Questioning is appropriate
To the Editor:This is a response to the letter by Behrouz Vafa, that appeared in the letter ["Ashdown Debate Ineffective," Nov. 15]. The letter concerned the Institute colloquium on apartheid on Wednesday, Nov. 6, where the topic of discussion was The Ineffectiveness, Illegality, and Immorality of Absolute Divestment. The object of Vafa's letter was to criticize the way the audience conducted the discussion period. In particular, three statements by members of the audience were singled out as reflecting our lack of discipline and discourtesy to the invited guest.
I will attempt to show that two of these statements were definitely justified and to the point. I will also try to answer the four questions posed by Vafa concerning the third statement, which he apparently considered odious and terribly out of place. Finally, I will respond to the concluding statement that some of us are unqualified to advocate the deserved rights of the majority of South Africans.
I will start with the second statement, because this statement summarized my view: "This whole discussion about education is just ridiculous." The discussion of America educating the black South Africans, so that they can obtain "a comprehensive understanding of the nuts and bolts of their (to be) social, political and economic institutions," is indeed condescending and ridiculous. What gives America after decades of upholding the system that oppresses black South Africans in their own land, the right to imagine that it is capable of educating them about their institutions? One does not need education to understand that the only thing that counts now for black South Africans is the removal of the white South African government by any means possible. The black South Africans do not want your education or your false and condescending sympathy. They want you to quit upholding the racist regime that is killing their children. The idea that those poor blacks need to be educated so that they can learn to rule themselves is insane. And coming from someone like Schotland, who thinks that the most important impact of divestment is that MIT will lose 5 million dollars a year, the idea is not only ridiculous, but infuriating.
This brings me to the next statement made by someone in the audience, about which Vafa was evidently displeased and concerning which he posed several questions. The statement was, "Sir, I don't think you really care about the black South Africans." Vafa asked, "Is it fair to develop judgement about a guest so quickly with so little information?" To this I say: Schotland may or may not be fully informed about the conditions of black South Africans and the horrors of the system of apartheid, but he spent practically all of his allotted time discussing the amount of money that MIT would stand to lose by divesting.
The impression that most of us received was that to Schotland, what mattered was not that it was wrong to uphold apartheid, but that it was impractical to do the right thing because we would suffer from it. As a member of the audience suggested, it was like discussing the issue of slavery from the viewpoint of how much the slave-owners would lose from having to pay wages for the labor of the newly-freed slaves. From his talk, it would be only fair to conclude that Schotland really did not care about the black South Africans, but was primarily concerned about the financial repercussions that divestment would cause for those who divested.
Vafa further asked, "Is (the student who made the statement) in a position to convey his judgement to the audience and, worst of all, to our guest?" and, "Does this remark stand nicely with respect to someone who has accepted this invitation to share his view of the world with us?" In response to these questions, I make a few observations. Schotland's views on divestment coincide with the current MIT official policy. Schotland was invited to speak by the MIT administration. His opinions on this issue, as is the position held by MIT, is odious. Speaking for the majority of the students at MIT (I hope), the speaker had every right to express the outrage and disgust shared by us all, at the fact that MIT, while claiming to be a place where students acquire a respect for truth and justice, is indirectly telling us, through Schotland, that what really counts is not that justice be done, but what we have to gain or lose from our actions.
On whether the statement "stands nicely" with respect to "our guest," I can only ask Vafa; would you want us to be polite to Hitler if he came to discuss the impracticality of ending the holocaust, just because he was a guest and had had a hard time at the airport?
The last question posed by Vafa concerning the statement made to Schotland is a rather puzzling one. He asks, "What is to be gained by revealing one's judgement?" What, may I ask, would you have us do at a discussion about divestment and apartheid? Sit back and make sure do not voice any controversial opinions because there is nothing to be gained and so as not to offend our honored guests?
In his concluding statement, Vafa says that those of us who are unwilling to seek alternative measures to divestment, face issues with a narrow mind and treat our guest as a boxing bag, are unqualified to advocate the deserved rights of the majority of South Africans. Now this is not just puzzling, this is amazing. Vafa has assumed the responsibility of determining who is qualified to advocate the rights of South Africans.
On Thursday, Nov. 7 at the panel discussion of apartheid, the panelists included, among others, John Reed, Chairman of Citicorp and William Jacobsen from the US State Department. Towards the end of the discussion, Themba Vilakazi, the Massachusetts representative of the African National Congress stood up to respond to the comments made by Reed and Jacobsen. Vilakazi accused the two men of being racist and fascist and, by their actions, accomplices to the murder of thousands of his people in South Africa. This view was apparently widely shared by the audience in Kresge, because Vilakazi received a standing ovation for his comments.
Now, according to Vafa's definition, Vilakazi is unqualified to advocate the deserved rights of the majority of South Africans, since he was unwilling to seek an alternative to divestment, faced the issue with a narrow mind and treated our guests like boxing bags.
Who then is qualified? Those who sit around and have polite, after-dinner chats about the impracticality of divestment and the need to educate those poor blacks so that they can run a civilized government?
Erastus Njage G->
View Archives