Scheduled, then canceled
The talk was originally scheduled by the special collections of the university library, as a 20-year retrospective on “The Great Sedition Trial” – the longest running, most expensive trial ever held in this part of the country. Ray Luc Levasseur was scheduled to be the main speaker; Levasseur is on parole, living in Maine, and his parole officer approved his traveling to give the talk. Although he was to be paid for the talk – by an outside group – he had stated his intention to give the stipend to a locally-based charity. I paid little attention to the original talk schedule, noting it as mildly interesting, but not a priority to attend.
The librarian who scheduled the talk did so simply because the trial was a big event in this part of the country, and it seemed worthwhile looking back on it as one of several talks in a series on social change and its consequences. No one anticipated the torrent of criticism that was unleashed, mostly directed not at Levasseur’s own actions, but rather at the fact that one member of the same political group, when stopped for a traffic violation, shot and killed a New Jersey state trooper, and another member shot at two Massachusetts police. Levasseur himself was never charged, much less convicted, of shooting at police.
Why did the librarian cancel the originally scheduled talk? At some point the talk became a major issue to police groups, who mobilized tremendous pressure to have the talk canceled. At first I assumed that the chancellor must have pressured the library to cancel, with the chancellor himself responding to pressure from the governor. That isn’t what happened: The librarian involved felt that the talk would no longer serve the purpose originally intended, as a forum about the trial and the issues it raised, and that the event would be used to damage the university.
Even more important, the librarian was subjected to a huge quantity of hate mail, which both took up much of his time and was personally upsetting. Although I didn’t listen to his phone messages, I did listen to some of the phone messages received by Sara Lennox, the person publicly identified as leading the drive to re-schedule the talk. Here’s a sample, one of dozens of similar messages: “You f___ing c___, I hope you get lost under a bus on the way to the talk, you douche bag; that would save us some trouble.” (I’m told a web site showed talk sponsors being popped and killed.) Sara’s voice mail filled up with such messages, making it impossible for others to get through, and a challenge for her to listen to messages looking for the few real ones from students or colleagues.
I can easily see why a librarian listening to dozens (hundreds?) of such messages would be worried, both for him/herself and for others. Immediately after listening to a few of these calls, I was quoted as saying that when “a talk gets canceled because of outside pressure, that is itself a form of terrorism.” The New York Times Ethicist says that in saying this I got “the process of free speech exactly wrong,” that such pressure by opposing forces is itself a fine example of free speech. Of course, he hadn’t bothered to learn the character of the pressure. I suspect if he had talked to the librarian, the Ethicist would not have written “In this case, there was a very public give and take. And a kind of line for what is legitimate commentary in our republic was once again established. All good.” (Jack Hitt, NY Times, November 17, 2009)
Re-scheduled
When police groups attacked the talk, and the governor weighed in, and the president of the university condemned it, many of us on the faculty felt that if outside political pressure led to the cancellation of talks by unpopular speakers, or those with unpopular viewpoints, both academic freedom and free speech would be endangered.
Our concern was not because we agreed with the views, much less the actions, of Ray Luc Levasseur. (I teach a course on radical movements; in that course a fundamental lesson is that radical change requires a mass movement, and secretive groups promoting violence undercut the ability to build such mass movements.) But a great many people felt that if the university buckled to outside pressure, if a down-in-the-polls governor running for re-election, and police groups, could lead to a talk being canceled, then the university was losing its ability to consider unpopular positions and challenge conventional thinking. We didn’t want our future speakers to be run past a review committee of politicians and police. People who had no interest in the original talk (myself included), suddenly took a major interest in seeing to it that the talk be re-scheduled.
On this basis, and explicitly not as an endorsement of Ray Luc Levasseur, his views, or his actions, in 48 hours a number of academic departments signed up to see to it that the talk be re-scheduled, and Ray Luc Levasseur be offered a new chance to talk on the same topic, the trial at which he was the chief defendant. Active debates about the meaning of free speech took place all over campus, both in groups that signed on as co-sponsors of the re-scheduled event, and in groups that did not (or that could not decide within the time-frame involved).
The press release that announced the re-scheduled event was explicit on this point, and the language of the press release was important to many of the faculty and departments who decided to support the re-scheduling:
Departments have added their support to this event in the name of protecting the cherished American values of freedom of speech and academic freedom, which they believed to be threatened by the decision to cancel the event under pressure from a variety of outside organizations. Sponsors’ support for this event should in no way be construed as an endorsement of Levasseur, his political beliefs, or any of his past activities.
