General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUniv of MN President says those who oppose Condi Rice's visit are racists
http://www1.umn.edu/president/speeches-and-writing/statement-on-condoleeza-rice/index.htmlPresident Kaler’s statement to the University Senate on Condoleeza Rice
April 3, 2014
I do want to declare my strong opposition to the resolution that will be offered later in this Senate meeting seeking to stop former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice from speaking at the Humphrey School’s Distinguished Carlson Lecture Series. Given my position, when this resolution comes up for discussion and a vote, I will yield the gavel to the Vice Chair of the Senate so as not to influence the debate.
Our University must be a place that not only promotes, but aggressively celebrates free speech. The University of Minnesota must be this state’s headquarters for civil discourse and the boundless exchange of differing ideas.
I find the resolution particularly ironic given that Dr. Rice will be speaking about her personal story of overcoming adversity as an African American woman who faced discrimination growing up in the segregated and racist South. Her appearance on campus is part of the Humphrey School’s yearlong series about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That Civil Rights Act, and the struggle against racism in this country, has often been driven by powerful words that would not have been heard but for our American tradition of a robust and fiercely protected right of free speech and academic freedom.
I have opinions that sometimes differ from yours or others on our campus. That’s healthy, I invite that, and that’s the nature of civil discourse.
But we can’t have true academic freedom at the University of Minnesota by denying a stage to those we disagree with or disapprove of.
I strongly urge you to vote against the resolution.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)I have been posting about this for about two weeks. We have one more week to go before the war criminal Dr Rice comes to U of MN.
We have yet to hear of a DFL (Democrat) politician speak out about her visit.
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2014/03/31/community-voices-condoleeza-rice-and-humphrey-school-its-not-about-free-speech
Dear Humphrey School Faculty, Fellows Staff and PASA members,
April 17 will be a sad day for the University of Minnesota and in particular for the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. That is when Dr. Condoleezza Rice, at the Humphrey School's invitation, will deliver a Distinguished Carlson Lecture as part of the month-long series of events commemorating the reopening of Northrop Auditorium.
The university is a place where ideas get tested, where multiple viewpoints are welcomed. In such a setting, opposition to a speaker seems to violate the very essence of the institution.
But I oppose this invitation and in fact believe the University of Minnesota would be doing a valuable service to humanity by withdrawing it, no matter how awkward that might be at this late date. ....click on link to read more
rurallib
(62,454 posts)What in the hell did Condoleeza Rice ever do to advance civil rights? Why would anyone want to hear her story?
I am probably ignorant of her whole history, but it sure seems to me that once she got a chance to go for the gold, she dumped her past.
Response to rurallib (Reply #3)
BainsBane This message was self-deleted by its author.
xocet
(3,873 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)I don't see anything in that letter that suggests the U president is accusing opponents of her speech of being racist.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)U of M SDS plans protest against war criminal Condoleezza Rice
Commentary by Chris Getowicz | April 3, 2014
Read more articles in Antiwar Movement
Protest flyer
Minneapolis, MN – The University of Minnesota Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) are organizing an April 17 protest to coincide with a speech by Condoleezza Rice – a close aide of George Bush and a war criminal to boot.
Former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will be speaking as the 2014 Distinguished Carlson Lecturer at the University of Minnesota. The Carlson Foundation, a private donor to the University of Minnesota, is fronting the $150,000 honorarium to host Rice. The university planned her speech, on the subject of civil rights, to coincide with the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The University of Minnesota describes her speech as recognition towards “her effort to foster freedom and democracy.”
This invitation and “distinguished” lecture has disgusted students, staff, faculty and community members. The Twin Cites anti-war movement, heeding a call from SDS, will join a large rally to highlight Dr. Rice’s criminal conduct and to underscore the massive violations of human rights she was responsible for during the Bush administration.
