Why I Cheered for Leonard Jeffries

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Yes, I am one of the Black Students Association (BSA) members who sat in the orchestra section and who cheered certain points of Leonard Jeffries' speech.

Yes, I am one of the Blacks on campus who thought it was very critical to hear what a polemical Black scholar had to say about my history, your history.

And, yes, I am also one of many Blacks who was sincerely concerned by printed quotes of racism Jeffries allegedly made, and the threat of a Crimson reporter's life, who I had met a couple of years back.

In reading the heavily biased criticisms of Jeffries' speech at Harvard, I was very saddened. Harvard, the administration and students have always boasted, is a place of free speech and a forum for the exchange of intellectual ideas (agreeable or disagreeable).

Harvard is a place where the cream of the crop of high school graduates throughout the world anxiously apply, hoping to continue their higher quest for knowledge. Harvard is supposed to be the ideal diverse community, both undergraduate and in the faculty, where one can find students on the extreme left rooming and exchanging ideas with ones on the extreme right.

Look at the history of past Harvard speakers. Malcolm X spoke here about 30 years ago as probably one of the most controversial figures of his time, especially considering the social climate during the civil rights movement. Even further back, at the beginning of this century, Harvard's great president, A. Lawrence Lowell, was heavily pressured to rid the faculty of the lefties, who flirted with ideas of socialism and communism.

Yet he refused to do so. For he believed it was critical that professors in the classroom should be absolutely free to "teach the truth as they see it." With all of these boasts and claims to fame in mind, this is why I was saddened by the criticisms of Jeffries' invitation to speak at Harvard.

Jeffries' speech was not only entertaining but also informative. Why doesn't anyone speak of the issues his speech raised, instead of continuing to harp on the alleged quotes and the magnitude of the unified protests? Why doesn't anyone attempt to answer his challenge and produce scholarly research that contradicts his documented findings?

I thought we were supposed to be the leaders of the future, the next presidents, the next great academics. To me, it would seem more productive that those who so vehemently opposed his views and his findings make him out to be the farce and the "moral rot" Professor Kilson spoke of in a previous Crimson letter.

No, instead it is easier to dwell on the racist quotes (which I'm not saying he didn't make) and the audacity of BSA to invite such a speaker that would provide such divisiveness on campus.

It is with great concern that I read the growing attitude for censoring future speaker invitations from campus groups. Without a doubt, it is the freedom of speech that is so critical to our learning and understanding of the world we live in. I can make up my mind what is "moral rot" and outrageous proliferation of BS, thank you.

In fact, I take offense to anyone implying that I lack the intelligence or ability to separate fact from fancy with issues that challenge the "dominant ideology." Come on, my fellow Harvard comrades! Who better than us can decipher legitimacy from illegitimacy? We should be excited that the Harvard name has such an inherent magnetism for accomplished as well as controversial figures that they may come and speak about their hotly debated issues.

I look forward to the chance to hear David Duke and what he has to say. I look forward to sifting through his ideas and finding those I deem worthy and those I do not. Just because the IOP has invited him, I'm not going to make claims that they are insensitive and blatant racists. Instead, I'm going to thank them for giving me the opportunity to decide for myself, without the bias of the newspapers and television.

It seems quite obvious that some of those in attendance at the Jeffries speech may have missed some critical points he made, especially those who left 15 minutes into the speech, once they realized he wasn't going to say anything inflammatory. It seemed almost as if they were annoyed that such a controversial figure was so articulate and well-researched in some of his startling claims.

A lot of these claims many notable publications such as Newsweek and Time magazines have also found to be true, but my great history courses in junior high school and high school never seemed to address them.

So, that's right--I stood up and applauded at the end of Jeffries' scholarly and well-documented presentation. I wasn't applauding his being Black or ideas of racism he might harbor. I was applauding the presentation.

If I could sit through the lectures of Harvard professors like Harvey C. Mansfield, who is known for his prejudiced tendencies against women, Blacks, homosexuals and just about any other group that doesn't jive with his ultra-right conservative views, and applaud work I found to be scholarly and intellectually processed, then I can also stand up and applaud a Black scholar who makes a presentation of equal merit.

Maybe we should form the study groups! Ian K. Smith '91-'92