| Subject: background and analysis of Robert Stacy McCain article |
| From: Jonathan Farley <lattice.theory@gmail.com> |
| Date: 10/17/09, 10:57 |
| To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
In 1997 or 1998, when I first heard about the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue, I wrote the Nashville Banner newspaper to ask if I could write an essay about the statue. They told me I could, but the newspaper folded before I did so.
When the United Daughters of the Confederacy sued Vanderbilt in 2002, the national Green Party of the United States issued this press release:
October 24, 2002 press release of the Green Party of the United States (national)
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_10_24_02.html
This is the national organization, not the local chapter. The Green Party of Middle Tennessee (which is the Nashville chapter of the Green Party) actually refused to support Vanderbilt and refused to criticize the UDC. After the national Green Party issued this press release, Katey Culver (who ran the Green Party of Middle Tennessee with her husband, Howard Switzer), sent an email (with the usual truth quotient) to many Green Party listserves, blasting the national Green Party for issuing the above press release. The Green Party is stupid enough to make many of its listserves publically accessible, so it's possible you might be able to find her email.
I had told national Green Party media coordinator Scott McLarty not to include a quote from me, because then the fact that the national Green Party was supporting Vanderbilt in its decision to change the name of "Confederate Memorial Hall" would be ignored, and the focus would only be on me. This is exactly what happened.
The quote in the Robert Stacy McCain article comes from an article by Tim Chavez (a conservative columnist for The Tennessean). He quotes someone responding to my statement in this press release, which was quoted in The Tennessean. The fact that the press release was from the national Green Party---i.e., from a bunch of whites---was never mentioned in any article except mine.
After I wrote my November 20, 2002 article, Tim Chavez recycled the quote from the "66 year-old reader" [note: old enough to have been in the Civil Rights Movement, but I bet he wasn't...] to make it appear as if the person was responding to my essay, not responding to the quote from the Green Party press release.
But when Tim Chavez first criticized me with this quote by the "66 year-old reader", in October or early November 2002, I told The Tennessean that Chavez ran this column without even trying to contact me, and I wanted to respond. The Tennessean said I could, but instead I wrote my article about the statue.
You are correct to express disdain at Robert Stacy McCain's description of the threats against me as "complaints". In fact, I did not "post" any replies, as Robert Stacy McCain puts it. People who sent me hostile emails got appropriate responses sent individually to them. At the time, I did not realize there was a coordinated effort, because I was entirely ignorant of how these groups operated---or even that they existed, to be honest.
A good comparison is that when I got *one* death threat, by a Donald Lampson, after I wrote the November 17, 2001 article about the war on terror in The Guardian newspaper,
************************************************
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:26:18 -0600
From: Donald Lampson <dlampson@earthlink.net>
To: farley@maths.ox.ac.uk
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Swine,
You will be exterminated.
Sincerely yours,
An American
**************************************************
[yes, you read this right: he sent me an "anonymous" email without realizing his name and email address were at the top]
I got support in Great Britain---but Scott Banbury of the Green Party of Tennessee (different from the national Green Party or the Green Party of Middle Tennessee) got angry with *me* when I wrote this person back saying I was going to tell the police. Banbury was angry because he had talked with the guy and thought he was okay.
Back to my responses to neo-Confederates: I was well aware that anything you write can be forwarded, but my responses were not "posted" anywhere. So my (alleged!) responses to the people sending me hostile emails were published by Chavez and then by McCain, and then it was made to seem as if I required anger management. (For example, the comment about "armies" is a response to the fact that all these neo-Confederates belong to Confederate States of America brigades, divisions, etc. and give themselves military ranks. Somehow this is acceptable, but when someone speaks *metaphorically* about raising armies in *response*, then *that* is considered "openly hateful".) In any event, since I never confirmed or denied that I wrote that email (I am fairly certain I never signed any email "Asst. Math. Prof." or however Chavez and Waltrip have it), it is again journalistically unprofessional for McCain to be attributing the quotes to me.
Not that there is anything wrong with the quotes, to be sure. It is the principle.