The event itself
The event itself did not involve the tension-filled unproductive chaos that many had predicted; it was instead an example of what universities should be about. Although Ray Levasseur was invited by university groups, and although his parole officer had earlier approved his traveling to Massachusetts to give the talk, the parole board – in response to police pressure – canceled his permission to appear, so he was not present. (Free speech was thus denied, a tragedy – but the denial was not by the university; an important point to the sponsors of the re-scheduled event.) Something like 200 demonstrators nonetheless picketed the event, mostly police, including the widow and children of the slain New Jersey state trooper. About 250 attended the event – more would have done so, but the room had reached its seating capacity and the police (quite reasonably) did not want anyone standing in the aisles in case of a need to evacuate the room. A large majority of the audience members were students, most of whom came with an open mind interested in learning.
The panel for “The Great Sedition Trial: Twenty Years After” included four lawyers, one defendant (Pat Levasseur, ex-wife of Ray), and two jurors. Panelists spoke for a bit under an hour, and questions ran for another 45 minutes.
One of the jurors had driven 12 hours to attend the event: during the ten months of the trial she became very impressed with Ray Levasseur, has since corresponded with him, and said at the talk that he is so smart, he should be a professor at a local college somewhere. (Strange things happen when ordinary people spend months listening to evidence, and hearing from defendants; it’s also worth noting that at the trial none of the defendants were convicted of anything – most of the verdicts were flat-out “not guilty”, other verdicts led to a hung jury with all charges dismissed soon thereafter.)
One of the attorneys, Liz Fink, argued that it was dubious
to call Ray Levasseur and the other defendants terrorists. (If Levasseur is a terrorist, is Nelson Mandela? He was convicted of sedition, and the ANC sponsored bombings. Is Andrew Card, Bush’s chief of staff, who promoted an illegal war that led to thousands of deaths? Yet both Card and Mandela received honorary degrees from the university.) Although members of Levasseur’s group did bomb buildings, they always issued a warning and tried to be sure no one was hurt. The only bombing in which people were hurt was their first bombing, the Suffolk County Courthouse. The bombers issued a warning, and all the judges were evacuated from the building, but other people weren’t informed of the threat.
The final question for the night asked about the use of violence as a strategy. Liz Fink said (approximately):
I’ve spent my life defending people accused of violence, some of whom did commit violent acts. Trust me: violence does not work. What works is the constitution, is free speech. If you asked Ray Levasseur – and it’s too bad he can’t be here – he’d tell you he’s had more impact by his writing and speaking since his release than he ever had through any illegal underground actions.
That’s probably not the message the police groups and the governor expected the forum to deliver, but it’s one more example of why free speech is worth supporting, even if the speaker is a convicted “terrorist.”
Some cynical people tend to think academics — especially academics of the baby boom generation — have a certain bias toward controversial statements and/or actions taken by their peers in the cause of protesting the Vietnam War (which was, in my opinion, a worthy cause — but there’s no question that some people got carried away).
<
p>Maybe you could dissaude the cynics by listing some other speakers UMass has featured.
<
p>
This is a fantastic diary. Thank you for posting it at BMG.
<
p>It illustrates a case of how and from whom we choose to provide or not provide a forum for speech in our free society and more particularly in our institution of higher education … and it is trickier than you might think.
<
p>After watching Andrew Card get mercilessly booed at his UMass honorary degree ceremony, I thought there is a better way to protest the conveyance of an honorary degree on Card. I happen to agree with those who think the University made a bad decision but it did not make me proud to see him publicly hounded.
<
p>In this case, I am pleased the University is trying to engage unpopular free speech and use it as a lesson to think critically about what is said, and embrace or reject it on the merit.
I’m sure the news coverage contributed, but my sense is that much of the organizing came from police groups, who protect their own. It may have been 25 years ago, it may not have been Ray Levasseur, but a trooper went down, and anyone associated with that is a target. In many ways that reaction is admirable, and the main police groups were model demonstrators — but obviously some of the associated response was not.
I’m pleased to finally see the tale told by one of the conference organizers. Knowing Sara as I do, coverage and commentary suggesting that she supported terrorism appalled me since I know that accusation to be nonsense. My strong belief is that biased and inflammatory “news” coverage, most particularly by the Springfield Republican, has incited the death threats to which Sara was subjected.
<
p>From the Springfield Republican, however, this is hardly surprising. That very same publisher has authored Op/Eds that essentially rationalize violence against women, so for him to have employed hateful and inflammatory language intended solely to provoke a rage in his audience that he fully well knew would lead to Sara being targeted seems par for the course for that hatemonger.
<
p>Note the following:
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…
This person deserves nothing from us (and US). The fact that we are ready to spend one dime to give a platform, provide security or even a cup of coffee is a disgrace. I believe in free speech and if this bozo wants to go stand on a corner I would support his right (as I would support anyone’s right no matter how disgusting I might find the subject such as Pro Choice or Pro Life demonstrators).
<
p>But I do not want to provide a platform for him or anyone like him.
your objection is not about the money, it’s about his speech and the crimes he was convicted of.
