In his Feb. 19 column in The Dartmouth entitled "Sharpton's Sins," Kevin Carmody '05 accuses the Rev. Al Sharpton of "race-baiting and anti-Semitism" and, thus, in his estimation is "an unworthy spokesman for the Tucker Foundation" by misrepresenting the realities of the Tawana Brawley case.
The first problem with Carmody's article is its complete lack of academic substance. Instead of focusing on what Sharpton said, Carmody attacks him ad hominem -- attacking the man instead of the message. This approach is usually accepted to be an argumentative fallacy because the character, circumstances or actions of a person do not have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim that person makes (or the quality of the argument being made). I personally disagree with Sharpton's anti-business, anti-rich left-wing stance, but if I am going to disagree with someone, I will at least do some research and attack his ideas, not him.
The second problem with Carmody's stance is that it shows that he doesn't have a clue about recent history. His grand indictment of Sharpton hinges on the Tawana Brawley incident. After mangling the historical record, he says of Miss Brawley, "A grand jury excused everyone she accused of attacking her, after concluding that her claims were utterly without merit." And he says of Sharpton, "The truth can't stand in the way of Al Sharpton."
To this I say, "What planet has Carmody been living on?" Like "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," this editorial diarrhea takes events that resemble what happened and twists them to deceive the gullible. Carmody's statement that Brawley accused "others" lacks any validity. Before one tells a story, one should get the facts. Brawley never said anything about the incident, which is what makes the case so confusing. She neither confirmed nor denied anything that Sharpton or the attorney general said. Her silence was complete.
But when the New York papers ran the original story, it was they who lacked the facts. If they had done any research, they would have known that she hadn't said anything. If you are looking for the facts, obviously you shouldn't let them get in your way as you proceed to convict Sharpton with evidence that is sketchy at best. However, before I continue, I have to clear up one more mistruth the author conjured up for our reading nightmare.
When Carmody writes, "[They] forced well-respected District Attorney Steve Pagones to resign," what can he possibly be talking about? The record suggests that Mr. Pagones and the police department had covered up many incidents of the rape of women and particularly minority women. Pagones allowed rape and sodomy of people who had no effective voice in the community. However, Carmody's greatest insult was not following this myth-making nor the barefaced lying but his ignorance of the issues the Brawley case brought to the surface.
This case ripped apart America's delusion that race and gender struggles are unrelated. It testified to a disregard for minority women. Historically in America, black women were often raped by their white masters. In order to rationalize these barbaric crimes, slave-owning society came up with two myths: black women were whores -- women who "wanted it anyway" -- while white women were paragons of virtue who needed to protect their modesty from the aggressive black man. And thus for over 200 years, whenever a black woman charged rape against a white man, especially one in authority, she was punished for "smearing" the record of the pure white man, who would never touch such a woman. However, I can forgive Carmody for his ignorance. The even sadder fact that this case now testifies to is that many Dartmouth students are clueless about race and gender stereotypes.
The image of the whorish black woman still exists and is spreading to other disadvantaged minorities. In fact, in Shreveport, La., where I was born, black women were forced to receive birth-control implants that often made them sick and did damage to their wombs; their white counterparts did not suffer this fate. And if these black women wanted to have the implants removed, they would be told, "You need it, so you won't be back," and would be refused the removal operation. The black women of history would have raised an outcry for justice, but they were told that they were lying. So for over 200 years, not one white man was found guilty for raping a black woman until the '60s. It is highly improbable that there were no actual rapes.
Thus, the Tawana Brawley case had to deal with much of this baggage including the news media, who were on the defensive after they were accused of specious reporting. But instead of apologizing, the news media polarized into white and black camps, with the "white" media still fostering these stereotypes and the "black" media rushing to Brawley's defense. In this setting, the facts are obscured and deep-set feelings take precedent. Therefore, when Pagones filed his slander suit against Brawley, the lawsuit became about historical truth and American feelings, not about the actual events that transpired. As with the O.J. Simpson case, one side was left out, and it dissented. (In the O.J. case, an acquittal led to white America complaining about the lack of justice because of the gender roles played by the black "aggressive" male and the "pure" white woman).
Carmody, in his malpractice and historical wrong-headedness, draws spurious conclusions from bankrupt assumptions. His column confirms the need for the "Race, Ethnicity and Migration," with the addition of a "Gender" requirement, because, like the typical American, his eyes are closed to truths that seem obvious. After much sophomoric name-calling that we all indulged in until we matured, Carmody proceeds to sprinkle half-truths and sully the reputation of a guest of the Tucker Foundation. I would encourage the author to next time wait until April Fools' Day to publish such drivel because the joke might be lost on some.