The choice of Dr. Rice to speak on civil rights or “freedom and democracy” is outrageous. In fact, her crimes stand in direct opposition to the great contributions made by leaders of the civil rights movement like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King had no problem connecting poverty, racism and injustice at home with the imperialist war in Vietnam. Dr. King noted that “every time we kill one [Vietnamese] we spend about $500,000 while we spend only $53 a year for every person characterized as poverty-stricken in the so-called poverty program.” For Dr. King and other civil rights leaders, the war was a disgrace that “played havoc with our domestic destinies” and put the U.S. “in a position of appearing to the world as an arrogant nation.”
Recall that under Rice’s leadership as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, the U.S. openly committed well-documented and widespread crimes against humanity. These crimes included but are not limited to an illegal invasion of Iraq on pretenses of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ - which were never found. The years of occupation that followed the invasion of Iraq left, by conservative estimates, over half of a million people dead. This invasion and occupation was accompanied by widespread use of terror, in the systematic torture of prisoners as documented at Abu Ghraib and the long-standing torture prison known as Guantanamo Bay.
While this torture was documented, much more remains less documented. White House reports have long cited legal memos dispersed by Rice not only tolerating torture but suggesting that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the U.S. while engaged in its terroristic war, ‘The War on Terror.’
It is with these facts and with many others that Students for a Democratic Society and other student and anti-war groups will rally against Rice’s visit to the University of Minnesota. While administrators of the university have said that their invitation of Dr. Rice was on the grounds of “freedom of speech,” her “free speech” should be seen as nothing more than promoting the annihilation of sovereign countries via barbaric means of torture and criminal activity.
Like students and staff at Stanford, and most recently at Rutgers, Dr. Rice will be greeted upon her arrival with a reminder that her mark of distinction is that of a war criminal. In the name of the millions of Iraqis who saw their country ripped apart by the U.S. invasion – overseen in part by Condoleezza Rice, we urge you to join us at this protest. And in the names of thousands of young Americans sent to war only to return home without jobs, without proper healthcare – and the many who never returned at all - join SDS on April 17 at 4:00 p.m. at the University of Minnesota to condemn war criminals speaking on our campus.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)He never once accuses anyone of racism.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)things have to be spelled out, not implied.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I would add it's not just racism they scream... it's sexism, misogyny, classism, ageism, weightism, and every OTHER ism that works as a way to stifle discussion on an uncomfortable subject.
No shrugging of the shoulders here... it's just the way it is.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Response to annm4peace (Original post)
kwassa This message was self-deleted by its author.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)I find the resolution particularly ironic given that Dr. Rice will be speaking about her personal story of overcoming adversity as an African American woman who faced discrimination growing up in the segregated and racist South. Her appearance on campus is part of the Humphrey School’s yearlong series about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)appear to be opposed—somewhat appalled, actually—at what they see as a misguided attempt from the left (their left) to prevent Rice, or anyone for that matter, from speaking. Opposed as they are to the major role Ms. Rice played in US foreign policy during the Bush administration (as am I), they still think protest, not prohibition is the progressive stance. Add to that that she's talking about something related to her own experiences and the Civil Rights Act, and it feels like censorship.
I agree with them: protest, don't prohibit people from speaking. I thought we supported the First Amendment.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)if some right-wing student group tried to prevent somebody like Bernie Sanders or Michael Moore from speaking at a University event? It works both ways.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)nice how some people on D.U. like to think it is "just a point of view" "we just disagree with her" .
I expect that from posters on the newspaper sites.. but sad to see it on D.U.
I"m someone who has protested the war on Iraq before it started.. have made signs with the name of killed troops from Iraq, went to listen to Veterans and AWOL troops from Iraq War/Occupation. who couldn't believe more weren't protesting when Dr Rice said her famous lies about mushroom clouds even though career diplomats and intelligence officers were resigning in protests and Generals were taking early retirements because they knew Rice, Powell, Cheney were lying.
I have written and read out loud at vigils the names of troops killed in Iraq as well as Iraq citizens, the name and age of children as was as adults killed by the U.S. I have cried many times as I listened. I cried as I listened to several mothers and fathers told of their children who joined the military died in Iraq due to lies told by Rice. I heard mothers and fathers and siblings tell of how they tried to get help for their returned loved one who had PTSD and killed themselves.
