Tue 8 Apr 2008
Do we have any readers from the classes of 1981–1984? If so, tell us about the cross burning on campus.
For example, race-related problems have had very visible results at Amherst and Williams, both small, highly selective, northeastern schools. After a cross-burning occurred at Williams College last fall, admissions officials there saw Black applications drop significantly. Only 100 Blacks applied for their class of ‘85, compared with 170 for the previous class. Some Blacks even pulled out of their supposedly binding early-decision contracts. Philip Smith, director of admissions at Williams, attributes the declines to “the massive publicity surrounding the cross-burning.” The press often covered the situation inaccurately, Smith says, citing one example where a newspaper ran big headlines saying that Williams classes had been cancelled for three days as a result of the incident, when in fact there had only been a two-hour voluntary moratorium one morning.
Aside from media hype, though, there was a very real, very strong campus response to the cross-burning, Smith says, adding that students, faculty members and administrators united against the atrocity. Admissions officials expanded their visits to big cities, encouraged students to visit the campus, and tried to contact minority students individually to ease their concerns.
Apparently they were fairly successful; the yield (the percentage of students accepting their offers of admission) for Blacks admitted in April was actually a bit higher than the yield for the previous year. “I suspect the problem will fizzle out, since the publicity is down.” Smith adds.
The events at Williams virtually mirrored those which had taken place the year before at Amherst College. Before a cross-burning occurred there in 1979, Amherst was accustomed to enrolling between 25 and 30 Black students in each class (the class size at Amherst is about 385). After the incident, the figure dropped to 13 in the class of ‘84.
I believe that the Amherst cross-burning was later shown to be a hoax, but I can’t find a good link for that claim. I believe that the Eph burner(s) were never caught. Was anyone there when it happened in the fall of 1980?
The Times reported:
At Williams, even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation concluded that last year’s cross burning had probably been ”a prank,” more than 1,200 students turned out for a protest rally, and there has been a series of lectures and workshops on the issue.
”Relationships, which were pretty good, have improved since,” Mr. Chandler said last week. ”White students have become more sensitive to subtle forms of racism, more willing to talk about it.” Many students, he added, were emotionally upset that the crossburning could happen, while other whites who at first wondered ”what all the fuss was about” have learned since why blacks feel so strongly about this reminder of an outrageous past. ”We took it seriously,” Mr. Chandler said. ”And we didn’t get polarized.”
See also this AP story (pdf) and one from Time.
The ugly message called for the elimination of “stinking black monkeys” from “a white society.” It was mailed from Cleveland, signed K.K.K. and addressed to a black senior at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., part of a spate of hate mail and threatening phone calls to blacks on campus. A similar letter was sent to Williams President John Chandler.
The wave of antiblack attacks began in early November. During homecoming, two figures in white sheets planted a wooden cross on campus. Few took any notice until the pair doused the cross with gasoline, ignited it and escaped.
…
Though officials have sharply tightened security on the campuses and the FBI is investigating the incidents at Williams, Wesleyan and Harvard for possible civil rights violations, there is no evidence of who is behind the racist campaign, whether isolated individuals or concerted groups. Despite the Ku Klux Klan references and implications, there is no proof that the Klan is involved.
What particularly bothers students and school officials is that the news of each incident has seemed to spawn others. In an open letter to the college community, Wesleyan President Colin Campbell said he believed the anonymous letter delivered there was one example of “resurgent racism in society at large.” Chandler concurs: “Because of the current shift in the national mood, I’m assuming that some rather ugly impulses have been liberated.” Says Archie Epps III, dean of undergraduates at Harvard and a black: “In such a climate, an individual who has harbored resentment is more likely to feel free to threaten minorities because, once again, it is respectable.” Among the moves that Chandler and Epps feel encourage racism are an antibusing measure in Congress and calls to repeal the Voting Rights Act.
Only a racist could be against busing.
The incidents have spurred students and faculty members to look anew at long-simmering problems between the races, both on campus and off. Acknowledges Susan Hobbs, a white Williams senior: “There has been apprehension about relations between minorities and whites.” Another white Williams student wonders why “each group seems to stick together, without reaching out to each other.” Says Darrell McWhorter, a black senior who is president of the Williams student council: “There is really nothing different here from the world outside. These incidents have just shown that Williams does not exist in a vacuum.”
