TPMCafe
« Climate Misinformation | Home | The Reason for 15 Million Unemployed: Poor Thinking at the Top »

Race Bait and Switch

user-pic

A Michigan university got quite a shock when they requested a speaker from an upstate anti-immigration group.

Ferris State University was in the process of planning a debate on immigration policy scheduled for the spring of 2010. They'd already lined up a local immigration attorney, to represent the "liberal" side in the debate. To find a representative of the "conservative" position, a faculty member contacted The Social Contract Press--the anti-immigration publishing house headquartered just up the road in Petoskey--requesting a speaker.

The Social Contract Press (TSCP) is a project of U.S. Inc., a financial umbrella for a number of anti-immigrant groups under the control of movement godfather John Tanton. The Social Contract Press is primarily a vehicle for publishing the journal, The Social Contract (TSC), and reprinting key anti-immigrant texts. Both came about primarily through the efforts of Tanton in response to a perceived need for "literary efforts" to foster ideas and direct the movement.

The university requested one of their staff members for the debate, but The Social Contract pulled a classic bait and switch--a deceptive method of selling one image to the public but replacing it with a substandard version at the last minute. Rather than arranging for a respectable anti-immigration scholar or activist, the editor of The Social Contract tried to use the invitation to provide a platform for a friendly white nationalist.

In a letter dated September 21, 2009, TSC editor Wayne Lutton replied to the Ferris State request made by Dr. Barry Mehler, "I have travel plans for the Spring and can not[sp] commit to any programs at this time. Jared Taylor, of American Renaissance, would be pleased to debate Mr. Kessler or yourself."

Jared Taylor is the creator of the white nationalist publication, American Renaissance. Started as a modest newsletter in 1990, American Renaissance has grown into an important vehicle for white nationalist ideas. American Renaissance first described itself as a "literate, undeceived journal of race, immigration and the decline of civility." It claimed that "White people" had lost their voice and that the United States was in danger of losing its "national and cultural core." Capturing the centrality of anti-immigration activism to white nationalism, Taylor wrote in a 2001 AR piece that,

Undoubtedly the greatest threat to whites today comes from immigration. Racial preferences, guilt-mongering, anti-Western education, even anti-white violence are manageable problems compared to a process that is displacing whites and reducing them to a minority. With a change in thinking at the right levels, anti-white policies and double standards could be done away with practically overnight, but that would still leave us with nearly 100 million non-whites living in the country.

Taylor has enjoyed using university events like this to promote American Renaissance, legitimize himself, and bask in the attention created by the campus controversies that ensue when racists have a platform. Looking beyond the gall of trying to arrange a speaking event for a white nationalist like Taylor, Lutton's debate recommendation turns out to be less than surprising.

Lutton describes himself as a "right-wing green" to camouflage his decades of white nationalist activism. Far from being a conservative environmentalist, Lutton has a long-standing relationship with Jared Taylor and his white nationalist group American Renaissance. For instance, Lutton spoke at the first two conferences of American Renaissance in 1994 and 1996 and is scheduled to speak at the 2010 AR conference next February. He also serves as a trustee of the American Renaissance's parent organization the New Century Foundation.

Lutton and Taylor have also worked together in other white nationalist organizations. Lutton was a senior fellow at the white nationalist think-tank, the National Policy Institute, where Taylor was a board member. They've been editorial advisors to the Council of Conservative Citizen's publication, the Citizen Informer. The two sat together on the editorial advisory board of the racist and anti-Semitic journal, The Occidental Quarterly, while the editor was Lutton's TSC colleague Kevin Lamb.

It's not just that Lutton is tight with American Renaissance. The relationship between The Social Contract and American Renaissance goes both ways. Jared Taylor has written for The Social Contract, first as a letter-writer, then a full-fledged contributor. Taylor attended TSC founder John Tanton's exclusive WITAN meetings, the controversial gatherings of hand-picked attendees which took the name from an Old English term, witenagemot, or council of wise men. At Taylor's request, Tanton even provided early input on the direction of American Renaissance.

Several dust-ups over TSC's involvement with racists led the group try to scrub some of the most obvious odious organizational connections. At the end of 2007, for instance, they removed from their website the link to American Renaissance that had been there since the end of 2000. They've also lashed out at anti-bigotry groups, as Lutton did in a 2009 speech at the National Press Club.

After all their efforts to push back against charges of racism, it's peculiar to find Wayne Lutton scheduled to speak at the next American Renaissance conference and recommending someone like Jared Taylor.