LIstened to an Iraq woman who visited the US tell of how she woke up with a US missile laying on her legs.. her foot was crushed and had to be amputated.. she was shunned by others because of her disability and through Muslim Peace makers were able to get her to Mayo Clinic for surgery, rehab and prothesis so she could go back to college. Along with her was a 9 year old boy who was electrocuted due to fallen electric wires from bombings. He lost a leg, 1/2 is body burned, and has partial use of his arm. He stayed in the US for about a year.. for several surgeries and prothesis.
I have since 2003 heard story after story of torture, rendition, and seen horrific pictures and videos. google "Cageprisoners"
I have gone to listen to 2 different troops who were lawyers for detainees' at Guantanamo and listened to their anguish of what they did for their country and what was done in our name. i have written detainee's names for signs, for petitions, for flyers.. their age, the youngest 13.. the oldest 92. have stood in an orange jumpsuit and black hood countless of times.
It isn't about "a point of view"... it is about giving a podium for a war criminal to white wash her history.
from the SDS student:
This is not about the outrageous cost, the party politics, nor the freedom-of-speech issues so often invoked in popular discussions of this matter. This is simply an issue of human rights.
It remains unclear, in the court of law, whether Rice is personally culpable for Bush-era war crimes, specifically the design and approval of torture and rendition programs, as well as lying to the public about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. What is clear, however, is that many people, especially abroad, see Rice and others, such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, as warmongers and unconvicted war criminals. Nick Theis
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)In the late '70s the American Nazi Party planned a march through Skokie, IL, which was the home to many Jews, including Holocaust survivors. The ACLU took the Nazis' case through the Illinois court system all the way to the Supreme Court, and was successful in defending their right to have their parade (which, as it turned out, never actually took place). It was one of the most controversial and courageous things the ACLU has ever done. The point, of course, was that the First Amendment rights of anyone to express their views, no matter how abhorrent, cannot be infringed. There's hardly anybody more abhorrent than the Nazis, even Condi Rice.
Yes, it is fair to claim she, along with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, should be prosecuted as war criminals. Even so, she, and they, have the right to speak in public. And we have the concurrent right to protest - just not to suppress or interfere. I would like to see a good collection of protesters outside that event. In fact, I'd like to see protesters dog the footsteps of every last one of those bastards for every minute of the rest of their lives. But we do our Constitutional principles no good by demanding that they may not speak.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)what we are saying is the U of MN should give her a platform. It is a State institute and a place of higher learning.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)accepted as the law of the land, locally and internationally.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)often makes a LOT of sense.
(Much more so than the courts).
roody
(10,849 posts)150,000 dollars. That could pay for two profs for a year.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)The Humphrey School is paying for it out of an endowed lecture fund, funded by the same person for whom the business school is named. The speakers fee does not come out of the University's operating budget or even the Humphrey School's operating budget.
roody
(10,849 posts)away money. There are so many credible speakers. Looking forward to the protests.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Why would you want a WAR CRIMINAL to speak to your children or to you? She should be in prison, not acting as if she is something special and needs to tell people just how special she is.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Nobody's "children" are being exposed to this, unless they choose to go. That is a ridiculous statement. I would never go to hear her, and neither would my kids.
But what liberals don't do is prevent people from speaking. We left such Stalinesque stances behind 80 years ago. And whatever you and I may think of her tenure in the previous administration, the International Criminal Court in the Hague hasn't charged her with anything. You can call her whatever you want, as can I, as can even those who might support her. We are not the judge and jury, though. And if someone at the Humphrey School wants to invite her to talk about the Civil Rights Act on its anniversary, and how it affected her personally, she should be allowed to speak.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)BainsBane
(53,072 posts)You think academic freedom means not having to hear anyone you disagree with?