…
At Williams, officials held two prayer meetings and replaced half a day of classes with seminars on campus race relations. A reward of $1,000 was offered for information about the cross burners.
A tale worth remembering.
22 Responses to “ Cross Burning ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Good People of Williams » EphBlog
April 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm[...] on my time at Williams and some of those who had inspired me. It also made me contemplate Larry’s suggestion that we might discuss people at Williams that had great influence on us, be it professors, fellow [...]
April 8th, 2008 at 7:54 am
This post is really bizarre and I don’t understand the point. Obviously you are trying to draw some sort of analogy, but there is no analogy to be drawn between folks in white robes burning a cross on campus and anything that might have happened recently at Williams. Nor is there any similarity, diversity-wise, between Williams (or for that matter, the US) in 1981 and 2008.
Then you throw the bizarre and totally out of place bussing comment in … ummmm, apparently you can’t find enough race related commentary to critique in the last 10 years, so now you have to go back to a 30 year old article from the Harvard student paper? And while the bussing experiment was a clear failure, much of the opposition to the program WAS based in racism (that is undeniable), and the point of raising that in the article was to look for possible provocations for a spate of race based incidents at elite campuses across the country, not to analyze whether opposition to bussing was justified on non-racist grounds. I don’t get what you are trying to accomplish here …
April 8th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Plus, Jeff, it is highly likely that whoever burned the crosses (unless David’s going to pull a switcheroo) was stimulated to do so at least partly by the antibusing legislation. Chandler and Epps were right–busing had become one of the most polarizing issues at that time and racists were clearly on one side of that issue and felt some sense of relief from those specific efforts and the Reagan administration in general.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Jeff and Rory are right: this post and its timing are strange. Let’s give this sort of posting a rest.
Here are some topics we might explore:
(With the thought that accepted applicants may be finding this blog and we’d like to help them with their choice and get them to become readers)
-the best things about Williams
-someone at Williams who changed your life
-favorite memories of Williams
-what I’d do differently
This doesn’t have to be pablum.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Good call, Larry. Or perhaps why you chose Williams over [x] school, and whether the deciding factor in fact made a different in your college experience …
April 8th, 2008 at 10:02 am
1) I am not trying to “draw some sort of analogy.” This is a piece of Williams history that I was vaguely aware of but had never researched. Neil provided a link to the story two months ago, but I never got around to doing some research (harder than it looks!) until now. (Apologies for not giving Neil credit above.)
2) To be completely honest, the reason that this post appeared today rather than a couple others (both unrelated to this topic, for what it is worth) is that this one is much less controversial than those will be. I am applying to teach a Winter Study seminar for next January and I figure that my chances are increased if I play nice. So ixnay on the avidday isay acistray, please.
3) I realize that everything except my busing comment is neutral history and, so, that comment seems out of place. But come on! I couldn’t resist. Rory may know more cross-burners than I do (?!) but, from the second-hand info I have, I find it absurd to think that your typical cross-burner is “stimulated to do so at least partly by the antibusing legislation.” Your typical cross-burning is inspired by a) animus toward blacks (90%) and b) opposition to policies like busing that have a racial context (10%). The fact that there is anti-busing legislation in Congress plays no causative role: Did that legislation ever pass? Did it even get out of committee? Does your typical cross burner read the inside pages of the New York Times where such stories are covered? In other words, even if there were no anti-busing legislation in Congress, these cross-burnings would have occurred.
It is a measure of the reflexive, insular liberalism of the time that Chandler/Epps (and/or the reporter on that story) would think that an “antibusing measure” played a part in what happened.
4) And note that most of the history that comes to mind when you think “opposition to busing” happened after 1970! In other words, although this was a major controversy in Massachusetts and the rest of the US in the 1970s, it had barely even hit the radar at the time of the cross burning at Williams. Now, obviously, there must have been something about this issue in the news, otherwise Chandler would not have mentioned it at all. I can find no story in Google about an “antibusing measure in Congress” prior to November 1970. Now, such a new story must exist (links welcome!) but it is absurd to think that this would have played a meaningful role in a cross-burning in Williamstown.