Wisely, Ferris State University didn't take the bait. The university chose not to extend an invitation to Taylor. As the immigration issue once again starts working its way to the fore, the experience is a reminder to colleges, universities, and other organizations (including media outlets), to take a much closer look at nativist leaders.

This post also appears at the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights blog.


32 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Wouldn't it be better to trust the intelligence of students and let them hear out Taylor - then decide for themselves whether any of his arguments have legitimacy? Our universities have become crippled by an acceptability standard for discussion topics and speakers that has become narrower and more constricted. Shutting off discussion and debate tells students they aren't trusted to make intellectual choices on their own, and must be spoon-fed whatever fashionably correct dogma is acceptable to our cultural establishment; all this bland mush is ditched as soon as they graduate. Why is the Left so oppressive?

user-pic

I agree, the best way to combat racism is to expose the intellectual bankruptcy and emotional immaturity behind it -- but you have to have the courage to confront it.

user-pic

Is sending college students off to hear Jared Taylor's sales pitch really a good idea? Because he'wouldn't be there to debate, he'd be there to recruit and I'm quite sure the University administration knew it, too.

A college campus is fertile ground and Jared Taylor won't be wearing his pointy headed sheet to give his agenda away. He will present himself as a reasonable person with great ideas for making the USA a better, whiter, place.

It was FSU's decision to not substitute an invited speaker and it was a good decision. The debate subject was immigration policy, not white supremacy, which would have been Jared Taylor's expressed viewpoint.

user-pic

I'd hope that our college students would see right through something like that.

user-pic

This is a double edged sword, destor. I would hope that they would see right through the propaganda, too....and it's always possible they would, and would then turn away from the hate and racism.

On the other hand, what they hear from the propagandist might be exactly what they have been waiting to hear and it would only bolster the ideas that have been simmering on the back burner.

I still think the University's decision was correct. They wanted someone qualified to give the opposing viewpoint on immigration policy. If they wish to host a debate about white supremacy, then Jared Taylor would be a good choice. At least the students would be aware ahead of time on the debate topic and wouldn't be bushwhacked by a viewpoint coming out of the blue.

user-pic

The debate subject was immigration policy, not white supremacy, which would have been Jared Taylor's expressed viewpoint.

(1) White nationalism is not the same thing as white supremacism. White supremacy is the belief that whites are superior to non-whites. White nationalism is the belief that whites ought to be able to look out for their own interests as a group. The white supremacist looks at other races as inferior. The white nationalist looks at other races as being "not us."

To put it in terms of a sports metaphor, the white supremacist thinks that his team (race) is the best. The white nationalist loves his team (race) because it is his team.

(2) Just because Jared Taylor is a white nationalist, it does not mean that he can only debate things directly related to white nationalism. However, I agree that he probably was not the best person for TSC to choose for the debate.

user-pic

I don't really care if I got the nationalist mixed up with the supremacist. Neither one of them want me living in their neighborhood.

user-pic

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

user-pic

Puhlease!

We're not talking about a seat of higher learning here -- like say, Saginaw Valley. This is Ferris State!

user-pic

hahahhaha...yeah!

user-pic

Would you be so easily swayed? Would you be recruited?

user-pic

Are you asking if I, personally, was easily swayed when I was in college?

Oh, yeah, you betcha I was!

Would I be recruited?

I was! I was recruited by the dirty, f&#king hippies. (We were right, you know.)

user-pic

But why assume all students are as credulous as you? Most would hear out Taylor and decide for themselve whether his platform holds up. It's doubtful he would convince many, since his organization has fringe-number membership, at best. That Progressives are intolerant of opposing viewpoints evinces weakness - not strength. To the extent we shut down opposition, we fear it, because of its potential to reveal flaws in our own beliefs.

user-pic

I was answering your easily 'swayed question' at a personal level. It is an assumption that I assume all students are as credulous as I was when I was in college.

I agree that most students would hear Taylor out and come to their own conclusions if that was the lecture or debate they had signed up to listen to and he was the invited speaker. According to the original post, he was not the invited speaker.

I also agree that he would convince few to embrace his organization. The number of active participants in these fringe groups is comparatively low, but let me ask this: How many people did it take to blow up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?

I have stated before that I am indeed intolerant of hate groups who wish harm to so many. It's one thing to discuss the lofty ideals of Progressives. It's another when you're fighting at street level.

user-pic

We cannot have a free society, fc, if we allow fanatics and bombers to set our policy, and if we censor and oppress in an attempt to eliminate fringe-group violence, we do just that - allow the deluded and the bloodthirsty to write our charter, control our public interaction. And we have accomplished nothing but install an oppressive society. We haven't made ourselves more safe - just more stupid.

