Tue 17 Nov 2009
Profile of Harry Jackson ’75
Posted by Whitney Wilson '90 under Harry Jackson '75 at 11:43 pm
Here is a very interesting profile of Harry Jackson ’75 in Wednesday’s Washington Post. I guess he must have been quite a football player at Williams:
After high school he entered Williams College — prestigious, mostly white, Massachusetts — in 1971 and majored in English lit. He again played football. He was a middle linebacker and he hit hard. Pro scouts glanced in his direction. He got a tryout with the New England Patriots.
I think the piece presents a pretty interesting picture of Jackson, one that is more complex than how he is often portrayed in shorted pieces (and sometimes here at EphBlog):
There wasn’t a seminary, or a school of theology. It was just preaching, getting invited to other pulpits and letting word spread on the grapevine. “I was trained in the field,” Jackson says, pride in his voice.
As he preached and worked, he’d look at black family life and get sullen about the grim statistics of divorce and crime. In his mind, too, there was a convergence of black family life and the clashing of alternative lifestyles. He saw abortion rates and gay marriages as undermining traditional family values. He found the pulpit, just as a cause found him.
“Some of the smartest people I knew in college were gay,” he says. “Some black students I knew who were gay were off-the-charts smart.
“But gay marriage is wrong, he says.
“”I don’t know of anybody black who says, ‘I hate gay people.’ We’re more accepting generally. But you overlap that — homosexuality and gay marriage — with broken families, and we don’t know how to put it back together.”
In Corning he founded a church, the Christian Hope Center, just outside town. The parishioners were mostly white, and that never changed.
“We really broke racial barriers for a black man pastoring white people in 1981,” he says.
His wife says: “We just believed we should preach the message God would give us.”
She says there were fewer than 20 blacks in a congregation that would grow to several hundred. “Irish Catholics and former Greek Orthodox,” she says. “It was a very interesting experience.”
Harry Jackson got attention for the successful church and was recruited in 1988 to come to Beltsville to take over, full-time, Hope Christian.
By 1998, he had become a bishop. (One becomes a bishop in the Pentecostal hierarchy by dint of establishing a reputation outside one’s own church. Jackson now serves as an adviser to eight other churches up and down the Northeast corridor as well as advising churches in South Africa.)
It appears that Bishop Jackson has taken full advantage of his Williams education. While I couldn’t disagree with him more on his signature issue, I agree with David that it would be great to get him up to Williamstown more often. Although he apparently didn’t have any formal theological training prior to become a pastor, I suspect he would be an interesting person for students interested in divinity school or the pulpit to talk to.
Print • Email| « The Snack Bar Paradox | Ace Angler » |
45 Responses to “Profile of Harry Jackson ’75”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.





hwc says:
African American students from that era are often badly disenfranchised from their lily white colleges. There is often a palpable anger that can be rather surprising to their white classmates.
JeffZ says:
Again, imagine if Jackson was white and was known, first and foremost, for claiming that allowing whites to marry blacks was responsible for child abuse in the white community. Imagine he had written dozens of columns promoting exactly that belief. That makes as much sense as claiming that gays WANTING to get married are responsible for problems with broken families in the BLACK community. And of COURSE he’d couple that with some half-assed caveat like, oh, I have nothing against black people, they are wonderful, it’s just that when they want equal rights to marry white people, it leads whites to abuse their children. That is the way all intelligent advocates of discrimination operate: they never admit, yeah, I believe group so-and-so is inferior. Imagine if instead of someone who has an apparent obsession with discriminating against gays, Whitney and David were pushing to invite the Louisiana Justice of the Peace (assuming he went to Williams) who refused a marriage certificate to a black-white couple on grounds that he thought those marriages didn’t work. (I am sure he has nothing against black people, either, or so he would say). I am guessing black students at Williams would feel angry, threatened, attacked, confused, and alarmed, and rightfully so.
You want to bring a conservative speaker to campus? Fine. You want to bring a black conservative? Fine. It could even be someone who has opposed gay marriage in terms I find offensive as part of a much larger career, like Clarence Thomas. But why does it have to be a black conservative who is known first and foremost, and who has written column after column after column and spent the bulk of his political capitol on attacking ANOTHER minority group and preaching the gospel of exclusion — in Jackson’s mind, it seems that only heterosexual Christians are fully moral. And in particular, why advocate the presence of such of person in connection with Claiming Williams?