I hate this guy for who he is and what he did… and yes what he says. I am being completely upfront here by saying he has the right to say anything he wants to say, as we all do. I am protesting any money being spent AND by giving him a platform in our publicly supported school/property. If he wants to stand outside the school grounds and give his speech then I would withdraw any protest (other than my then “what an ahole… hope he trips on a pot hole” type comments), but certainly not “prevent him from speaking”. Clear?
The money to provide his stipend was to come from private sources. Every person in society deserves protection from the mob — those both in and out of prison.
<
p>So, I guess your stance isn’t at all clear to me, on these semi-technical grounds.
<
p>It’s also not at all clear to me why those of us (you AND me) who don’t like the kind of violence perpetrated by Mr. Levasseur decades ago would want to suppress modern statements by him — statements which might help others to see that violence like that isn’t acceptable or useful.
<
p>What am I misunderstanding?
Can you read this sentence…
<
p>
<
p>So I don’t care ONLY about the money for his coffee or his protection. I pay for the school and the grounds. Let him speak on the corner of the street or out in the woods. Maybe he could go speak in NJ where his organization killed a NJ State Trooper!
<
p>Coming soon to campuses around the state… “Why I enjoy beating my wife” by a admitted abuser who never was punished nor does he see the problem with spousal abuse… followed soon by “Child porn: what I did, how I did it and why it was so fun”.
<
p>But of course you may say these fictitious speakers would not be invited but they could claim the same “fredom of speech” as out terrorist does. Is he sorry for what he did…
<
p>
<
p>Doesn’t sound like an apology to me.
<
p>So do I. So what?
<
p>Where do you draw the line? Should all persons with whom you take issue be denied opportunity to take part in a forum at a public university? What filtering criteria do you suggest?
then we can go down from there. How about you… do you have any person or type of criminal whom you would not pay for a platform for them to speak. How about some skinheads or maybe other “group” haters? Hell, for awhile it was looking like some schools wouldn’t even let ROTC come to their schools!
That criminal Nelson Mandela to start with. He was a terrorist. And Aum Sun Suu Kyi! And the Dalai Lama! All terrorists if you ask conservative reactionaries!
<
p>…..oh.
<
p>You pay for that too.
<
p>The problem I’m having is that there’s no evidence that he’d use the platform to encourage the kind of behavior he engaged in decades ago. In fact, to the contrary, it appears that the platform would be used to help the community better understand why his actions weren’t effective — that the pen is in fact mightier than the sword.
<
p>As for the final quote of yours, it’s not relevant. The appropriate question perhaps is “Do you believe now that what you did then was right?” Oftentimes people do things that they thought were appropriate at the time, but later come to change their views.
as is your right
If this pamphlet: “Until All Are Free: The Trial Statement of Ray Luc Levasseur” by Ray Luc Levasseur, was part of a syllabus for a class on a related subject, who would take notice and object and demand that it be removed? NO ONE.
<
p>Who beside me has read the autobiography of Malcolm X as part of their formal education?
<
p>It seems we are ready to engage in thinking about and valuing threatening ideas written in books but not from speakers of those ideas in public forums.
<
p>There is something about providing a forum for controversial speech and controversial speakers who in the passed embraced violence or ideas that pose a sense on menace or threat to our society. Is it simply a matter of not trusting ourselves and others to think about it clearly?
<
p>I haven’t… but I’m reading it now as part of my informal education 🙂
…but make sure you read Alex Haley’s notes afterward to get the full context.
connection with Roxbury, the Charlestown jail, working as a food concession guy on the Boston NY train line or friendship with Redd Foxx. I found it fascinating.
<
p>Last Friday, I met a man who graduated from Boston English in 1951. Louis Farrakhan was in the class of 1950 at Boston English. My new friend said he was one of the smartest people he knew. His Muslim religion notwithstanding, Farrakhan sent money for drinks for his classmates to the 50th reunion.
to actually watch and listen to a complete Louis Farrakhan speech or sermon before discounting or rejecting him. The same is true for Jeremiah Wright. The same is true for Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King.
<
p>It is too easy to rely on second- and third-hand opinion, especially negative opinion, and come to conclusions about public figures that are completely wrong.
Jeremiah Wright
It’s well worth a listen, all the way through.
<
p>It is no wonder that Fox, Rupert Murdoch, and the rightwing feel so compelled to trash this man and his words.
<
p>Oh, by the way, pay attention to the story unfolding even now about Rupert Murdoch. It will be interesting to watch the rightwing spin the high-speed crash-and-burn of Mr. Murdoch, Fox Noise, and the rest of his empire.
It cuts both ways. While I agree that free speech should allow anyone to bring ones thoughts to the stage, especially at a university. It also allows folks to target that freedom and voice their own, sometimes in not so nice ways. Personally, I don’t know enough about the guy to hate him, but I certainly don’t like him.