5) [Larry George]: Your topics seem like great ones. We would welcome you as an author at EphBlog (anonymous or otherwise). You could then start these threads (and others) whenever you liked.
6) Call me crazy, but I am suspicious about whether or not the 1970 Williams cross-burning was a hoax. The 1993 racist graffiti at Rice House was, so why might not this be? But, again, I am looking for stories from people who were there at the time.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
The 1970 cross-burning? It was in 1981. I think it was on Saturday night of Homecoming weekend, and I remember that at the time it was thought (I don’t remember the details) that the incident did not involve Williams students. The campus was outraged by the incident. I also question why you are bringing this incident up now.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Sorry it was in fall of 1980. An article in the NY Times archives says it occurred on Halloween weekend.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am
My mistake! I got confused between 1970 and 1980. Ignore my Wikipedia-fueled ramblings above.
But wasn’t it 1980 and not 1981? The Times article from March 1981 refers to a cross burning at Williams “last year.”
Now that I look more closely, there was certainly coverage in the New York Times about busing and Congress and legislation in the months up to the cross burning. But I still have doubts about whether or not these are the sorts of news articles that your typical cross burner followed closely.
I am bringing it up now because it is an interesting story and it took me a few months to get around to it after Neil first linked to it. Also, it is the story, at least in terms of the significance of the depth of campus reaction, that is most like Stand With Us.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:03 am
1) I wrote that last comment after seeing comment 6) but before seeing comment 7).
2) I can’t find much detail on the cross-burning at Amherst. The Crimson reported on May 11, 1979:
Neil also provided this link:
But it is tough to be sure of its accuracy.
3) At some point, I will try to get scans of the Record for the fall of 1980 so that we can get more details. The history of this event would make for a great senior thesis.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
David, are you being dense on purpose so as to create disagreement to make it seem like this post was remotely valuable?
Legislation and national or state level movements about racial issues are very, very often the straw that breaks the racist camel’s back. When did racists riot over public housing? When it was in a white neighborhood.
1980/1981 was the height of the reagan republican southern strategy. Busing was one of their favorite codes for whipping up racial divisions. Connecting that to an act of racism is something you doubt?
Cross burnings and lynchings do not happen in a vacuum…generally there is some sort of challenge to the racial status quo that sparks such racist violence. Busing was one of the most popular such challenges to spark racist acts. To act otherwise is to be blind to history.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Rory, how does one differentiate between a race riot and a racist riot? I’m honestly curious. Have there been any racist riots by Blacks in the US?
Moreover, there’s plenty to dislike about busing without even venturing near racism. One could, for example, not want *anybody’s* children to spend 1/8 of each school day on a bus, or, in a more modern take, dislike the much larger “carbon footprint” that extensive busing would entail.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I was at Williams in the early 1980s when the cross burning occurred, though I don’t recall the date.
According to my recollection, it occurred on the front lawn of Perry House, which was holding a party. A car drove up, someone jumped out and quickly set up a crude wooden cross, lit it, ran back in the car, and drove off. The cross promptly fell over.
There was no particular reason to burn a cross in front of Perry House. The intended target was more likely the Black Student Union, which was holding a simultaneous event next door in Weston. However, the BSU event was formal, and so Weston appeared relatively quiet and dark. The Perry party, on the other hand, was loud and conspicuous.
It was suspected that the act was conducted by outsiders, since they apparently targeted the wrong college building. But I don’t think the culprits were ever identified. As stated above, it outraged the whole campus.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Lowell,
You and David (though his may be a fault of confusing dates) have now both completely misinterpretted my argument–whether that fault is mine or yours is unimportant.
I am not taking a stand on busing as a public policy. What I am saying is that busing legislation was not only a legitimately debateable public policy (hey, a lot of lefty black people hated it too)BUT ALSO a common focus of racists. Just like not all conservatives agree with Bush, neither did all antibusing people secretly support racist acts of cross burning. For racists, however, busing and its controversy was a great entre into mainstream political discourse and also a motivating factor for the resurgent rise of racism (especially in Massachusetts) in the 1980s as part of the reagan republican strategy.
