A recent article published in the April 2012 Minuteman Life magazine has been the center of a great deal of discussion across the Newark Academy community. Coleman Hughes `14, Flannery James `14, and SaVonne Anderson `13 have all submitted commentaries to the editor with regards to the article, “Black History Month: The Pitfall of Unity.” We welcome and encourage community responses to any piece published in The Minuteman, and we hope that the Commentary section will evolve into a forum for discussion and reflection for all community members. The Minuteman reserves the right to edit all submissions for length, clarity, and content.

Regards,

Trevor Williams `13 and Jake Wieseneck `14, Commentary Editors

To the editor:

A reader need not look past the title of Josh Faber’s recent article to know that its intention is to provoke a response.  Although I applaud him for his willingness to explore a sensitive topic and present an unpopular opinion, far too many of his statements are false, and unfair.  These few points are too misguided to remain uncontested.

Mr. Faber begins by applauding the efforts of the Black History Month (BHM) committee, and then goes on to describe his resentment of the administrative perks they’ve received.  Mr. Faber points out that Umojaa was given thousands of dollars to help fund the presentation of Dr. Majora Carter, a prominent environmental justice advocate.  Dr. Carter’s presentation was about her work in environmental justice and her vision of bringing “green” solutions to inner city communities.  To suggest that Dr. Carter in any way promoted the messages of Umojaa during her presentation, is false.  Umojaa’s purpose is to promote diversity, not the environment.

Under this false pretense, Mr. Faber goes on to complain that Mi Casa Club, Asian Diversity Club, and Indian Club have not been given thousands of dollars to fund a global speaker to promote their messages.  As president of the Mi Casa Club, he blames the administration’s lack of support for his club’s failed morning meeting presentation in October.  I would think that as the president of the club, he would take even an ounce of responsibility for the failures of his own club.  As a very proud member of Mi Casa, and as an important member of that failed Hispanic history month presentation, I can personally attest to the fact that the presentation did not fail because of lack of administrative support.  It failed because of lack of organization and effort from within the club itself.

Mr. Faber then explains the multiple ways in which the BHM committee failed in spite of the administrative support.  He claims that the BHM committee encouraged celebrants of Black history month to “ignore the existence of other races.”  Yes, Mr. Faber, for 5-10 minutes, 3 or 4 times a year, I do “ignore” the existence of other races.  The same way that a student might, for a brief moment, “ignore” the existence of other subjects while studying for a test.  The same way that a lacrosse player might, during a game, “ignore” the existence of any other sport. Mr. Faber, by that logic, shouldn’t your Hispanic history month presentation have been focused on the “whole community”, rather than just Hispanic culture?  As I recall, the Hispanic history month presentation that you spearheaded was just as exclusive as the BHM presentation. By that logic, shouldn’t we just get rid of every racial presentation at NA?  Is it wrong that the women’s history month presentations didn’t focus more on men?  Is it wrong that Kam Singh didn’t focus more on other religions during his presentation on Sikhism? Do you condemn these presentations as well?  The fact of the matter is that it’s occasionally necessary to focus on the achievements of one group in a vacuum, just like you did in October, just like the women’s history month committee did in March and just like the BHM committee did in February.  This way, when we step back into the real world, we have a newfound perspective.  To suggest that the Black history month committee should be condemned for focusing only on black history is absolutely absurd.

That being said, I do commend Mr. Faber for suggesting that there should be a committee that receives large amounts of administrative support and includes all races.  I agree that its objective should be to promote diversity within the entire community.  I also commend him for his fearlessness in writing this article.  However there were, as I mentioned in the beginning, far too many injurious and unfair remarks for me to remain silent.  Mr. Faber says that “race is an issue that has to be addressed with the utmost care.”  Yet I cannot imagine how it could be handled more carelessly and thoughtlessly than it was in this article.

Sincerely,

Coleman Hughes `14

To the editor:

In response to the article “Black History Month: The Pitfall of Unity” in the recent edition of Minuteman Life, your readers should consider the following points.

The article asserts that Umojaa receives more administrative support than Mi Casa, Asian Diversity and Indian Club. In reality, this support is available to all clubs at Newark Academy who ask for it. What made the morning meeting presentations “striking” was not the “administrative support,” but rather the personal nature of the presentations, in which the participating students and faculty took risks in sharing their own experiences. Most of the student body was moved by their courage.

The Newark Academy Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) did something very similar in their recent morning meeting presentation, without the support of a committee behind them. In both instances, the presenters were able to “strike an emotional chord” because they trusted the audience to hear and understand their message about the pitfalls of labeling and making assumptions. GSA demonstrated that clubs don’t need an administrative committee to make an inspiring and thought-provoking presentation.

Furthermore, the article states that the BHM presentations were “exclusive” and involved “predominantly only one group of people.” It should be noted that not all of the students who participated in the presentation were in Umojaa, and that the BHM committee invited anyone, not just members of the black community, to participate.