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)That fraction of the student body or faculty who disagree with the invitee can object, demonstrate outside the hall, or otherwise make their views known (as was the case with George Wallace).
But the guest should be allowed to come and speak without interruption or harassment.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)I can't get exercised about this whole Rice thing either.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)Condi Rice is dreadful, but the remedy for unpleasant speech is more speech. Demonstrate, but don't suppress.
tavernier
(12,407 posts)We had a number of undesirable speakers when I was at University, among them Norman Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi party. We attended wearing black arm bands. When he finished, we rose and left without so much as a whisper to encourage this lunatic.
Tanuki
(14,922 posts)his name up with the folksy painter! 
Of course you are correct. I knew something was off when I wrote it!!
avebury
(10,952 posts)"The University of Minnesota describes her speech as recognition towards “her effort to foster freedom and democracy.”
Just what did she do in the Bush White House that actually fostered freedom and democracy? She is accepting a $150,000 fee to talk about a subject that she knows nothing about. That sounds a bit fraudulent on her part and stupid on the part of any group willing to pony up money to pay her for her lack of knowledge.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)I would have argued against inviting her. The Humphrey School evidently thought it was worth the money. Given the little I know about the Humphrey School, the decision doesn't surprise me.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)But in the end, I would find another way to protest her speech. For instance, I'd have asked anyone who didn't want her to speak to bring their iPod or mp3 player and make a play of turning it on, inserting the earbuds, and turning their back when she started to speak.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)At a minimum, the evidence shows that Dr. Rice has violated the following statutes:
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A(c), which criminalizes a conspiracy to torture, which underlying offense is codified in Sec. 2340A(a) and defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2441 -- War Crimes, in particular the violations codified in Section 2441(d)(1), which concerns acts prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
Some of these alleged offenses have resulted in the deaths of the victims of Dr. Rice's conduct, so there should be no Statute of Limitations problems with respect to those cases.
Moreover, for these types of crimes, jurisdiction is clear. As President Ronald Reagan said at the time he signed the Convention Against Torture, which was later ratified by the U.S. Senate:
"The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution. That is, for these types of crimes, any court in the world may charge and try an alleged perpetrator located within its jurisdiction."
** is that what Universities should be supporting? Giving a place for a war criminal to talk about Civil Rights? ****
It has been over 10 years we bombed Iraq.. maybe people have memory problems.
Many people mistakenly believe that Condoleezza Rice simply served as the Secretary of State and didn't have a role in the decision to go to war with Iraq. In fact, Condoleezza Rice was President Bush's National Security Advisor during the lead-up to the Iraq War, and was intimately involved in the decision to go to war with Iraq and spoke publicly in support of it. She was an integral part of the Bush administration's campaign of lies surrounding the war, working to further public support of the war by lying about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Rice played a central role in affirming the "legality" of the Bush administration's torture program. A Senate report revealed that Rice verbally agreed to allow torture methods to be used on captured suspects, and then lied about the extent to which she was involved.
Rice not only spoke in favor of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program and expansive domestic surveillance program, she authorized the warrantless wiretap of UN Security Council members.
Condoleezza Rice could have resigned from the Bush Administration if she believed these actions — all of which she was deeply involved with — were wrong. She did not. It's naive to believe she was simply going along with orders and was powerless to speak out or resign.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)she's guilty, but "GUILTY" is a word uttered in front of a judge, after a jury deliberates and reaches a decision.
Until that happens, she's guilty of nothing. JUST AS anyone caught on a security camera doing wrong is entitled to the same consideration.
I'd want the same treatment for you, or me.
No country or international body has charged her with a crime, unless I missed that. If I have, please feel free to correct me publicly, and I will publicly apologize for my lack of information.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)run free and just recreate themselves according to their own delusion.