Remember, this all started with David’s claim that bringing this man to campus for an event geared towards healing identity-based divides and differences was a good idea, and also that awarding him Williams’ highest honor, a bicentennial medal, is something we should do. Both of these positions are flat-out ridiculous. My view is that anyone who spends the bulk of his public career arguing that one particular minority is responsible for the social ills of a larger group (scapegoat much …), who seethes with animus towards a particular group and traffics in stereotypes against them, would not do ANYTHING to help heal any sort of campus divides, but would instead make them more profound and long-lasting. I would think that it would breed suspicion towards black students on campus on the part of gays if they felt like it was black students who were pushing for someone like Jackson on campus, just like black students on campus would be upset if they felt a white student group had invited the dude from Louisiana to speak at Claiming Williams to provide a “different perspective” on the problems associated with interracial relationships.
Even worse would be placing Williams’ impramatur on his public career by awarding him a Bicentennial Medal. Again, I’d have no problem with awarding such a Medal to someone very accomplished whose views I vehemently disagree with (again, if Clarence Thomas had gone to Williams, I’d be all for it). But look at Jackson’s columns, his public appearances, and so on. The very reason this man is currently prominent / newsworthy is due to his advocacy for discrimination. That is not the type of career we should celebrating with Williams’ highest honor, even if he has, I’m sure, done other great things in his life. Not even close. The message it would send would be crystal clear, and if it happened, I’d imagine a LOT fewer gay students would have any desire to have any association with Williams, and rightfully so. (I am sure there are other clergy who went to Williams who aren’t well known simply because they haven’t made it their life’s mission, and employed their substantial influence, to promote discrimination — why not award one of them?).
I realize being sensitive to atmospherics, and to the feelings of others, particularly those who already feel disenfranchised, has never been a priority on this blog, and is instead sneered at. I realize that provocation, button pushing, controversy, and creating / exacerbating conflict is one of the primary goals of this blog, and always has been. I continue to think that while all of these serve SOME purpose at SOME times (and as I’ve said over and over, I am all for inviting more conservatives to campus, as a general matter), they are far from the chief civic virtue, let alone the only one, we should seek to pursue. Personally, I’d rather celebrate the far greater body of commonalities that brings the Williams community together, than continually highlight the slender body of conflicts that drive us apart, or would drive us apart further. It’s a lot more productive, and really, a lot more fun. Sneer at that all you want, I really don’t care.
JeffZ says:
A clarification and an addendum:
(1) inviting Jackson to speak on campus (again, it seems) MIGHT be justifiable under certain circumstances, but I continue to believe that it would be a an affront to gay students and the harms would outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, sometimes it is better to confront discriminatory views, so I could see some point to having him speak on campus, especially if it was in a debate format. Conrad Muhammad of the Nation of Islam was invited to speak on campus when I was at Williams. Very close parallel, in my view. I was torn because it was very interesting to get insight into that type of thinking from a very prominent individual, but I was also extremely disheartened that a campus group would invite someone who had such hatred for a wide variety of groups, in particular Jews and gays (and his talk bore that hatred out — although oddly, most of his vitriol was reserved for Asians. He was also, predictably, a brilliant public speaker).
But inviting Jackson to speak, generally, is COMPLETELY different from inviting him to speak at CLAIMING WILLIAMS, and even more problematic is DK’s suggestion that we reward his bigotry (instead of hundreds of others of worthy recipients) with the highest honor Williams can bestow. One I might begrudgingly accept in light of the value of dialogue, the other two, the message of animus towards a segment of the Williams community that such action would send would be blatant, and unjustifiable.
(2) I have chosen to substantively respond to Whitney’s thread on point rather than David’s. See how it is possible to provoke debate without being purposefully inflammatory / insulting / patronizing? Along a similar vein, the last paragraph of my diatribe was not directed at this particular post by Whitney, which is totally fine, just in case that wasn’t obvious.
rory says:
So shouldn’t the conservative students at williams be looking to bring him? How much is David’s point undermined by the fact that he spoke at williams in 2005?
