By Clairmont Chung
The comparisons
between the removal of Freddie Kissoon from the faculty and the denial of
employment for Dr. Walter Rodney, at the same University of Guyana, cannot be
overdone. The accusations of political involvement, the response of students
and staff, the positions of the unions and the role of political hacks are all
very similar and very important comparisons. But these comparisons often
deteriorate into trading stories that purport to show which of the two regimes
were worse: Burnham or Jagan, PNC or PPP, then or now. It’s a practice even
Freddie Kissoon often indulges. A recent letter to the Kaieteur News, not from Kissoon,
pointed out that even under Burnham, while Rodney was denied a job, Clive Thomas,
Rupert Roopnaraine, Omowale and others were allowed to remain at UG. It seems more
an admission, not a comparison, perhaps resignation that political interference
determined whether one went or stayed, then as now. But I think we need wider
comparisons to fully understand this problem. A look at Rodney’s 1968 expulsion
from Jamaica and the University of the West Indies is helpful.
 |
| Dr. Thomas leads faculty and staff in wage protest |
In 2009, during remarks to a UWI audience at Mona, Jamaica,
I shared my observation that students really had no choice but to take to the
streets on hearing of Rodney’s expulsion in 1968. I made these remarks at the
screening of the documentary film I directed, W.A.R. Stories: Walter Anthony Rodney. I pointed out that the very
substance, the very validity, of their education depended on their show of
resistance. Students who may not have fit the description of radical, even in
that turbulent time, marched in their red gowns to show outrage at Dr. Rodney’s
expulsion. The current Prime Minister of St. Vincent and The Grenadines, Ralph
Gonsalves, then President of UWI’s
Students’ Guild, organized and lead the students’ protest. Former Trinidad and
Tobago Prime Minister like Patrick Manning is said to have participated. They
were not alone. Dr. Clive Thomas was also part of the Faculty’s response. The
Chancellor of the University, Sir Phillip Sherlock, a White man, refused to fire
Rodney as the government requested. The Jamaican Parliament summoned Sir Phillip
to explain his position. The debate raged and prompted a member of the PNP
opposition to grab the ceremonial mace and storm out of parliament in protest. Sherlock’s
position was that Rodney’s on-campus activity and record did not amount to
cause for termination. This position forced the government to expose its hand and
to its shortsighted alternative: Rodney’s removal from the country. This removed
the university from the process and Rodney from the country. It says a lot about
the university even today.
Incidentally, Dr. Thomas was himself shown the UWI door the
following year for his support of Rodney. That too attracted some protest.
Therein lies a very
important difference. All the sides in Guyana debate the extent of the role of
the government in Kissoon’s removal. There was no such debate in
Jamaica. It was no secret that parliament lead by Prime Minister Hugh Shearer
of the Jamaica Labour Party, based on presentations from security forces, opted
to expel Rodney from Jamaica. The university’s position, its refusal to cooperate,
along with pressure from US interests led to that unfortunate decision and the
riots that followed. No such option is available in Kissoon’s case. He cannot
be deported: as a legal matter. Moreover, the University of Guyana’s hierarchy
seems in full cooperation with the current political edict.
 |
Like Kissoon, Rodney could not be deported from Guyana as in
Jamaica. Then like now, the Guyana governments’ role within the university seems
able to effect what Jamaica could not: the cooperation of the university's administration. This is an important difference. Another is the national response
to the Jamaican government.
UWI students acted alone in marching, but that soon changed.
Dr. Rupert Lewis, a UWI student at the time and a Rodney biographer, noted that
even people who had no knowledge of Rodney joined the protest as a kind of
release against the establishment. The result was several millions of dollars
of property damage and three related deaths. The bus company was burned as were several cars and business places.
At another screening of
the film in Toronto, a gentleman approached and told me he had marched in
support of Rodney all the way in the Manchester hills. So this was not a
Kingston thing. This was nationwide, Jamaica wide, and became region wide. He added
he was only thirteen or fourteen years old at the time. One of his teachers saw
him in the march and quizzed him the next day about Rodney and the march. That’s
when he realized he knew little about Rodney but was thankful to that teacher.
He had marched in solidarity with the expanding Black Power movement, in which
Rodney remains an important figure, but that talk began his search to learn
about Rodney and Jamaica’s own history.
Rodney’s subsequent exclusion from the University of Guyana
in 1974-75 marked a period of the kind of resistance that had seemed dormant for
more than a decade. That resistance would rise, despite Rodney’s death, and,
arguably, result in the change that the current political elite now enjoys. UG students
were an important part of that movement. Today, there is an attempt to reduce all
of Rodney’s contributions, some highlighted in the film, to whether he and the
WPA accumulated arms or not. The film has been screened all over the world.
Only in Guyana is the issue of arms made an issue. This is a deliberate attempt
to avoid what is most needed and instead cast blame on one group or the other.
Is it still useful, today, to debate which slavery was worse: the British, the Dutch the English, the Portuguese and others? It is the whole thing that had to go. It is the whole thing that must go. For now, the ball is with the powerful to choose the manner.
The political beneficiaries of that revolution now find
themselves in a position to chill all speech. Let all concerned be warned about
the price for what rightfully belongs to the masses irrespective of any
constitution or party: Free movement; free speech. Its a price that has already been paid. And one that would be paid again if we chose to ignore recent history.
 |
| UWI Students march, October 1968 |
Our regional leaders,
our teachers, citizens from country and town need to get involved, because our
very value as a people depends upon it. Sir Chancellor Phillip Sherlock knew
that. He knew the university must be held sacred from all kinds of interference
and even if he too was fired as a result, he could still hold his head high.
Many of us living in small Caribbean communities
do not have the luxury of jumping from academia, to the private sector, or to government
as those in the big cities. In our reality, government is the largest employer
and advertiser and business people often do nothing to spoil their relationship
with government. Kissoon’s Kaieteur News
paper knows this well as the target of government boycotts in advertisement
dollars and suits alleging libel. So, courage under fire is easier said than
done. But our whole identity is built on these kinds of issues. We need Pro Chancellor
Misir to stand up like Sir Phillip did all those years ago. Only yesterday, Chancellor
Bourne chose to resign his position. The rest must stand-up like the people of
Jamaica did in 1968 and as they did in Guyana, in Trinidad, Grenada, the whole region, throughout
the 1970s and beyond. We all benefitted irrespective of party affiliation. Now,
we must show that we have matured and can work toward the elimination of the
petty. An opportunity exists to demonstrate our political growth: our
inheritance. It is not too late. After
all, what would be the value of the alternative: a long life, silent, until they
come for you too?
Comments