Haven't you seen this?
clt
(6 posts)Augusto Pinochet was never convicted of a crime. I think if the University of Minnesota had honored him with a similar invitation, it would have not been appropriate. Dr. Joseph Mengele -- I'm fully aware that such comparisons offend some people -- was never convicted of a crime. If the University of Minnesota had invited him, I would have objected. This has nothing to do with views but everything to do with conduct. And we make judgments about people's conduct, and how that should lead us to engage with them, every single day. The standards in courtrooms, where someone's liberty can be taken from them, do not apply in everyday circumstances.
Moreover, the reasons why Dr. Rice has not been charged may be relevant. Democrats were complicit in the U.S. torture program too, so maybe that's why the Obama administration refuses even to investigate high Bush administration officials for criminal wrongdoing. Plus the Obama administration has pressured a number of governments, mostly allied governments, to cease their investigations. So with no real rule of law on this conduct -- that is, with some people's behavior being above the law -- there is even more reason why we and the institutions we are a part of must hold these people accountable in our own way. And that includes by refraining from honoring them with invitations such as the University of Minnesota's.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)that that's motivated by pure, simple racism
next we'll be hearing how Condi was a victim who was lied to by GWB on Iraq
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But the protesters have my support.
MADem
(135,425 posts)listen to opposing views (even, apparently, from noxious individuals), not that they are "racist."
He's saying she had an interesting personal life story, and that she will be talking about that life story in the context of the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not her complicity in some pretty nefarious warmongering under the Bush regime.
He's playing the "too clever by half" card, and EMPHASIZING heritage over conduct in public life, but he's not calling anyone a racist.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I could really give a shit about all the adversity Dr. Rice had to overcome in order to be a lying war criminal.
I could talk a little bit about adversity myself since I graduated in 1985 from the CLA. I'd be willing to do so for a mere $25,000.
Consider it a refund of the cost of my useless degree. Although the inflation calculator says I should get $55,000 in today's money.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)in foisting the Iraq war on America, a war built on a mountain of lies. She has the deaths of 500,000 to a million on her hands.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)He says no such thing.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And I think universities should invite controversial speakers. Protest, by all means. Turn your backs, walk out, demonstrate, give opposing speakers a platform. Universities should be hotbeds of debate and protest, not places where the only speeches are about topics that don't offend anyone.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)Dear Professor Rice,
I will not be able to attend your sold-out performance at the Carlson Family Stage of the newly renovated Northrop Auditorium. The Carlson Foundation has been a very generous donor to the University of Minnesota. It has been very generous in its support of the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. I applaud them for their financial support of the Distinguished Carlson Lecture Series over the years. Previous Carlson Lectures honored the Dalai Lama, Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, General Colin Powell, Vice President Mondale and others with notable public achievements worthy of the mantle of human rights and civil rights advocated by the school’s name-sake, former Vice President and Minnesota Senator Hubert H. Humphrey.
Your visit is singular in that it has raised significant opposition from many quarters within and outside of the University because it is linked to the Humphrey School’s year-long celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act and because it comes at precisely the time when the Humphrey School has embarked on a new program of research and scholarship on international human rights. There will be the inevitable protests from students and faculty, opinion pieces in the local press opposing your visit, as well as the normal and expected teach-ins, counter-events and on-going debates.
But because I hold the endowed chair named after Roy Wilkins, one of the most prominent architects of the March on Washington, a major behind-the-scenes strategist for the passage of the Civil Rights Act that we celebrate this year, and a leader of the oldest and largest civil rights organization in America, I would be remiss if I failed to explain my absence.
Let me hasten to acknowledge that as one African American to another, born and bred before the March on Washington and the ensuing struggle to mobilize forces to end racial segregation and discrimination, I am proud of your significant achievements. Your pursuit of the Ph.D. and your pursuit of an academic career at a top research institution merged with a life of public service set an admirable standard that I hope other African Americans will follow. In a world where there is a persistent underrepresentation of blacks and other racial minority group members among recipients of Ph.Ds. and among tenured faculty, it is always reassuring to point to success stories such as yours.
I won’t be in the audience of your talk. It is not because I fail to support members of my own race, even when I disagree with them.