Finally, the article says that Global Speaker Majora Carter “spent three hours at the school to promote the messages of Umojaa.” However, in a March 9th Minuteman article, “Majora Carter: A Voice for Urban Environmentalism,” staff writer Trevor Williams describes Dr. Carter as “an advocate of sustainable development and urban revitalization.” In short, what did she have to do with promoting the messages of Umojaa except for the fact that she happens to be black?

In conclusion, the Black History Month presentations did not create “divisiveness” between NA’s racial clubs, but the article “The Pitfall of Unity” does.

Sincerely,

Flannery James `14

To the editor:

Last week I was excited to read the Minuteman Life Magazine. While skimming through the articles, I came across a picture of myself and stopped to read the article titled “Black History Month: The Pitfall of Unity” by Josh Faber. As I read this article, I found myself confused and filled with mixed emotions. Overall, I was disappointed that the roots and purpose of Black History Month and the Black History Month Committee had been so misconstrued. As the president of Umojaa, and also as a member of the Black History Month Planning Committee, I would like to respectfully rebut some of the points that were made in this article.

I would like to start with the origins of the Black History Month Committee. As Josh stated in his article, Umojaa always has consistently been allotted morning meeting slots in the past, which we would use to celebrate and recognize Black History Month. I, on behalf of Umojaa Members, went to Mr. Scott to discuss Umojaa’s decision to no longer take responsibility for the recognition of Black History Month, just because we are the “Black diversity club”. Umojaa is not the Black history club, or the representative club of all of Black experience; all of the Black students are not even members of the club. We felt that the presentations for Black History Month in the future should be more inclusive of anyone who wanted to help recognize this month. When Mr. Scott informed administration of this decision, Dr. D and Mr. Scott took it upon themselves to form a committee comprised of both faculty and students whose charge was to plan for a school wide celebration of Black History in February.

One of Josh’s arguments in the article is that the presentation “isolated the Black community instead of incorporating it into the larger NA community” and that it was “exclusive.” Although this statement is true in most respects, I do not understand how this is something to be criticized.  For one, the actual committee did not only include Black members of the community; Ms. Snow and Dr. D were also a large part of the committee. When Dr. D made morning meeting announcements about the formation of the committee, he did not say that only Black students could show interest—it was open to the entire school body. Perhaps if more people showed interest, the committee itself would not seem so exclusive. As far as the actual presentation, it is impossible to celebrate Black History without isolating the Black community at Newark Academy. In Jewish club presentations, Jewish people speak about their history. In Women’s History Month presentations, women speak. Why is it that for Black History Month, it is an issue to only include the Black community? Our presentation about our experiences involving our respective identities as Black people was exclusive to those who would be able to share a relevant, personal account.  A white person or Hispanic cannot describe the experiences of a Black person at Newark Academy. It is unfair for those involved in the presentation to be accused of “ignoring the existence of other races.” I am disappointed that the mission of Black History Month has been misconstrued in the article as a sort of mission to portray celebration of the Black race at Newark Academy as superior to any other race represented here.

Josh also compared the celebration of Black History Month this year with the treatment of holidays and celebrations of other cultures. He complained that there were no plans by administration to celebrate Asian History Month and that attempts to celebrate Hispanic History Month had failed. It would be ignorant to blame these failures on the administration. If the school community really wanted to celebrate Asian History Month, it is their responsibility to make a sincere effort to do so and to demand that the administrations help. Josh explained in his article that “Hispanic History Month has not been recognized for the past seven years at NA.” While this may be, it is up to the school community to demand that it be recognized if the administration does not do so on their own– just as Umojaa has always done. He also stated that Mi Casa’s procured five minute slot in October “fell flat” because of a lack of administrative organization. The failure of the presentation should not be blamed on lack of administrative organization; rather the club members themselves should bear the brunt of such criticism. The Indian club celebrates its culture every year with a dance at morning meeting, which I am sure requires cooperation with school administration. Umojaa had always put together morning meeting presentations to recognize Black History Month with the support of Mr. Scott. If we have been able to do so, why can’t any other cultural clubs?

In addition to these things, Josh also used false evidence in his argument. He claimed that “Dr. Majora Carter spent 3 hours at the school to promote the messages of Umojaa and the Global Speaker Series” and that the Black History Month Committee “received several thousand dollars from the diversity budget to help fund Dr. Carter.” Dr. Majora Carter came to Newark Academy as a part of the Global Speaker Series and had absolutely nothing to do with Umojaa. The Global Speaker Series came to the Black History Month Committee with the idea to bring Dr. Carter to NA. Therefore, any money from the diversity budget that went toward funding her visit was not a product of supporting the Black History Month Committee.

One of Josh’s main points throughout the article is that Newark Academy risks losing its goal of being a “global society” if one race is given special treatment. I think that he holds a very narrow definition of a global society if he believes the presentations for Black History Month are discriminating. In a truly global society, community members are able to show pride in their culture without being accused of being supremacist and divisive. I hope that in the future, our community will be more accepting of the efforts of others to create a more culturally aware, informed, and yes, global, society.

Sincerely,

SaVonne Anderson `13