I also hesitate to say he used his williams education if he is making the mistake of attributing the problems of the black family (a controversial claim to begin with, factually) to the rise in acceptance of homosexuality. Aside from a problem of causal order–the black family was “in crisis” long before homosexuality became more open in society (see: E. Franklin Frazier and, hell, Moynihan)–there’s the problem of why aren’t white families, who accept homosexuality at a higher rate in surveys, having significantly more marital problems than blacks?
You know how he should get invited back? To debate the above with a fellow williams alum (or not an alum). Hell, it might even be interesting to go all-conservative and have Dan Blatt as his debate opponent.
Jeffz’s right–Jackson’s proper venue at williams as a speaker exists, but it isn’t where David’s proposed.
David says:
Is that really a fair summary of his views? As best I can tell (corrections welcome), Jackson’s reasons for opposing gay marriage are not significantly different from the reasons given by the vast majority of gay marriage opponents. He is not an outlier. Are his reasons for opposition, in sum, all that different from Bill Clinton’s or Barak Obama’s?
Correct, I guess. Again, I don’t see many/any significant differences between Jackson’s views and those of Obama/Clinton/a-majority-of-the-voters-in-California. Needless to say, that doesn’t make their views correct, but it does indicate that Jackson is well within the mainstread of contemporary US opinion.
Indeed. You might summarize those emotions with the word “uncomfortable.”
I am flexible on whether or not Jackson is invited for Claiming Williams. I suggested his name to the organizers. There were too rude/insular/clueless to even acknowledge my e-mail. The reason I suggested it is that the organizers claimed to be interested in a wide variety of views, specifically including religious views. Since a (vast?) majority of church-going African-Americans agree with Jackson, inviting him seemed reasonable.
But ignore Claiming Williams for now. The real dispute is over the Bicentennial Medal.
So, in your view, an Eph who led the fight for gay marriage in, say, Maine would be worthy of a Bicentennial Medal but an Eph who was otherwise identical and led the fight against gay marriage would not be? (Assume for the sake of argument that the political battle was prominent enough that it met the Bicentennial Medal’s standards for being important enough and so on.
David says:
Zero. The central dispute here is whether Jackson should be awarded a Bicentennial Medal. The hypothetical I want to present is a dramatic campaign about gay marriage, say another California referendum. Imagine that this becomes the biggest story of the election cycle with lots of interest, debate and so on. I think that we can all (?) agree that if gay marriage passed and if and Eph led the fight, then she would merit a Bicentennial Medal. She has demonstrated “distinguished achievement in any field of endeavor.”
Now imagine that gay marriage was defeated and that an Eph had led the fight against it. Wouldn’t she also deserve a medal?
I think using this hypothetical clarifies the issues involved and I would be interested in what others — including Whitney, Jeff and Rory — think.
PS. I added a photo to the post.
JeffZ says:
Yes. Just like I would THINK Jackson and most other black Ephs would be (correctly) opposed to George Wallace receiving an honor from Williams.
In your view, would an Eph from the 1950′s whose claim to fame was fighting integration be as worthy as an Eph from the 1950′s whose claim to fame was fighting FOR segregation? The difference between fame and infamy, between pursuing equality and opposing it, between being a champion of equal rights and standing as a roadblock, between fighting for the rights of an oppressed minority and making them a scapegoat for unrelated problems, are to me, a valid distinction … not sure how many more times I need to say it. Hopefully zero.
JeffZ says:
Meant fighting FOR integration above, obviously.
JeffZ says:
Oh, and on the Obama, Clinton point, again which I’ve covered, I’d say Obama, Clinton, etc. are to Thomas Jefferson, etc., what Jackson is to George Wallace or someone like that. In retrospect, historically, their position on gay marriage will be seen as flawed, foolish, and wrong (a far less extreme version of Jefferson being a slave owner), but not something they were primarily known for, not something they were vigorous advocates of, and something that, while worthy of mention, is overshadowed by the rest of their legacy. Jackson’s legacy, or at least what he hopes his legacy to be, is perpetuating dicrimination against gay people. That is why he is prominent. That is his primary mission in life. Big, big difference.