Nor, is the reason why I will not be there the result of your being paid what is by most standards an outrageously large sum of $150,000 for a one-hour talk on a topic that has been rehashed in the media and in your own writings over and over again.
And certainly, the reason for my absence is not related to any opposition to academic freedom or the right of the Carlson Foundation to invite whomever they please of whatever intellectual persuasion. I support academic freedom and the importance of bringing diverse voices to campus to speak on topics on which the speakers are experts.
I believe that it demeans you, as a distinguished academic, and others who have worked as hard as you have to suggest, as some of the organizers of this event do, that it is appropriate to link your engagement to the larger theme of the year-long celebration of the Civil Rights Act. The argument is that you are black and a woman and that even though you have expressed opposing views long held by the mainstream supporters of equal opportunity and fairness, and you are not an academic expert on the topic, your visit should be supported because, well, you are black and a woman! You should be offended.
I asked a colleague, “Would Condoleezza Rice have been invited to deliver the Carlson Lecture as a part of the Humphrey School’s yearlong celebration of the 1964 Civil Rights Act had she been white and a male?” I think it may be the norm for Schools of Public Affairs to want to invite former secretaries of state or former United States vice presidents or even presidents. It is the norm to invite controversial figures. But, I find it disingenuous that your visit is linked to our celebration of the civil rights movement under the ostensible banner that you provide a different perspective on civil rights and human rights. I fail to see how you are even qualified to speak on a topic that has received broad technical analysis from many disciplines and points of view. Your defenders say that you qualify because you are black and a woman and can offer a different perspective. I find that reasoning insulting.
The many titles of the Act deserve separate and prolonged debate and dialog: Title VII dealing with employment discrimination and which is the basis for much of my own research on earnings inequality could be the source of a day-long seminar with researchers and scholars across many disciplines offering widely differing views about its impacts. Title I dealing with voters rights, Title II dealing with discrimination in public places, Titles III and IV dealing with segregation, Title VI dealing discrimination in programs receiving federal assistance, all offer the appropriate academic opportunity for the kind of debate and discussion that merits investment of large amounts of funds at the Humphrey School. The same funds could be invested in graduate fellowships for students interested in studying the civil rights movement and undertaking careful policy analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of the plans and programs that you have publicly criticized. Your support for the Bush administration’s position in the Gratz vs. Bollinger case would have been more reasoned and more carefully nuanced had there been then a pool of talented policy analysts and policy researchers to rebut the narrow position taken by the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice.
I won’t be in the audience during your presentation. I hope that you will be challenged on your positions regarding the wars in Iraq and the determinants of black-white inequality. I hope someone asks you whether you were ever consulted about and agreed with positions taken by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, strengthen via the 1964 Civil Rights Act but weakened during the Bush Administration. I hope you will be asked whether you agree with the position of Roger Clegg, the former deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights who now leads the Center for Equal Opportunity, the most prominent organization advocating the dismantlement of affirmative action in America. Of course, if you say that none of this is your area of expertise, I hope someone asks, “Then, why did you agree to speak knowing that the event is a part of the Humphrey School’s year-long celebration of the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights Act?”
You have made much of the fact that your father sought to protect his children from the brutal violence faced by those brave souls who fought the difficult fight to end segregation and to make discrimination illegal. You are quoted as saying that your father disagreed with the non-violent mantle of the civil rights movement and stood watch over your affluent neighborhood with a shotgun. It is a sign of filial loyalty to support one’s parents and I acknowledge the fact that you have consistently done so.
As for me, I also admire my father just like you admire your father. He was one of two African Americans in the Officer Candidate School in Massachusetts, serving with former Republican Senator Edward Brooke, and then was assigned to an all-black ordinance unit in New Orleans before being shipped off to Okinawa servicing white troops. He objected to the fact that since there was no black officers club at the base in New Orleans, he was required to eat with the enlisted men because the white officers club was segregated. His objections almost caused him to be court martialed. He subsequently became the first African American to receive the Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1949 but because of segregation he could not be hired at the University of Maryland, College Park and instead was hired at all-black Morgan State College. He fought the lonely battles – often jeopardizing his career – to redress racial discrimination not only through desegregation and anti-discrimination efforts but also through strengthening of black institutions themselves.
