Pete Seeger: the Power of Song". It featured great musical clips that told the unique life story of the folksinger and songwriter whose rendition of "We shall Overcome" inspired the civil rights movement (and anti-war movements). The inspirational movie also served as a timely reminder of the painful repression and vicious backstabbing that resulted from Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunt back in the early 1950's. For a huge chunk of Seeger's life--17 years! -he was blacklisted. It was not until late in 1967 that the repression finally ended when the Smothers Brothers (courageous Comedy Hour) invited Seeger to perform on their TV show. And even then one of Seeger's songs, "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy," was censored. Only months later was he allowed to sing it on TV. No wonder the 88 year old Seeger has come to appreciate so much-as reflected in his lyrics-"the right to sing my song" that exists in America.
Interestingly enough, Natalie Maines' comments of appreciation for Pete Seeger's musical contributions in the movie do not refer to her and the Dixie Chicks' own continuing struggle against radio blacklisting. The Dixie Chicks continue to sing out even though time has not yet healed their wound (or the price paid) when they were told to "shut up and sing" or their "lives would be over."
Still, there's something so weird and surreal about the type of repressive actions engendered by McCarthy and his House Un-American Activities Committee that, even being reminded like this, we still prefer to think that kind of blacklisting could not occur any more. The illusion ended for us, however, the very next day when we opened our Twin City newspapers to find Nobel Peace Laureate Desmond Tutu banned from speaking on the campus of one of our major (albeit private) Minnesota universities. The University of St. Thomas, we were stunned to learn, had banned Tutu, one of the most important voices responsible for peacefully ending apartheid in South Africa but also one of the strongest continuing voices for peaceful change and reconciliation in the world. Moreover, St. Thomas officials had gone so far as to demote the director of their Justice and Peace Studies program who had invited Tutu to speak.
Our papers and blogs were soon abuzz with comparisons of the fact that the very same campus had welcomed right-wing hate monger Ann Coulter a couple of years ago. (Coulter is known for her controversial and violent speech directed toward a variety of groups, including advocating the "wanton" bombing of Muslim countries, the execution of their leaders, public torture and a nuclear attack on N. Korea as a "warning" to the rest of the world, as well as her famous 2004 response that "I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days" to talk to liberals.) So it was especially weird-to the point of even being noted by conservative editorialists-when St. Thomas gave its reason for banning Tutu and subsequently demoting the professor who oversaw their "Justice and Peace Studies" as due to the fact that persons on the Minneapolis Jewish Community Relations Council, when queried, found some of Tutu's public remarks "hurtful." Also quickly noted was the apparent hypocrisy of the St. Thomas Law School in hiring (and then staunchly defending its hiring of) Robert Delahunty, a former Department of Justice attorney who co-authored the "torture memo" with John Yoo which memo recklessly and erroneously concluded that the laws of war did not apply in Afghanistan, and international law has "no binding legal effect on either the President or the military". Wouldn't most people say torture is, by definition, "hurtful"?
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
2 Comments:
Political correctness has gone too far when people are rejected because someone may be offended.
My reading of the City Pages story , that I think broke the story, is that St. Thomas went looking to get acceptance from the Jewish Community Relations Council … I don’t get the impression that the Jewish Community Relations Council filed a complaint. St. Thomas went looking for cover in case anyone would protest Tutu’s speech.
I wrote last week about this in my Minnesota Central blog that Tutu’s “offending” words were taken out of context. The link to his speech is on my blog entry. I point out that the speech was given in 2002, yet Senator Coleman and Rep. McCollum had no problem attending a gala commemorating Tutu’s good work in 2005 … if they had no problem, then why should St. Thomas?
The other underreported aspect of this story is the demotion of the person that arranged for Tutu to make his speech at St. Thomas. Talk about injustice.
I feel sorry for the Jewish community. They did not ask for this trouble, but political correctness has brought it to them.
I feel sorry for the Catholic community and alumni of Saint Thomas. They did not ask for this trouble, but political correctness has brought it to them.
I am embarrassed as a Minnesotan. We did not ask for this trouble, but political correctness has brought it to us.
Rowley is right. Saint Thomas should reevaluate the decision. I did not know that Mike Ciresi was on the St. Thomas board, but wouldn’t it be a great effort in bi-partisanship for Coleman and Ciresi to issue a joint denouncement.
Although St. Thomas has now changed its mind regarding inviting Tutu to speak, the underreported story of the change in duties of the person who invited him, is still in effect. In the spirit Father Dease’s comment
that there needs to be a “ thoughtful examination of St. Thomas' policies regarding controversial speech and controversial speakers, the same examination should be done for the affected employee.
Post a Comment
<< Home