Schoenfeld's comment at the end of the McCain article is remarkable in that (1) it is false, as I indicated to you regarding Vanderbilt's actions and the statement of the math department chair; (2) at worst, Vanderbilt should have said either, "No comment," or "Vanderbilt does not endorse *or oppose* Professor Farley's statements". Schoenfeld makes it quite clear the university has a position, and that it's position is that it *opposes* my comments. Incidentally, it is unclear what "policy" Schoenfeld is referring to, since Vanderbilt was trying to change the name of "Confederate Memorial Hall," so presumably anyone who agrees with Vanderbilt on that issue is indeed representing Vanderbilt's "policy".
The photograph of Che is attached. The banner was mass-produced and sold in a box like superhero action figures in France (I believe I bought it in Montpellier). What McCain fails to point out is that in the same sentence where I call Che a "hero" I called Frantz Fanon, Hannibal, and Jesus my "heroes".
Here are the emails with Tim Chavez. I believe Tennessean editor David Green (?) told me that, since I did not deny writing the email, they could run it. This, however, is not what the relevant copyright law says. Others, including Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, have claimed that I am a "public figure" because I wrote the essay in the first place, hence anything can be said about me by a newspaper.
It is clear that Chavez delayed publishing the email only because of my legal bluff, not for the reason he cites. Unfortunately, my lawyer quit on me after two days, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyer in South Carolina did nothing, so The Tennessean knew I was defenseless and could proceed. I don't know when Gee published his attack on me in the Vanderbilt student newspaper and The Tennessean: it was around this time. That might also have signalled to The Tennessean they could proceed to attack me.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:04:24 -0600
From: "Chavez, Tim" <TCHAVEZ@nashvill.gannett.com>
To: Jonathan D. Farley <farley@math.vanderbilt.edu>
Subject: RE: Confederate Memorial Hall and battle flag
Professor Farley,
Thank you for your reply.
To keep you updated, I will be running my column this Sunday instead of
Tuesday to allow for more space so I can run your e-mail message about
Confederates and people of Confederate heritage in its entirety.
In talking with my editors, they feel your reply to me, which does not deny authorship of the e-mail, is enough to publish it.
If you would like to comment further about it or its contents, please e-mail me by Friday.
Thank you,
Tim Chavez
Columnist
The Tennessean
(615) 259-8304
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan D. Farley [mailto:farley@math.vanderbilt.edu]
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 4:51 PM
To: Chavez, Tim
Cc: NAACP; Goldsmith, Tommy; edwards_holly@yahoo.com;
dlewis@tennessean.com; tquillen@tennessean.com; sroberts@tennessean.com
Subject: RE: Confederate Memorial Hall and battle flag
I only had time to skim your message. I do not know whether the email
message you attribute to me is in fact
mine. I do know that you do not have permission to quote any email
written by me. If you do quote from one of my emails without my permission
I may be forced to consider legal action. Also, if you quote from email
that was not written by me and then you attribute it to me I may be forced
to consider legal action.
Jonathan Farley
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Chavez, Tim wrote:
Professor Farley,> I note from Sunday's story 12/01/02 in The Tennessean that you will
neither confirm or deny your authorship of the following response to
people who criticized your essay. That strikes me as strange considering
your outspokenness. I will be publishing excerpts of this response
Tuesday in my column and cite you as the author. Your response strikes me
as hate speech, not simply free speech. If these are not your words,
please let me know.
Thank you.
Tim Chavez
Columnist
The Tennessean
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Here's the email I got from McCain. You can see the coordination (obviously it is not McCain's regular habit to be reading the local Nashville news) between Vanderbilt student publications, local Nashville media, and national media, all feeding off each other.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 14:55:36 -0500 From: Stacy McCain <smccain@WashingtonTimes.com>
To: "'farley@math.vanderbilt.edu'" <farley@math.vanderbilt.edu>
Subject: Seeking interview
I saw the article in Sunday's Tennessean and hope to get a brief telephone
interview.
Robert Stacy McCain
Assistant National Editor
mailto:smccain@washingtontimes.com
The Washington Times
3600 New York Ave. NE
Washington, D.C. 20002-1996
Office: 202/636-3249
Fax: 202/636-8906
http://www.WashingtonTimes.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Finally, I no longer have the email, but someone wrote me an email, I believe in late December 2002 or in January 2003, professing surprise that his message didn't bounce back---because, he said, usually their targets shut down their email accounts after only a short while. This is evidence that this is the neo-Confederates' well-practiced and universally understood battle plan.
Regards,
Jonathan
P.S. The McCain's intemperate response on Little Green Men means he's getting worried, like Cheney.