I will miss your talk because I will attend the 95th Birthday Celebration of the former president of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education – my dad and role model. I will miss your talk because the now Chairman of the Board of Minority Access, Inc. is still fighting for racial equality every day of his life. I will miss your talk because the person who introduced the long-lived White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) wants to raise money for the next generation of graduates of black colleges to attend places like the Humphrey School of Public Affairs to develop the tools and skills of policy analysis. I will miss your talk because I want to spend my time with someone who fought in the movement, who lived the movement, who regularly consulted with such stalwart leaders as Leon Sullivan, Parren and Clarence Mitchell, Dorothy Height, Julian Bond, and Joseph Lowery. My father instilled pride in his children and never denied them the right to dissent in the quest for equality. This standard of being willing to disagree even when everyone feels that it will result in funding losses or loss of supporters is a high standard that I live by.
I won’t be at your lecture because I will be attending a celebration for a hero who truly deserves to be honored during this 50th Anniversary of the U.S. Civil Rights Act. I hope that you will understand that by raising funds for minority scholarships we – both you and I – help to assure that there are future scholars and researchers who can help solve the problems of inequality. If you agree with this mandate, I invite you to expand your generous support for minority students and to donate all of the proceeds of your lecture to the Minnesota Office of the United Negro College Fund, the Minority Access Scholarship Fund and/or the Roy Wilkins Fellowship Fund at the University of Minnesota. If you agree to support minority fellowships in the area of human rights or civil rights at the University of Minnesota, moreover, I personally will commit myself to raising matching funds dollar for dollar from the Boule, the Alphas, the Kappas, the Deltas, the Ques, the Links, Jack and Jill and all of the other networking organizations that have benefitted from the foundations laid by our fathers. Even though we may disagree on how to remedy persistent problems of racial inequality, I hope we can agree on this: that training underserved minorities is one viable solution. I hope we can agree that those of us who have benefited from the sacrifices made by our fathers and who have succeeded in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement possess an obligation to support those less fortunate than us.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,438 posts)not accusing anybody of racism
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Whether or not those charges can be proven in court is open to debate.
She is a lousy choice to be a speaker in any forum and students and faculty are within their rights to protest the living shit out of her appearance and making money from some dumbass speech. If I was a student there, I'd probably protest too.
However, there is no racial component to these protests. Furthermore, the University president neither states nor implies that there is. He's full of crap when he says "we can't have…academic freedom…by denying a stage to those we disagree with…", because he'd never consent to have (for example) the guy who bombed the Jewish center in KC come and speak. But still, he does not call anybody a racist.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)how ironic.. as we were protesting Dr Rice's visit, lawyers and human rights officials were talking of how to hold those who lied us into War can be brought to justice.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/23175-international-lawyers-seek-justice-for-iraqis
International lawyers and activists converged at a conference titled The Iraq Commission, in Brussels, Belgium, April 16 and 17, with the primary aim of bringing to justice government officials who are guilty of war crimes in Iraq.
"Within a few days of this, a lawless atmosphere developed within my unit,” Ross Caputi, a former marine who took part in the brutal November 2004 siege of Fallujah told the Iraq Commission. "There was a lot of looting going on. I saw people searching the pockets of the dead resistance fighters for money. Some people were mutilating corpses."
The conference represents the most powerful and most current organized attempt in the world to bring justice to those responsible for the catastrophe in Iraq, and included powerful international lawyers like International Court of Justice lawyer Curtis Doebbler and Louie Roberto Zamora Bolanos, a lawyer from Costa Rica who successfully sued the government of his country for supporting the war in Iraq.
Their goal for the conference was to begin taking concrete steps toward international lawsuits that will bring former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and former US President George W. Bush, along with those responsible in their administrations, to justice for the myriad war crimes committed in Iraq.