<
p>My issue with this post and the event as a whole is that UMass did what so many university campuses and activist-minded students do – they went into it not thinking about how the issues will unfold. Fact is, if I begin telling people that I think abortion should be covered by health insurance, I wouldn’t be surprised that someone who disagrees with me, argues or even threatens me. Will I stand for what I believe in, yes. But I won’t walk into the situation so ignorantly as to believe that no one will react my words.
<
p>Free speech is a delicate flower that requires one to think out the entire process from the original event flyer to the end consequences. In other words, it requires a little PR and marketing. This is the freedoms we live with today. And teaching students that they can just stand up for their beliefs without giving them some understanding of how to package it is like teaching someone to paint and neglecting to teach them how to sell their work.
<
p>If the faculty from UMass had packed the event as a controversial event with a focus on the trail and contacted the stakeholders beforehand, would they have still run into resistance? Yes, but not nearly this much. And frankly, you guys are the ones teaching this stuff, you should be controlling the story and not following it.
<
p>Class dismissed.
The class you refer to is “Political Science 401, a practicum.” I’m sure you can find it at Umass. Similarly, I’m sure its attended by political science majors primarily.
<
p>The academy is about ideas. No matter the events in the course of the effort to have Ray Luc Levasseur speak there is, there is much to be learned.
<
p>Having it all worked out in advance with some degree of certainty is what I expect of the people who operate the FAA, not professors at the academy.
I think it’s absolutely right that anyone who schedules a controversial speaker has to be ready for counter-action, and have thought about a response. But many of these things are easier to see in hindsight. A university schedules dozens of talks every week, and many are — in one way or another — controversial. We have people talk on global warming or the theory of evolution or reforming the criminal justice system or legalizing marijuana, and things usually go smoothly; if one of those talks, sometime in the future, is met by huge demonstrations it will be easy to say it should have been anticipated.
<
p>That same week I was the lead organizer for a talk by Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN. That talk was picketed by members of the Glenn Beck Meet-up group. Fortunately, we monitored their web site, and that morning read their post. The outside leafleting they had done the night before at Springfield College, they had concluded, wasn’t that useful, so “we should double down on the efforts inside. … Our designated people should simply start conversations previous to commencement. These conversations should be aimed at creating doubt as to his motives. 10-15 mins into the speech, they should unleash a collective tongue lashing on this reprobate, using the rehearsed songs and chants. Remain peaceful and respectful, but disrupt his plans.” We were ready for them, and in the end they picketed, leafleted, but did not disrupt.
<
p>But with 1200 faculty, we can’t expect that everyone will always be well prepared for any kind of right-wing response. Although if this becomes the norm — two conservative demonstrations against speakers per week — after a while we will all learn how to respond effectively.
It seems a bi-partisan effort on the part of liberals and conservatives (both now calling themselves “progressives” as they have sullied the earlier terms) to squash discussion and dissent. Instead the government and corporate pap of press releases is fed to the people under the banner of truth by the talking heads that fear to break with the status quo.
<
p>Is it all part of the distrust of the American citizen’s ability to distinguish truth from lies or the fear of truth?
Absolutely any group has a right to voice their opinion, and I want to stress that the official police groups picketed and demonstrated in exactly the way we’d like to see happen in a free society. No problem there. But the hate mail, by email and phone, is not within the bounds of civil discourse; I suspect some of it crosses the line into the outright illegal (personal threats), although no one has sought police intervention to address such calls.
<
p>The panel members at the re-scheduled talk DID invite Donna Lamonaco, widow of the slain New Jersey state trooper, to appear on the panel and voice her views, without restriction. That offer was repeated on the night of the panel, and people would have been pleased to have her appear. At the same time, I can understand that she might not want to appear, might feel that gave the proceedings a legitimacy she didn’t want them to have. But that decision was her own, and panel organizers would be happy to have her appear on another such panel if she wishes to do so. (I’m speaking as an individual, not having checked with others, but I’m confident that’s the case.)
<
p>I guess I am having trouble with your characterization of protests against this event being “outside political pressure”. It is a public university utilizing taxpayers dollars. If a Massachusetts resident voices their opinion, either way, they are not “outsiders”. They have as much right as any faculty member to their opinion and to use their free speech to protest the event.
<
p>
<
p>And the right of free speech applies to the police officers who protested this event as well. And to the families of the victims.
<
p>Did the University and/or sponsoring organizations invite a representative of the police, of the victims’ families? Of the four lawyers were any part of the team that tried the charges? Was there any effort to invite/involve differing opinions or positions regarding a controversial subject such as this?
<
p>I would have let him speak and I would have invited a member of the family of at least one victim to the podium as well.