JeffZ says:
One more point and then I gotta return to work. I think my position at this point is abundantly clear, but again, this is not about politics. I am 100 percent pro choice, for example, but if someone was the head of a respected, mainstream, pro life organization, I’d have no problem with a Bicentennial Medal award. If someone was more like Randall Terry, on the other hand, encouraging or countenancing violence against abortion-providing doctors, I would have a problem. You seem to believe that all fame is created equal. I disagree.
David says:
All else equal, Probably. I think of Bicentennial Medals as being sort of like Time’s Person of the Year. It does not go to the person you like the best or the person who is most prominent on your side of the partisan divide. It goes for “distinguished achievement in any field of endeavor” not for “distinguished achievement (that I agree with) in any field of endeavor.”
In the desegregation case, my main proviso is that, to make this a fair comparison, you need to use a hypothetical which awards the medal in 1960, not today. In other words, if a person is a prominent proponent of position X and that view is widely held (at least a significant minority) in the population. I agree that it would be problematic to award the medal today for prominent advocacy of a view 50 years ago that no one holds today. Fortunately, in Jackson’s case, a majority of Americans today agree with him.
kthomas says:
No.
Whitney Wilson '90 says:
Thanks to Dave, Jeff, Rory and HWC for their thoughtful comments, and to Dave for adding the picture of Bishop Jackson.
David is correct in stating that opposition to same-sex marriage is safely within the (current) mainstream of American thinking. In most instances in which same-sex marriage questions have been put to a state-wide votes, the anti-gay marriage side has won, most recently in Maine. Why is that? Would referenda against interracial marriages have fared as well in the 1940′s and 1950′s? I see the issues (gay marriage and interracial marriage) as entirely parallel, but many others, including Bishop Jackson of course, disagree. I think that in 30 or 40 years, gay marriage will be no more controversial than interracial marriage is today, but I could easily be wrong.
As best I can tell, most opposition to gay marriage is religiously based, though its often described in terms of “tradition.” Is it rooted in homophobia? For some I suppose, it is, but for many others perhaps is only discomfort with homosexuality (is that homophobia? I don’t think so, but I’m sure others would disagree).
I think having Bishop Jackson at Williams to debate the issue would be an outstanding event. I’ve been convinced by Jeff, Rory, and others that having him at Claiming Williams would not be ideal, although I suspect there are likely African-American students at Williams for whom Bishop Jackson’s life story may seem very familiar, and other students who are theologically very comfortable with his views.
I think that Williams as an institution has taken the position that discrimination against gay people is wrong, and that the illegality of gay marriage is a consequence of anti-gay discrimination and is also, therefore, wrong. So I don’t think it would be consistent with Williams’s values to award a Bicentennial Medal to someone who’s primary grounds for fame is opposition to gay marriage. (Thanks to Jeff for his discussion in comment 9)
Derek says:
Bigotry is bigotry. Just because the tyranny of the majority sanctions it makes it no less.
dcat
Whitney Wilson '90 says:
Derek,
That is a principled answer. Do you think most Americans are bigots, or can we separate bigotry from the people who perpetuate it?
rory says:
@David: Your attempts at summarizing are repeatedly biased and wrong. to wit: “threatened, attacked” are not adequately captured by “uncomfortable” and Jackson’s reasons are fundamentally different (at least in terms of how he presents them) from Obama’s and Clinton’s. All are in the wrong, imo, but only one of those three is spreading smears and falsehoods (“Gays have been at the helm of a fourfold strategy for years, but the wisdom behind their spiritual, cultural, political, and generational tactics is clearly satanic.” and “Why Do Gays Hate Religious Freedom?”, for example).
That there is a mainstream that believes something does not mean that everyone who believes in that is in the mainstream. The mainstream believes taxes suck, does that mean that people who think taxes suck so much that they don’t pay them are “in the mainstream”?
as for your cheap shot at the organizers of Claiming Williams (newsflash: it isn’t about us alumni and our ideas. It certainly isn’t about one of the single most dividing alumni’s ideas), shame on you.
David says:
There are two reasonable positions that I would like to distinguish between.
1) Williams should not give a Bicentennial medal to anyone whose “primary grounds for fame is opposition to gay marriage.”
2) Williams should not give a Bicentennial medal to anyone whose acts in public life significantly impede gay marriage.
