Response to Horwitz '15

Letter to the editor: Response to Wedeman '15

To the Editors:
In an otherwise routine story about Colonel David Hunt’s lecture on terrorism at Bowdoin (“Terrorism lecture sparks protests over strong rhetoric,” November 7, 2014) there were some very disturbing quotes attributed to Christopher Wedeman ’15. Apparently Wedeman believes that “the biggest state sponsor of terror in the Middle East…would maybe be a tie between Israel and the United States.” This remark betrays such ignorance of the facts that one wonders what world Wedeman inhabits.
Clearly he does not read the newspapers or watch the news. Wedeman appears to be ignorant of the fact (not belief) that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Perhaps he believes that summarily executing civilians on the streets (Hamas) is not terrorism. Perhaps he believes that beheading civilian non-combatants (ISIS) is not terrorism. Perhaps he believes that firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas (Hamas and Hezbollah) is not terrorism.
Perhaps Wedeman’s world view is best explained by the fact that he is one of the founding members of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a student group that “promotes the self-determination of Palestinian people and their liberation from Occupation”. If, by “Occupation,” SJP is referring to Hamas (which controls Gaza) or the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Fatah (which control the West Bank) then fine.
But more likely SJP is referring to Israel. If so, SJP betrays total ignorance. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and, other than some unfortunate Jewish settlements in the West Bank, it does not occupy any part of “Palestine,” itself a territory generally without consensus world recognition. Palestinians in Israel have more rights and freedoms than Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan or any other Middle East location.
Finally, it is fascinating that Wedeman states that “it’s interesting that Bowdoin gave [Colonel Hunt] a platform to speak like this.” Apparently Wedeman’s ignorance is not limited to geopolitical matters; he also is ignorant of the First Amendment. My suggestion is that Wedeman (and the members of SJP) walk around the campus and pay special attention to the monuments to Bowdoin graduates who gave the last full measure of devotion to protect the very freedoms which he and SJP apparently disdain.
Sincerely,Jeff D. Emerson ’70Member of the Board of Trustees

Letter to the editor: Response to Emerson ’70

To the Editors:
I was dismayed to read last week’s letter to the editor from Jeff D. Emerson ’70, wherein he criticized the views of Christopher Wedeman ’15. To be clear, I don’t share Wedeman’s views, but I was disappointed that Emerson, a Bowdoin trustee, would resort to ad hominen attacks and straw man arguments in order to put down a current student.
For example, Emerson insinuated that Wedeman is disdainful of the First Amendment because he questions the wisdom of giving a person a public forum on campus. However, the First Amendment protects citizens only from government restrictions on speech. There is no constitutional right to be an invited speaker at a private college nor is there a constitutional guarantee that a choice of speaker must be free from student criticism. Accordingly, Wedeman is of no immediate threat to our constitutional rights.
Notwithstanding his incorrect interpretation of constitutional law, Emerson further contends that Wedeman’s dissenting views somehow disparage Bowdoin’s military veterans who died to protect our freedoms. Emerson, neither you nor I know exactly what motivated each of these brave men and women, but I sincerely doubt any of them gave their lives with the hope that their deaths would be used as a cheap rhetorical ploy by a trustee bullying a student.
I hope Bowdoin continues to recruit speakers who will challenge the campus’ prevailing politics. I also hope that students who oppose such speakers’ views will continue to voice their dissent.
But I most fervently hope that the trustees as a whole possess better reasoning skills and a greater depth of character than Emerson has displayed.
Sincerely,Kevin R. Larivee ’06

Letter to the editor

November 13, 2014

To the Editors:

In making his argument (in the column “Dressing to look homeless is distasteful, not humorous,” November 7, 2014), the writer used an egregious false equivalence comparing the “homeless-chic” style of dressing to blackface. This comparison to blackface is superficial and careless as it erases the function of blackface as a system of oppression.

Blackface never was just about the imitation of black people or an attempt at being ironic. At its core, blackface is about the dehumanization of black people in order to justify the existence of racism in our society.

It perpetuated ugly myths of black people as dangerous, simple, violent and overly sexual creatures that are humorous in their “attempts” at humanity. It was historically done to humiliate and mock black people, to show that they were unworthy of anything like compassion, understanding, respect or basic human rights.

These myths still last today in more watered down versions in discussions ranging from the hyper-sexualization of the black body to the inherent criminality of black men.

This more intensive understanding of blackface is often lost in mainstream conversations and is part of the reason why people ranging from your average Joe Schmo to celebrities like Julianne Hough still ignorantly use blackface. The comparison used whitewashes and oversimplifies this history, ultimately serving as a disservice to both the topic he was writing on and the issue of blackface.

Alex Mathieu ’15

Comments are permanently closed.