A few students may hear Taylor and heed his ideas. So what? Again: He's been around for years and his organization is miniscule. It will remain that way. History is not on his side.

This case only emphasizes the fact that the Left is a champion of free speech only in societies that already allow and encourage free speech. In truth, the Left is the traditional enemy of free and open exchanges of ideas. In such an arena, its gamey, pseudo-religious underpinnings begin to reek.

And if I wrote that in a society ruled by a Leftist regime, I'd be dead or jailed by now.

user-pic

San Fernando Curt,

Have you read what Jared Taylor has to say? He is one of the most well spoken people on the topic of diversity and multiculturalism. The deaths of 50,000 white people at the hands of non-whites and one million white women raped by non-whites, mostly blacks, over the past 50 years is something we simply must talk about. Also, the blatant way in which "hate-crime" laws are prosecuted, only ever being used against whites while vicious murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom simply must be spoken about. There is a direct correlation between the increase in violent crime and the increase in immigration, largely caused by blacks and Hispanics. It is a fact that blacks are eight times more likely to kill you than whites. These are simply facts and will not go away despite what the left wants. These issues simply must be addressed.

user-pic

Look... I'm trying make an intelligent point here. Why don't you wander over to Stormfront and play a few fast rounds of Russian roulette?

user-pic

"Look... I'm trying make an intelligent point here."

San Fernando Curt, your ad hominem reply to me was certainly not an example of it. However, your previous comment was intelligent and I agree with it.

I also like you bring up a white nationalist website to attempt to discredit me - guilt by association. In this sense you are engaging in the same intellectually bankrupt tactics as Mr. Burghart by doing so. If you can't refute me, insult me by calling me racist or associating me with white nationalists. That is a form of academic thuggery.

Having said this, I actually agree with you and was just pointing out that Jared Taylor is NOT racist. And if it makes me - a white female victim of black rape - a white nationalist to point to the million other white women who were raped by blacks, then fine - I'm a white nationalist! Are you happy? Share some of that happiness with the thousands of victims of black criminality.

user-pic

I don't agree that the left is oppressive.

Except, mayhap, amidst its very own.

user-pic

OK, Lis. Defend the concept of re-education camps.

user-pic

"Why is the Left so oppressive?" - San Fernando Curt

It is because the left lost the academic debate a long time ago and the only option that they have is to suppress the truth on the opposing side from being aired. All the left and people like Devin Burghart have is ad hominem, appeals to emotion, and vague assertions. If he had anything of substance you would think he would have included it in this article but since nothing of the sort appears here I am going to assume he has no such material.

Mr. Burghart knows full well that students would be convinced by Jared Taylor's persuasive evidence. Subconsciously, I think it is quite possible that Mr. Burghart himself is convinced. As a result he of course does not wish to allow anyone to even have an opportunity to think critically on the matter.

Unfortunately for him we are in the internet age and reality simply refuses to go away.

user-pic

I'm with Destor and Curt on this. Dean approved political debate would make the whole exercise exceedingly boring. Bring in a good old fashioned white supremist and invite the football team to attend his talk. The results could be downright entertaining.

user-pic

While syvanen's scenario of the football team showing up to Jared Taylor’s debate certainly sounds entertaining at first blush, unfortunately it's exactly what Taylor and his white nationalist ilk want.

Taylor’s intended audience is not the few students who actually end up attending these sorts of college presentations, but the larger public. The university and the students are merely props. In fact, Taylor wants there to be conflict, tension, even violence, because that allows him to play the victim – the reasonable, rationale martyr for free speech who’s opponents couldn’t defeat him in debate so they had to turn to violence.

This scenario has been repeated over and over in the US and Canada in recent years, giving Taylor and his organization a plethora of glowing press coverage and many new recruits. The best solution is the simplest: don’t take the bait.

Cheers!

Devin Burghart
Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights
Web: www.irehr.org
Email: dburghart(at)irehr.org
Twitter: dburghart

user-pic
In fact, Taylor wants there to be conflict, tension, even violence, because that allows him to play the victim...

Has Taylor ever said this? Or are you reading his mind? Let's consider, for a monment, how disturbing it is, in a free, open society (off-campus, this country is still that), that this or that speaker will be faced with violence if he comes to speak. Where there is free and open exchanges of ideas, groups like Taylor's will always remain small. As long as American academia remains crippled by arrogant, long-discredited dogma, it stifles its academic validity.

user-pic

Hi San Fernando Curt,

As someone who’s extensively studied the ideology, strategies, and tactics of Taylor and his cohorts for almost two decades, who’s read nearly everything he’s ever written, analyzed reams of his press coverage, watched or listened to just about every one of his speeches, interviewed former members of his group, and much more, I can assure you that my statement about Taylor’s tactics is not based upon my skill as a mind-reader. A crystal ball isn’t required to see what Taylor is up to, all one has to do is look at the evidence.