Needless to say, both views are reasonable. When people like Derek uses phrases like “Bigotry is bigotry,” it makes me think that they believe 2) and not just 1).
An example of the difference would be an Eph Senator who, for example, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Opposition to gay marriage is not the primary reason for this Eph’s fame, but, by voting for DOMA he has done more to hinder gay marriage than anything that Jackson could ever hope to accomplish.
kthomas says:
It sounds like to me that the so-called Reverend is finding a group to scapegoat for the social problems of the community he depends on for fame and pay, and that he has discovered that stoking hatred under that straw group is an effective means of demagoguery.
That– combined with the fact that his quasi-historical assertions about the family are pure bunk– are good reasons to deny him the platform and legitimacy of Williams.
hwc says:
Because the LGBT community made a fatal strategic error in framing the issue as “marriage” (ultimately a religious term) rather than civil unions and partner-benefits (ultimately a legal issue).
It’s always a mistake (from a political or marketing standpoint) to frame your issue in a way that forces people to reject their religious beliefs to support you.
Ronit says:
@David:
It is not necessary to believe either of these statements in order to believe that Harry Jackson is undeserving of a Bicentennial model.
JG says:
@hwc: Except that states (and the federal government but that is a separate issue now due to DOMA) attach certain rights based on the terminology of “marriage,” thereby requiring the parallel use of that term to actually get the civil benefits. It is therefore not a strategic mistake by the LGBT community but a political reality.
Personally, I think marriage should be eliminated as a government term completely, and everyone should only have civil unions with marriage being an optional thing you get if you want a religious ceremony. But telling people you’re taking away their marriage to convert everything to civil unions is far more inflammatory than saying, “We also want marriages,” IMO.
[JG - edited for typos]
kthomas says:
JG: I’m absolutely with you that this issue needs to be decoupled from government/State policy. Perhaps “marriage or civil union” needs to be the government phrasing– just get the State out of the center of things.
I’m trying to remember how Belgium’s former President, a Flaams advocate but not Flaams block, put it in terms of EU policy in Berlin last week– devolve power, as much as possible, to the local, to the people it affects. This should not be a Federal issue; it should not be a States issue; it should, as much as possible, be a local and personal issue.
Let me see if I can find that recording…
Derek says:
I am pretty comfortable saying that opposition to gay marriage is prima facie proof of bigotry against gays. Conservatives have done a brilliant job of turning the accusation of racism or bigotry into a crime somehow equal to actual racism or bigotry. But that is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete and utter fucking nonsense.
If you think my brother does not deserve the same rights in his relationship as, say, Newt Gingrich or Britney spears in theirs, yeah, you’re a bigot. Whether that bigotry puts you in the majority is of no moment to me.
As for Dave’s distinction without a difference, Williams should not be embracing bigotry, period. There are lots and lots of successful Ephs. I’m not sure why we need to bow before the supposed awesomeness of this Bishop of Bigotry.
dcat
(d)avid says:
Gaining insight into Kane’s view of the world every day. By this definition, Bernie Madoff would be eligible for his work in Ponzi schemes.
I’ve also been hearing a lot of buzz lately about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the fields of: a) Holocaust denial; b) Election rigging; c) Authoritarian repression; d) Nuclear proliferation; e) Economic mismanagement; f) Neck wear avoidance. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a slam dunk for a Bicentennial Medal, right? And he he certainly is unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom.
Note to Kane: Medals are usually given to people who do something deemed LAUDATORY. Bronze stars are given for heroism helping your side. Not desserters, fraggers, and traitors (no matter who infamous or daring an episode may be).
By granting a medal to someone like Jackson, who has built his national reputation opposing gay marriage, the College would be implicitly endorsing this position. That is why Notre Dame caught such flack for having Obama as a graduation speaker.
Whitney Wilson '90 says:
Well (d)avid, I agree that granting a Bicentennial Medal is in some sense an endorsement of the recipient’s work, and thus the selection of the recipients necessarily involves value judgments. If the College supports same-sex marriage, then Bishop Jackson is probably not an ideal recipient.
How aggressively should the College push this? Suppose an Eph is the lead lawyer on a future case which the Supreme Court ultimately uses to ban affirmative action in undergraduate college admissions, and she is a very prominent, well respected attorney (for example, someone like Ken Starr, minus the independent counsel portion of his career). Should Williams consider that person for a Bicentennial Medal?