My point has never changed–the controversy over busing is very likely related to the cross burning. that’s it.
as for race riots vs. racist riots, i don’t know where you’re going with that, and i’m worried that i don’t want to either.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
To elaborate a bit on my previous post (#12), the event itself was not particularly dramatic or threatening, as you might imagine that cross burnings are supposed to be. As I recall, a crude wooden cross was quickly set up and lit on the Perry front lawn; then it almost immediately fell over and fizzled out as the perpetrator(s) ran off and drove away.
The partiers in Perry didn’t even realize what had been attempted, until someone got curious about the odd activity on the lawn and went outside to inspect.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
First off, this had me laughing so hard I almost fell out of my chair:
I had no idea you ever considered the merits of how controversial a topic might be before you posted. In my time on EphBlog thus far, I have seen little evidence. And if this is playing nice, please warn us all before whatever is more controversial so that we can have a stiff drink in hand before attempting to deal with it. Also, insensitive or willfully blind to the impact of some of your statements and “acistray” are not the same. I don’t recall anyone calling you the latter.
Re: busing, Massachusetts (specifically Boston) had some of the most ardent oponents to busing of anywhere in the country in the 1970s after a 1974 case provided busing to remedy the segregated school system, so the issue would have been of particular notoriety at Williams in 1980. Since all of us who disagree with David must properly source our opinions whereas his random assertions of the 90% motivations of cross-burners are not, for background you can check out the book Boston Against Busing, the wikipdedia entry on the topic, and an NPR story on the legacy of busing (Boston is Part 3) to which I have admittedly not yet listened but seems on point from the description.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Rory, you’ve strung a bunch of correlations together without ever getting to a causation. Indeed, your use of “very likely” admits that your statement suffers from the same causative fallacy that you accuse him of. He’s saying that there’s almost certainly no causation, despite the correlation. You’re trying to wave your hands over the correlation and turn it into causation.
Moreover, I’m really amused at your characterization of the Massholes
“Massholes,” for lack of a better or more accurate term, have did not need this or any other episode to continue their long racist tradition. It is no coincidence that the odious Sux were the last team to have a black player (Willie O’Ree on the Bruins, the obvious counterexample from a different, flew under the radar for the same reasons that Hockey is 4th fiddle in Boston even today, along with a name to endear even the most ardent Masshole).
And I’m confused how Reagan lost Boston and Suffolk and Middlesex counties in both 1980 and 1984, despite this pernicious strategy, even though he won the state overall in both years (though admittedly against pathetic competition both times). Surely, if Reagan’s “racist strategy” were successful enough to win the state under the cirrhotic thumb of the Kennedys for the better part of a century, it would have done better in those areas most affected by busing.
However, because those areas instead lagged Reagan’s margin of victory, your theory seems to be at variance with historical reality (or at least my phallocentric heterosexist rationalist Western Imperialist take on it). But what are a few things like facts to get in the way of smears on Reagan?
April 8th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
dkane:
Thank you for this bit of history. It’s learning new pieces of Williams lore, whether it’s from you or from frank’s 1950s frat life, that makes ephblog an enjoyable read for me.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Lowell,
You’ve completely misinterpreted what my point was again (again, said without faulting either of us). At this point, it’s not worth continuing.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:36 am
If one accepts the premise that on balance “busing” is a bum idea, then a protest against it, irrespective of what one thinks of the attitude of the protester, can legitimately (from a social standpoint) manifest itself in the form of civil disobedience - provided that, of course, the protester willingly surrenders himself. In the case of a trespass on private property the question is whether that sort of misdemeanor exceeds the bounds of legitimate civil disobedience - the cross burning by itself alone being exempt from government penalty as an exercise of a First Amendment right so long as the material burned is the property of the protester, and the fire and its byproducts are not of sufficient magnitude to constitute a public hazard.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
When I started reading ephblog (not that long ago) it was interesting and topical. It seems that there are those who are interested in creating and continuing conflict that is neither topical nor logical. I am sorry.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Reader, welcome to Ephblog and thank you for saying that. It makes me sad too. Stick with it, though, f you can stomach it - there are some very constructive voices as well.