Let’s be clear here, Jared Taylor isn’t an academic. He’s not interested in advancing human knowledge or engaging in a free exchange of ideas. Let’s not fall into his trap by conflating the two. He has a very specific political agenda, one that would virtually eliminate the voices of people of color on campus and off. That’s the real dogma here.

user-pic

Taylor would be invited on campus as a speaker, not a teacher, so it doesn't matter whether or not he's an academic. And regardless of your expertise on the man and his movement - and it does sound extensive - he's being defined here by hostile opposition... you. In fairness, such one-sided determination is valuable only to the extent we know it's unsympathetic; you may be certain of his motivations, but there's no reason for Ferris State students to accept your word at face value. Again - at what point can students access unfiltered opinion? Conditions for campus speakers serve no one if they're so consticted. What is the great fear here, really? That students will become robot Nazis hearing his spiel? Or is it important merely as theater - to "prove" objectionable types aren't welcome on American campuses? Who gets to define "objectionable"?

user-pic

I had to comment on this. You're being intellectually dishonest Mr. Burghart. Please post the name of the pro immigration participant. And what will he argue that Mr. Taylor would not? Will this unnamed person argue to promote a group's best interest? Who is a person that is anti-immigration, which you would find acceptable?
Your ilk's tactics are boring, sir. They've been played out over and over again throughout history. Repression of the truth doesn't work though.

user-pic

I'm for free and open debate. I'm not particularly worried that many students would support Taylor. But if I were a university administrator I also wouldn't invite Nazis to speak at my school, because . . . . they're Nazis. Conservatives of all sorts, absolutely.

user-pic

If Taylor has been so successful in obtaining "a plethora of glowing press coverage and many new recruits" why is it that I never heard of him before? I do, BTW, follow this kind of stuff. There have always been white supremist groups in this country competing for a dwindling supply of willing recruits. Exposing their leaders to the bright light of public ridicule, may enhance their prospects in attracting the fringe, but I believe it does a lot more to convince the majority that they deserve their isolated position in our society. See what I am saying? so what if Taylor gets a bigger piece of the pie, the pie getting smaller is what counts. And trends over the past 40 years shows that it is getting smaller.

user-pic

If Taylor has been so successful in obtaining "a plethora of glowing press coverage and many new recruits" why is it that I never heard of him before? I do, BTW, follow this kind of stuff. There have always been white supremist groups in this country competing for a dwindling supply of willing recruits. Exposing their leaders to the bright light of public ridicule, may enhance their prospects in attracting the fringe, but I believe it does a lot more to convince the majority that they deserve their isolated position in our society. See what I am saying? so what if Taylor gets a bigger piece of the pie, the pie getting smaller is what counts. And trends over the past 40 years shows that it is getting smaller.

user-pic

"He has a very specific political agenda, one that would virtually eliminate the voices of people of color on campus and off".

I'd be curious to hear what the white voices of white united students have to say? After all, the university values diversity above all else... On a more serious note: I find it odd someone acting to eliminate Mr Taylor's voice from being heard, then goes on to say his real concern is that voices might be silenced?

I find it odd Mr Burkhart, who is an expert on Jared Taylor, would display such a neutral quote. Surely in 20 years he's made much more questionable and hateful statements? In fact, I'm sure he has. However, is it shocking 'anti-white policies and double standards could be done away with practically overnight' and that '100 million non-whites live in the country'. Maybe it is...

user-pic

LHathaway, all you can expect is hypocrisy and double standards from people like Devin Burghart. Notice that he didn't refute or even attempt to refute anything said by Jared Taylor. He merely expressed that it was clearly inane banter ("racist") and that no one should listen to it without explaining why. That he would suppress Mr. Taylor's speech under the guise of preventing speech from being suppressed is beyond absurd and clearly displays the lack of objective methods Devin Burghart is capable of.

Lastly, the reason why Mr. Burghart is unable to find any quote by Mr. Taylor that is more offensive than the one he found is because none exist. Jared Taylor is not a racist individual and has never made any racist statements. He merely acknowledges the failure of multiculturalism and the vast number of white victims of this bankrupt ideology. This of course is not in line with Mr. Burghart's fictitious vision of multiculturalism and immigration.

In a debate against Mr. Taylor, Mr. Burghart would not stand a chance, which is why censorship or complete suppression is his only recourse.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address