JeffZ says:
(d)avid, I am glad you finally commented. I was just about to write “if anyone here is acquainted with Mr. (D)avid, please let him know that his presence here would be appreciated.”
[sorry all for the inside joke ...]
nuts says:
I’m impressed with the debate and the tone of the debate. Kudos to Whitney Wilson ’90 for striking the tone and the participants for keeping it on track.
jeffz says:
The Advocate on Jackson. Given the readership, it is unsurprising that the comments, are, well, unkind:
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/11/18/Bishop_Jackson_What_Me_Homophobic_/
kthomas says:
It’s not that I hate purple people. Some of my best friends in College were purple people, and they were very smart. But…
jeffz says:
You know, in all events, any discussion of Ephs NEEDING to get a bicentennial medal should start and end with R.A. Montgomery, the Choose Your Own Adventure dude. Can we all agree on this much? Or at least anyone who grew up in the 80′s??? If he is ever so awarded (or better yet, with an honorary degree) I pledge to give Williams an extra 100 bucks on top of my usual donation for three straight years. I attribute much of my love of reading, and everything that flowed from that, to he and Edward Packer, along with the collective ghost writers of the Hardy Boys, Roald Dahl, and the writers of A Wrinkle in Time and The Indian in the Cupbord.
http://www.asylum.com/2008/11/12/the-top-20-classic-choose-your-own-adventures/
Derek says:
Whitney –
If the college values affirmative action, then not awarding someone with a medal (that no one is actually entitled to, btw) because of any small part that they might play in eroding the values the college holds dear seems to me completely justifiable. Indeed, I’d be stunned that anyone would think the college should abandon its values.
Again — Williams has lots and lots and lots of prominent and successful alums. I’m always amused by the Bicentennial Medals game whereby someone (Dave) picks a name and then makes the rest of us explain why they have not been awarded a bicentennial medal. Me? I’d give one to Charles Dew, a worthy candidate if ever there was one. Some prefer bigots. And some simply want to hypothetical their way into having us in the abstract encourage that countenancing bigotry would not itself be an eliminating factor. More power to them, I guess.
dcat
Parent '12 says:
@jeffz:
You got me curious (not being familiar with the series, Choose Your Own Adventure). I took the easy route to sate curiosity & googled RA Montgomery.
I found under Wikipedia that the series is being re-issued. There is more info there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._Montgomery
In the spirit of the title perhaps you could start Choose Your Own Bicentennial Medalist.
JeffZ says:
Parent ’12, love it.
kthomas says:
What frightens me is that I had read everything on JeffZ’s list by age … twelve or so.
David says:
(d)avid:
Note the “sort of” in my description. I am not recommending, say, an Eph murderer or rapist (and we have blogged about both) for an medal even though they may be the most prominent Eph criminals. Prominence alone is not enough.
But, once we leave aside actual criminals, isn’t it obvious that the slippery slope of partisan bias does not provide a clear stopping point? Unless I am misreading him, Derek would not award a Bicentennial Medal to any Senator or Congressman who voted for DOMA or to any Eph who, like Ward Connerly, played a leading role in a battle against affirmative action. I sense that others (Jeff? JG? Ken?) agree with this.
In other words, only Democratic politicians/activists (and not even all of them!) are eligible for Bicentennial Medals. Doesn’t that strike anyone else as problematic? Can anyone think of a single Republican/conservative who would not fail these tests?
My position is, obviously, that the College, in awarding medals, should be as non-partisan as possible. Leaving aside actual law-breakers, we should award a medal to a person who campaigns for X if, in similar circumstance, we would have awarded a medal to someone campaigning for not X.
I strongly object to this framing by Whitney:
The College, as an institution does not “support same-sex marriage.” It does not oppose same-sex marriage. It has no opinion on same-sex marriage. One of my central debates is with people who think that Williams is their personal political action vehicle and should be used to promote their causes.
