To Whom It Concerns: a grievance

TO THOSE WHOM IT CONCERNS

Statement on the Cleveland Hall racist anti-Semitic graffiti incident
(September, 2006)

By Sid Thomas, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Philosophy, emeritus
SUNY Binghamton


"An Attack On The Entire Community"
-Binghamton University President Lois DeFleur

********
Why I am writing

This incident appears to be a redux of the 1988 spray painting of swastikas and "Kill k---s" on the Jewish Student Union walls in the Old Student Union, which I spoke out against loudly at the time, on a basis that it was a likely hoax. This judgment was vindicated by the way it played out. Then-JSU president James Oppenheim's fingerprints were on the can, but he got off on a technicality. The essential character of that event, assuming he did it (and the thorough police investigation never followed any other lead, as I recollect), was never made clear; and that left a hole in the moral-legal universe of campus discourse big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Odd as it may seem, 20 year old student Justin Friedman, sophomore, might be that Mack truck. I am writing in order to erect a barricade against that attack truck, and plug that gaping hole by confronting its essential character.

The statement will be organized around four "talking points":
1. The sin lies in use of the symbolism by the one who used it; 2. The de facto victims of its venom are Nazi (for anti-Semitism) and KKK (for racism) affiliations. 3. If the university knew or had good reason to suspect it was a self-inflicted hate 'crime' scene, but proceeded to make a federal case out of it, this is malfeasance. 4. If the university does not seek penalties for Justin Friedman equal to the gravity of "an attack on the entire community" -- to the extent that it falls short of that -- it leaves the principal sin unaddressed. It can be accused of coddling Jews who slander white Christian (straight males, but leave these aside) affiliates.

******

1. The difference between merely ugly griffiti and "explicit language, derogatory terms and swastikas directed against blacks and Jews"( sic. G. Basler in the Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin, 9.28.'06) is the difference between two entirely different levels of public awareness. One is a matter of dormitory discipline. The other is an attack on the entire community. What constitutes the difference is the violence of the symbolism. This is as close as "acting out" gets before ugly turns uglier, and its too late.

This is why it is important to understand the motive clearly here. Is it being treated ("framed". grammaticized) as a fake hate crime, staged by a Jew to gain sympathy backlash from ant-Nazi/KKK sentiment?

2. Those who will be damaged in the public mind to the extent the hoax is not exposed in these terms are those who stand mostly "on the right". The straight (homophobic), white, Christian (anti-semitic) male sadists. This now constitutes an aggrieved group, for which I speak as delegate in this matter, only, and not from identification with any other causes than those I have defended on-line in several forums, and set forth details of in my website sidthomas.blolgsspot.com.

This sector (SWCM) stands in relation to Friedman's act, if it was a hate crime hoax, as the Muslim/Arab world stood in in relation to the fake "Allah" zealot anthrax attack. They had nothing to do with it, but public opinion is manipulated so that people think the worse. Since the
process takes place mostly at an unconscious level, resolution is never achieved. How can you reply to something you were supposed to be guilty of -- willingness to express those sentiments and go over the line, like the perpetrator did, as if 'extemists" were about to "go off" -- when
it was never put into words, and would shift shape to avoid being pinned down? There is a "all bets are off" viciousness built into that.

3. It is assumed that the administration had full awareness of the typicality of fake hate crimes, how college campuses are preferred, how insidious their effect. The metaphor of "poisoned atmosphere" applies. Also, the original crime scene didn't look too threatening, they would have noticed. Were the police saying it was probably a resident? When was Friedman busted, and by what means? After the incident had taken place on 9.18, the public announcement didn't occur until 9.28, which indicates some decision had been made on the basis of early investigations to blow up the ballyhoo. Was there pressure to do this? If so, from who? Was it inflated to the status of cause celebri for political reasons? Was it perhaps done deliberately to put the victim group (SWCM) at a disadvantage? Throw the book at 'em, maybe have to crack down if they pipe up.

4. A charge of "fourth degree criminal mischief" does not bring out, but glosses over, the twistedness of hate-attacks by perpetrators on themselves as a particular pathololgy. This is of the essence. Everyone gets drawn into the coils of the 'evil' dialectdic. Cases abound. Towanda Brawly; the woman who pushed her car into a river to drown the kids in it and blamed a black man; the Claremont college prof who spray painted the usual graffiti on her Volkswagon then told the police, media and who ever would listen that white skinheads had done it; black students at San Francisco State framing white racists by spraying "Nigger" in their dorm; the 'comic' Borat framing the entire culture of Khazakstan with anti-Semitic grossness; ... and so forth.

The pathology of what is to be seen in these and other cases has not been given legal elaboration commensurate with the degree of symbolic aggression. What punishment is appropriate to "an attack against the entire community", when it comes in this form? An attack "in TokenSpace" as I call the dimension of experience opened up by communication, is, fortunately, not the same as an attack in physical space, and is urged by peacemakers as where best to restage conflict. Therefore, a poisoning of that dimension, has the effect of increasing likelihood of violent conflict breaking out in confined physical space.

One condition of just settlement is leveling the dialectic between Nazi-KKK slander and pro-Zionist PR stunts.

********

Note on applies psychosemiotics:

Confronting Psychotic Reversals

The political position of individuals in today’s group-situation requires them to employ a certain kind of “reversal” in the use of signs. This may be innocent and well- meaning, as in reversing the impression of stuttering by stuttering more (reversing impressions); sarcastic, as in uttering “nice try” for bad miss; onus-shifting and blame-reversal, as in “It wasn’t me who called you.”, “he hit me first.”; self-referring, as in “this is not me sayong this”. A formal exposition of these sign-uses, as such, has not previously existed. That is because formal analysis of discourse about discourse, about …. has not previously been pursued to the level of communication in general. What has been presupposed all along, from the beginning of philosophy, the use of signs to communicate, has been taken for granted and left largely unexplored as a field of its own. The study of psychosemiotics (unpublished by author) fills this gap.

This last kind of reversal can lead to logical paradoxes, as in “This is a false sentence”.