OP-ED Rethinking the Rev

Author: John Birnbaum

I was appalled by the student body's overwhelming endorsement of Al Sharpton following his speech in Mead Chapel last Wednesday.

Although Sharpton pandered to the liberal agenda of the Middlebury crowd, the speech was non-confrontational. His message: to increase student advocacy and participation in politics, something few can disagree with. The Reverend's charisma and proclamations of social reform struck the student body into an immediate, but false, sense of comfort with his politics. Much to my chagrin there was a standing ovation at the conclusion of his speech followed by a slew of overly thankful question-askers (for $20k, he should be the thankful one).

I am neither frustrated by MCAB's choice of speaker nor by the speech itself. My irritation is derived from the incredible ignorance of the student body. Apparently Midd kids do not know the real politics of the Rev.

Sharpton describes himself as a rabble-rouser who initiates discussion as a conduit for reform. In reality, he is a bit more controversial than what he would have you think. Over the course of his rabble-rousing carrer, he has called Jews "diamond merchants" and referred to a Jewish tenant in Harlem as a "white interloper," has advised a crowd to "off the pigs," and he has supported violent racial riots. He has even been sued for slander.

Additionally, in 2008 Sharpton owed about $1.5 million in federal and state income taxes. His main organization, National Action Network, was investigated in 2007 for failure to make proper financial reports. It has also been suggested that several major corporations have donated to his non-profit in return for exemption from Sharpton's boycotts and riots.

Do Middlebury students honestly believe that he is a positive political force? Or were we so enamored of his celebrity status or by the way he stroked our liberal egos that we forgot his true character? Most likely the student body is oblivious to Sharpton's seditious career.

I cannot fathom why this bigot was received with such praise and appreciation. The truth is he is a divisive character who prefers to initiate hate rather than negotiate objectively. His politics are negative, and he functions under the guise of being a spokesman for social justice - a subject on which he has little understanding. He is no expert on the matter, and to treat him as such is na've.

He is quite an orator, but let's put his words into the context of his actions. Next time a controversial speaker comes to Middlebury, let's be more discretionary and hesitant with the immediacy of our praise.