(d)avid says:
Partisan, non-partisan, I don’t care how the parties line up on a topic. Williams as an institution embodies certain values. The College creates policies, admits students, hires professors, and gives awards to advance those values. Winners of the bi-centennial medals should reveal those values on the highest order. Rushton hasn’t committed any crimes and he is the leader of a “field” that you deem important, but the college shouldn’t award him with a medal. Louis Farrakhan and Sarah Palin would be a poor choices as well despite their lack of criminal records. Both made names for themselves holding positions contrary to the values of the institution.
Zeeman is offering up useful distinctions. Clarence Thomas has accomplished a lot in his career and is known for being a jurist first and not advocating any particular issue. Randal Terry is known for one thing. Giving Terry a medal would be an endorsement of that viewpoint.
The lack of clear delineating points does not lead to slippery slopes. Just stating the facts. Medals are tacit endorsements. The College embodies values. The Medals should be in line with those values.
(d)avid says:
PS This line made me laugh:
Not saying you are being hypocritical. You could make the case that Williams is too liberal or mainstream or whatever in the status quo and you are just trying to achieve balance, but the source of the sentiment was … unexpected.
Derek says:
David -
Why, oh why, do you persist in misrepresenting me? You are so profoundly, deeply dishonest that I have a hard time knowing where even to begin. Please tell me where I said I would only support Democrats. And I want exact fucking quotations, not your interpretations, because frankly your interpretive apparatus is for shit.
And I want to augment the quotation that (d)avid just pointed out, but I am erasing the caveat about hypocrisy: Jesus, Dave, you grind your damned political axes here all the time. All. The. Damned. Time. No one has ever accused this of being Catsamblog, or Thomasblog, or Zeemanblog. but all anyone needs to do is say “Kaneblog” and we all know what we are talking about: Dave Kane using some vaguely Williams related story to blather on about his own ideologies that no one else on God’s green earth would publish. You have used Williams as your promotion vehicle to promote your political causes more in 2009 than the rest of us have combined in the history of the blog.
I’ll give you credit for chutzpah, Dave. When you’re dishonest you’re REALLY dishonest, and when you’re hypocritical you’re off the charts. Go big or go home I guess.
I really wish a smarter person were the putative head of this blog.
dcat
David says:
Derek: If Clarence Thomas or Ward Connerly or Bill Frist were Ephs, would you object to any of them being awarded a Bicentennial Medal?
Derek says:
If these people were entirely different people from the people they are would I let you cherry pick me into a hypothetical to prove a point? Is that what you’re asking me? I think that’s what you’re asking me.
Again: I really wish a smarter person were the person most closely associated with this blog.
dcat
rory says:
@David: i guess you opted for “go big”, eh? smh.
Ward Connerly would get an objection from me. Thomas would get a snide comment but no objection and Bill Frist is just further proof that Princeton the town >>>>> Princeton the college :P
however, my above comment privileges your silly hypothetical instead of the many more valid point about how ridiculous your silly hypotheticals are. So let me say it again: your hypotheticals are not some brilliant way to “iterate to agreement” but rather silly hypotheticals that only serve to distract from the substantive points made by many others about the fact that the bicentennial medal is, no matter what, a value-laden medal and that all fame is not equal.
Whitney Wilson '90 says:
Derek,
I’m not sure why the hypothetical posed by David in 39 is so vexing to you. Based on your earlier statement
if you believed the College values affirmative action – which I believe is almost irrefutably true, at least to the extent that valuing affirmative action is equated with valuing diversity – then you think the College would be justified in not awarding a Bicentennial Medal to Clarence Ward Connolly (were he, of course, an Eph)
Derek says:
Whitney –
I have opinions on all of those people. But why on earth am I going to let Dave play his silly parlor games to dictate the terms of the debate? They are not Ephs. The Bicentennial Medal goes to Ephs. Reflecting on whether or not we’d give a Bicentennial Medal to someone who is by definition not eligible is . . . oh, what’s the word? Oh, yes. Inane. Is this somehow complicated? Did this somehow morph into Lordjeffblog?
dcat
kthomas says:
(Hermann Niemoeller, 6. Januar 1946)
Dick Swart says:
@kthomas:
Very appropriate to this discussion, Ken. Perhaps by not recognizing with a medal those who’s views the organization is opposed to, the organization is answering God’s question “Where were you in 1933 to 1937?”.
“First they came for the Communists, but …”