"I was very misinformed and uninformed about the goals of our mission, about who our enemy was and about the danger that we posed to civilians," Caputi said of the context for his actions. "My command told us that all civilians had left Fallujah and that the only people who remained in the city were combatants. This was not true, though. The Red Cross estimated that up to 50,000 civilians remained trapped in the city. But nobody in my unit knew that."
Al-Mukhtar stated that the UN was used "illegally and unethically" to destroy Iraq, a country that was a founding member of the UN.
"Aside from the Abu Ghraib catastrophe; the gang rape and killing of the teenage girl Abeer al-Janabi and her family in Yusufiyah; aside from the targeted killings of academics, media professionals and ethnic or religious minorities, the legacy is more than 4 million Iraqi refugees, more than 3 million orphans and more than a million widows," he stated to the audience.
While the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, former president George W. Bush, along with several members of his cabinet including Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, to name but a few, are guilty of war crimes for their roles in creating the conditions for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, according to lawyers at the conference.
"Lest current events cloud principles, and in order to restore focus on the rules of international rules, such as state responsibility, human rights, war crimes, crimes against humanity, there will be no justice for the victims of this crime against peace," Al-Mukhtar stated, in concluding his opening remarks. "We will discuss practical approaches to ensure accountability and put an end to impunity."
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Not that it's possible to equate: It seems killing people is worse than protesting a Secretary of State and national security advisor who went along with their deaths. Anybody speaking for them, the million dead, President Kaler?
sakabatou
(42,177 posts)annm4peace
(6,119 posts)Human Rights, Civil Rights, and American Foreign Policy
A colloquium inspired by Dr. Condoleezza Rice and the events following 9/11
Wednesday, April 23
4:30-6:00 PM
Cowles Auditorium
In coordination with the the University of Minnesota Student Association (UMSA) and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Department of Political Science, the Undergraduate Political Science Association (UPSA), Professor of Sociology David Pellow, Professor of Poltical Science Teri Caraway, and Professor of Political Science and the Humphrey School of Public Affairs James Ronn (???) have agreed to sponsor a forum to engage in the deeper exploration of the issues raised by recent controversies surrounding the visitation of Dr. Condoleezza Rice. Speakers XXXXXXXX
On April 17, 2014, Dr. Condoleezza Rice gave the Distinguished Carlson Lecture at the University of Minnesota as part of the series of events entitled, "Keeping Faith with a Legacy of Justice," sponsored by the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the American Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dr. Rice, an accomplished African-American woman, currently holds faculty position at Stanford University, where she also served as Provost. During the Bush Administration, Dr. Rice served as the 66th United States Secretary of State, where in her post, she had significant influence in crafting foreign and domestic policies in regards to the United States' War on Terror.
Dr. Rice's visit to the University of Minnesota has generated a storm of controversy on campus; SDS demanded the invitation be rescinded, alleging that her involvement in the prosecution of the War on Terror qualifies her as a war criminal. UMSA, as well as President Kaler, countered that universities are places for the free exchange of ideas and that we must welcome those with differing views rather than casting their banishment.
The authority of Dr. Rice to speak on the subject of a "legacy of justice" has also invited hot debate. Some have noted that as a successful African-American woman, her experience can shed light on how minorities and other disadvantaged groups can overcome obstacles to succeed. This experience implies that she can speak with authority on the legacy of the civil rights movement. Whilst others have objected, arguing that she is not a recognized advocate for nor expert on American civil rights and that her actions while in public office resulted in violations of basic human rights that counter the principle goals of the civil rights movement.
The controversy surrounding Dr. Rice's recent visit provide an excellent opportunity for the university community to reflect on issues of both free speech and accountability. What is "free speech"? What constitutes a violation of freedom of speech? Who speaks for the civil rights movement and its legacy? Is the concept of civil rights something that stops at the borders of the United States? What is the role of universities in holding public officials accountable for their actions in office, be those domestic or international?