Palin's AG Pick Defended KKK Statue, Mocked Offended Student

Sarah Palin's choice for attorney general once wrote a column defending the statue of a KKK figure as an expression of free speech and mocked the psychology of a college student who protested the display.

Wayne Anthony Ross has come under intense scrutiny since the Alaska Governor and former vice presidential candidate announced his nomination. His resume includes derogatory remarks about homosexuals, accusations of sexism, and bizarre comments downplaying the fallout of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. But his most controversial incident may have come in December 1991, when he penned an op-ed for the Anchorage Times, a copy of which was obtained by the Huffington Post (see below), entitled "KKK 'art' project gets 'A' for courage."

The crux of the piece, reported also by Max Blumenthal at The Daily Beast, is a defense of one particular art student's statue of a KKK figure -- created for a class assignment to "depict a monster" -- that the University of Alaska-Anchorage had put on display. In the process, Ross insisted that he was no racist. "I am a card-carrying member of the Congress of Racial Equality," he wrote. "I have never supported David Duke, and never will."

But the column was filled with racial and political insensitivities that, even in the relatively homogenous Alaska, were bound (perhaps designed) to stir the pot.

Ross repeatedly chided one particular student, Clara Bynum -- who, Ross noted, was a member of the Afro-America Student Association -- for having the gall to protest the statue.

"A 35-year-old psychology student," he writes, "Ms. Bynum was obviously letting her inner hostilities rise to the surface. Perhaps by the time she completes her psychology studies, Ms. Bynum will have the training and desire to control such emotions."

At one point, he accused her of seeking to trample on the art student's right to expression of free speech by threatening to take the statue down -- a legally provocative stance for the leading law-enforcement official of the state.

"In fairness to Ms. Bynum, her threat to tear down the KKK figure... could have been viewed as a symbolic protest against the KKK," Ross wrote. "But to achieve civil rights, we must ensure the civil rights of others. Ms. Bynum's actions would have violated the right of expression granted Mr. Hamilton under our First Amendment. Does she really believe that civil rights for one group can be achieved by trampling on the rights of others?"

The conclusion of the piece included one of its harshest digs, with Ross offering Bynum a failing grade on the topic of her major. "Art professor Ken Gray gave Mr. Hamilton an 'A' for his art work," he writes. "No one said what Ms. Bynum's grade was for her psychology course. But she 'flunked out' as far as I'm concerned."

That Ross would defend the right to create a KKK statue as well as the school's right to display it is a stance that, while clearly defensible under first amendment grounds, could prove tricky for the Palin administration to defend. Conservatives have railed at offensive art depictions in the past, with Rudy Giuliani famously cutting off funds for the Brooklyn Museum of Art after it displayed a painting of the Virgin Mary covered in Elephant dung. The display of confederate flags at South Carolina's Capitol, meanwhile, has long engendered fierce political and constitutional debates in federal and state elections.

But it is Ross's mockery of the offended student -- at one point urging her to take down the racially-tinged art display so she would be arrested -- that is likely to cause the most headaches for the governor's office.

"The university, quite rightly, allowed the artwork to remain, but art professor Gray capitulated and removed the figure from display," Ross wrote. "It is too bad that Mr. Gray did not display the intestinal fortitude shown by the university. It might have been more fun to see Ms. Bynum try to remove the display. Then she could have been arrested and her future as a student at the university could have been resolved through the university disciplinary proceedings."

Read the op-ed below:

RossKKK - Free Legal Forms

Comments

[CosmicChaos]

05:14 PM on 04/29/2009

The problem was that he MOCKED a student who was upset by a statue of David Duke. In doing so he showed he was capable of being an insensitive ass. There was no reason to rip into the woman's education in her profession because she didn't like art that someone else made.

The article didn't say if the protesting student knew that the project was supposed to represent monsters. The student could have just seen the David Duke statue as a glorification of him and didn't wait to hear the reason he was being depicted before protesting.

I know I get instinctually upset when I see modern art that depicts Jews as in a bad light or glorifies people who have persecuted Jews. It can take work to be calm enough to hear the reason behind why it exists.

