Jarrett Roby is at the center of a controversy at Georgetown University regarding his political beliefs and religious affiliations. After agreeing to come on my show to discuss his situation, Mr. Roby pulled out at the last minute saying he did not want to publicly discuss the situation further. I went ahead with my regular Tuesday night show and after the show I received this email from a person who claims to be student at the same program Roby was ejected from. The email is as follows: (I have not corrected for spelling or grammar; letter stands as written)
Greetings, Mrs. Kira. I am the community scholar who commented on your post and have just finished listening to your radio show (allow with a number of other scholars). I must say, I thought that the sheer lack of clarity of the facts you have been kept ignorant of (and for bad reason, you are very much wasting your time, and ours) would coerce you into taking a much more moderate view towards the subject. Clearly, I was mistaken.
As I stated before, you simply don’t know Jarret Roby nor do you know the actual facts case other than what he has told you. I did not call during your program simply because I felt that calling in and preaching the real events was very much outside of my place. After all, the show is yours. Nevertheless, I will clarify a few things:
1. The LGBTQ (The Q stands for “Questioning” for future reference) workshop was, in no way shape or form, a class or course in sensitivity or even education. The workshop was a means through which the LGBT topic could be discussed in a controlled and objective space. Georgetown is a University in which students are taught not to shy away from discussing even the most sensitive of topic, key reason to reference is Mr. Roby’s vituperative conduct, and the University uses this program as a preemptive means to introduce us to this discussion. Clearly, there were some, with strong downplaying of the word “some”, who objected to the workshop, but this is the reason why the workshop was mandatory. At Georgetown, students need to be overtly willing to discuss such topics objectively; to welcome criticism and praise as equals, and, most of all, maintain their composure under disapproval, which Mr. Roby spectacularly failed at, if I may add.
2. Mr. Roby was not escorted off of the campus by Georgetown police nor was law enforcement summoned upon him, he was escorted by DPS (The University Law Enforcement) off of the campus and to his bus that would take him to their airport. If this measure had not been taken, Mr. Roby would have had to find his way off of campus, to his bus (had their been one), and to his plane (clearly undesirable). This is an example of facts being skewed, misconstrued, and taken out of context. For what reason, I will purposely fail to mention.
3. You take to heart (and gravely) much of what Mr. Roby has told you. I hope you receive equally as openly what he hasn’t told you. For example, did he tell you that the reason why he was removed from the Community Scholars program was not as a result of his actions, but as a result of a multitude of events which appeared to culminate with his most recent outburst? Did Mr. Roby tell you that he was about as controlled with his opinions with respects to his peers as Hitler was with his armies in respects to Poland? Did he tell you that the very first time I sat down and spoke to him as a person, he immediately took a liking to me because I made a racist joke about African Americans (You need not worry about me, I know what I’m doing)? Did he tell you that he believes that people need to assimilate to their white culture or that he actually has a theory about why he doesn’t date Black Women? Need I remind you that this is the same person you spoke to and were defending only a few short hours ago? I could go on, but I do truly I’ve made my point on this matter. If you want to know more, or even confirm what I have said, you may speak to him yourself.
4. You reffered to Mr. Roby as a “big black man” from Chicago. Sweetheart, I am a black male from Newark, New Jersey and Jarret is only a shy of an inch taller than I am. The fact that he is a “big black man” from Chicago has as little to do with his actions as my hailing from Newark has to do with my reclusive nature. Furthermore, I am offended at the fact that you would even entertain the fact that this could be a racially tainted event. I am so offended, in fact that I won’t even entertain the issue myself. I will just remind you that you yourself said this was a program for “underprivileged”, “disadvantaged” youth predominantly of minority decent.
5. On the topic of “disadvantaged” and “underprivileged”, I will say this once more: Neither I nor any community scholar is disadvantaged nor are we underprivileged. We didn’t join this program to “catch up”, we joined for the chance to experience college life, experience college work, attend various workshops to prepare us for college, and all the while receiving a special scholarship. I will remind you that during your show you were not only, talking about us, you were talking to us. In fact, there was a general spark of laughter when you mentioned those words. I will also remind you that for the overwhelming majority of us scholars, the option to attend this program was just that: an option. For most of us, we didn’t have to, nor were we forced to. So, to call us disadvantaged or underprivileged is inherently hilarious and deserving of much heckling.
6. Your “anonymous” sources aren’t so anonymous.
7. As for the Right v.s. Left theory, no. Just no. Mr. Roby is about as conservative as pseudo conservatives can get. He calls himself conservative, but he is very much ignorant of and unable to vouch for most “conservative” ideologies (Then again, most conservative ideologies are inherently difficult to defend or even remotely rationalize, but we won’t go there). As I also stated before, in regards to the incident in question, Jarret was a victim, but not of liberal bias, racism, or even squishy tenderness towards the LGBT community. He was a victim of his own rabid pseudo conservative ideology; the very same rabid ideology that directly leads to the equally rabid brandishing of this incident, despite the lack of accurate evidence.
I think that about sums it up, Mrs. Davis. Now I know, for many of these points, you may recount that you did not receive any direct information from the University. While I cannot say whether or not you will receive more information, I must say agree with the decision not to release. The only social entity more amusing Fox News is runaway right wing reporting with little/inaccurate evidence. At any rate, I once again suggest that you abandon this case. Jarret Roby is not the person you want to defend, no matter how right wing you are.
Gay marriage is constitutional, DOMA is not.
“bitching” regards, and Hoya Saxa
This hardly seems like the rantings of an “objective” party. Clearly this person has a preconceived distaste for conservatives based on outdated media lies about what conservatives stand for. As a black conservative who is regularly attacked and maligned, I know that often people who judge me right away by my political views tend to view everything I say through their own twisted and uninformed lenses. So a joke becomes a “racist” joke and a passionate defense of an opinion becomes a “Hitler-style” rant.
The writer’s plea for objectivity is laughable. This is hardly a letter from an objective party. It actually seems to bolster Mr.Roby’s story by proving how unreasonable and bias the people around him really are. The writer even admits that people like Roby need the LGBT training to release them from their own bigotry! ” Clearly, there were some, with strong downplaying of the word “some”, who objected to the workshop, but this is the reason why the workshop was mandatory.” Got that! The training is mandatory because there are actually people out there who would…gasp, object!
It sounds to me that Roby could have done nothing right for this person short of denouncing his ideology and getting back on the liberal Democrat plantation where he belongs. Racism is an issue only because it’s always an issue when dealing with left-wing ideology. They set up the rules, which the writer set-up right away by referring to the “racist joke” (what kind of joke was it, I wonder) he told, and that Roby allegedly laughed at. I’m just playing by the rules the writer and his side set up. Don’t hate the player, hate the game!
This isn’t about Roby anymore. He has removed himself from the conversation and wishes not to participate further in this discussion. But this writer’s loaded, bias (and insulting) email to me proves what I’ve been saying all along. The people who scream for “tolerance” the loudest are usually the one’s who practice it the least. Tolerate sexual diversity, but not thought diversity? Tolerance for thee but not for me!
And no, the letter-writer did not give a name and insisted on remaining anonymous while deriding others for choosing to do the same. Classy!
There’s too much else wrong with this letter to comment on, so have it yourself if you have the energy.
Crossposted at kiradavis.net