Sarah Schaerr

On November 7, 1983, a bomb planted by a group of left-wing radicals led by Linda Evans, Susan Rosenberg and Laura Whitehorn detonated around 11 p.m. in the U.S. Capitol building. The blast damaged a conference room and portions of surrounding offices, but fortunately there were no human casualties. All three women were subsequently jailed for their roles in the bombing. Evans and Rosenberg were released after being granted clemency by President Clinton on January 20, 2001, his last day in office. Where does that leave Whitehorn? Touring the university circuit, speaking to college students.

Laura Whitehorn was invited by visiting Duke professor Becky Thompson to speak on March 3^rd to her “Teaching Race, Teaching Gender” class, part of the African and African-American Studies program. The intended topic of Whitehorn’s forum is HIV and AIDS in prisons. She will be paid an undisclosed sum for her appearance.

The AAAS Department’s website cited Whitehorn’s work with POZ Magazine, a monthly publication dealing with HIV. It also described Whitehorn as “a revolutionary anti-imperialist who spent over 14 years in federal prison as a political prisoner.”

After reading this flattering description, vigilant members of the Duke Conservative Union were surprised to learn that Whitehorn had been incarcerated, not for her political views as the website claimed, but for her role in the 1983 Capitol bombing. To be precise, Whitehorn was sentenced to 23 years in prison for “conspiracy to oppose, protest and change the policies and practices of the United States government in domestic and international matters by violence and illegal means.”

Appalled that a woman they considered a convicted terrorist had been invited to speak to their Duke classmates, members of the DCU denounced Thompson’s choice of Whitehorn as a speaker. DCU President Bill English declared, “It is scandalous to host a convicted and unrepentant terrorist while the nation is in a war against terrorism.”

The controversy received national attention when Opinion Journal, a division of The Wall Street Journal, reported in an article entitled “A Terrorist at Duke” that “there was something Duke wasn’t telling its students,” namely, the reason for Whitehorn’s incarceration. The article charged that Duke’s portrayal of Whitehorn as a “political prisoner” was misleading. It also provided the e-mail addresses of Duke President Nan Keohane and AAAS director Charles Payne, prompting feedback to the university. Fox News and local publications have since covered the story as well.

On January 17, Duke representative David Jarmul issued a statement in response to the national coverage, defending not Thompson’s choice of Whitehorn as a speaker, but her right to have Whitehorn address her class. “Duke does not exert control over or pressure its faculty and departments in their selection of campus speakers,” Jarmul declared. He also implied that by refusing Whitehorn a paid opportunity to speak to its students, Duke would be interfering with the “freedom for people to express their thoughts openly.”

“When university officials aren’t suppressing free speech, they can usually be found invoking it to deflect criticism,” Opinion Journal argued, responding to Jarmul’s statement. The article commended Duke officials for updating the AAAS department’s website to a more accurate representation of the reasons for which Whitehorn was imprisoned, but reiterated, “The issue is whether it is appropriate for a prestigious university to provide a forum to a violent criminal who is, by all accounts, totally unrepentant.” It also raised an interesting question: “Couldn’t Duke have found someone knowledgeable on the subject [of HIV/AIDS in prisons] who isn’t a terrorist?”

“I have never been a terrorist,” Whitehorn told reporters for The Herald-Sun, a Durham newspaper. For good measure, she added, “This is really a free speech issue.”

The Chronicle, Duke’s independent daily publication, quoted Whitehorn as being “shocked that students would use this definition [of terrorism] without knowing what it means.” She purported to be “very much against terrorism,” which she defined as “the targeting of civilians, a reactionary form of arms struggle.”

Whitehorn’s claim that Duke students are unfamiliar with proper dictionary use struck a sour note with many of her critics. In a letter published on The Chronicle’s website, Christopher Vrettos, a Duke student, wrote that “It is Whitehorn who does not understand the definition of the word ‘terrorism’ - not, as she suggests, members of the DCU.” He cited Webster’s definition of terrorism: “violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands” and noted, “resultant casualties are not mentioned.”

Duke is not the first prestigious university to host Whitehorn as a speaker. Since her parole on August 6, 1999, she has appeared at such institutions as Vassar, Cornell, Brown and Columbia, among others. Vassar and Brown circulated similarly whitewashed descriptions of Whitehorn on their websites, both claiming that she had served time as a political prisoner. Brown’s account was nearly identical to Duke’s original version, also billing Whitehorn as “a revolutionary anti-imperialist who spent over fourteen years in federal prison.” Both universities, however, included at least partial explanations of the reasons for Whitehorn’s incarceration. Whitehorn apparently managed to escape controversy on her visits to these and other institutions.

“We’ve encouraged a debate about this incident,” stated Duke President Nan Keohane in a letter to Opinion Journal. “One of our nation’s greatest values, from the earliest days of our republic, is the freedom for people to express their thoughts openly.” Keohane did not defend Whitehorn or offer any explanation for bringing her to campus despite her violent background.

“The most important thing in college is to listen to different viewpoints and then you make up your mind,” Whitehorn told Herald-Sun reporters. An editorial in the same publication dated four days later countered, “All ideas are not created equal. Universities have a responsibility not just to expose students to ideas, however out of bounds, but to help them decide what is an informed viewpoint, and what isn’t.”

“Nothing has been more deceptive than the attempt by many to turn the Whitehorn lecture into a free speech issue. No one is challenging the University’s legal right to sponsor Whitehorn’s talk,” said DCU president Bill English in a column in The Chronicle. “What the DCU has done is question the justification for Whitehorn’s talk, the sources of funding that support it and its relationship to the priorities of the sponsors.” Summing up his argument, English added, “The undisputed fact that Whitehorn has a constitutional right to free speech is not, in itself, a justification for spending University funds to sponsor her at Duke.”