Three weeks ago, a story we published
put us in the middle of a controversy. It was hardly the first time that has
happened, but this instance suggested an opportunity for more than usual
colloquy in the letters pages. So for this occasion and others like it, we have
revived a section of TIME called Forum, which begins on page 28, concerns our
cover subject this week—the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis
Parrakhan.
The decision to pursue an in-depth investigation of
this subject was prompted by the anti-Semitic and otherwise racist speech that
Farrakhan’s aide, Khallid Muhammad, gave at Kean College in New Jersey. The
story was newsworthy in large part because it came just as some mainstream black
groups were attempting to form a constructive alliance with Farrakhan and the
Nation of Islam. News of the speech loosed a flash flood of reportage and
commentary on the subject, and at that time we began the kind of weeks-long
investigation a cover story like this one requires. At the same time, we
published an article on one telling aspect of the larger story: the fact that
some black leaders were offended when whites called on them to denounce racism
in other black leaders while seeming to ignore offensive remarks by whites—as,
for example, Senator Ernest Hoolings, who had some time before made a supposedly
joking reference to an African delegation as cannibals. The larger issue was
that blacks feel they should be presumed to abhor anti-Semitism and other forms
of racism without having to say no, and that they resent the attempt by whites
to script their views, behavior or alliances.
The story raised
interesting and important points, and it clearly struck a nerve. The reaction
was instantaneous and strong, most of it coming from white and Jewish readers.
Some argued that our story was opinion masquerading as fact. Some people, both
white and black, said that crediting white pressure for the denunciations of
Farrakhan was condescending, that it deprived black leaders of credit for what
was simply principled behavior. Some readers also felt that to concentrate on
this issue was to minimize or downplay the virulence of Muhammad’s speech. And
there was a general view among our critics that no amount of good works by the
Nation of Islam could justify any black leader’s toleration of, not to mention
alliance with, such a racist organization:
The issues raised by
the story’s critics are important. Still, tiffs much must be said: Muhammad’s
speech was wholly disreputable and vile, and I believe our story made that
clear. Our focus, however, was not on black racism but on the perception of a
subtle form of white racism—the sense among some back leaders that, as the story
put it, "some whites feel a need to make all black leaders speak out whenever
one black says something stupid." That this feeling of grievance exists is net
just TIMEs opinion. It is fact. |