[D-Driller]

06:13 AM on 04/17/2009

Why is this man being called a racist? Seems to me, he is quite the opposite. From the article, it seems that an art class was asked to make sculptings of what they felt were "monsters" in society. One man made a statue of a klansman - seems reasonable. When another student want to "tear it down", this man stood up and said no, this expresses not only the young man's feelings on racial equality, but also presumably many Americans. Why isn't he a hero for standing up?

[Mr Mabujo]

01:05 AM on 04/17/2009

Well, the project was to depict a monster, and a monster he did depict, there's no argument there. He wasn't supporting the KKK nor was he supporting David though, he was calling him a monster and that is what he is. If anything the KKK would have been upset to be depicted as such. What is interesting about this article to me seems to be that it reveals how powerful taboos can be. Rather than show how the KKK is monstrous, it's taboo to mention it, it's an embarrassment, so sweep it under the rug and forget it was ever there. Unfortunately, that won't make it go away. Nobody likes it when something offends them, but, rather than ban and silence it, it should be silenced with counterarguments, and it's the KKK, how hard could it possibly be to successfully counter their points of view? What needs to be done is openly mock these things, rather than ignore and punish those who do. The KKK may have free speech to protect their views but its a two way street; satire is also defended by the first amendment.

[pkafin]

12:05 AM on 04/17/2009

Was Clara Bynum really a member of the "Afro-America Student Association"? Or was it perhaps the "African-American Student Association".

I could be wrong in this case, but I've noticed an intentional effort on the part of conservatives to bastardize the term, "African-American" by turning it into "Afro-American".

Strikes me as very similar to the obviously intentional mistake of repeatedly referring to the "Democratic Party" as the "Democrat Party". Even individuals who have been corrected in person, on air, continue to get it wrong.

How sad is it that these folks leave us to wonder if they are insipid or just plain too stupid to use the proper terms for whatever it is that they are talking about?

[Bankenstein]

12:43 AM on 04/17/2009

Agreed but I don't like either term. I like to refer to myself as Black rather than African-American. The word just sort of insinuates a partial Americanism. And Afro-American is just weird, not to mention "sooo 90's".

p.s. I almost punched the television yesterday when some repub on Harball referred to Pres. Obama as the "Democrat" President!!!

[blackjack19]

09:31 PM on 04/16/2009

Sorry, but the headline is highly misleading and something I would expect from FOX News. The second paragraph suggests there are plenty of reasons to call his nomination into question without making it sound like he defended a KKK statue because he was a racist, which is what I thought before I bothered to read the article.

[Wordstosay]

08:19 PM on 04/16/2009

I guess Palin paid no attention to the election of a African American and with him came a diverse staff. People willing to work together believing in the first line of the Constitution a nation will strive for perfection. There was a reason for her and McCain's lost. There is a shame we need to heal. And Palin and her supporters are not willing to listen to that message. If she runs for office whether that office will be Senator or President. I hope those that care for our nation will remind her to move away from the darkness. If she is placing this man of hate in office to disrespect the Americans who voted not for her then, she has done what needed to be done show her intent. Her intent to create a divisive nation. We must have missed the bullet. This time and we need to give more attention to whom we place in office.We need strong leaders focus on the goal of a nation ...perfection.

[Rosie2]

10:48 AM on 04/19/2009

Palin doesn't, or didn't, read any publications she could name, so it appears that she is clueless to anything that doesn't pertain to her.

[Wordstosay]

07:53 PM on 04/16/2009

What I need is to hear from the Jewish League. If Palin runs for office I need to hear strongly from the Jewish League and other Jewish organization and rabbis.

[berrycooda]

11:40 PM on 04/15/2009

Is this any different than some of the choices made by the present Gov't...

Seems like freedom is only supposed to work for some people...

Don't know why S. Palin is picked on so much...thought she lost the election.
Could it be that she might be planning to be in the running at the next election...
It sure keeps her in the news when all this fanfare is about her.
Free publicity is good...or bad...depends on one's perspective.

[pkafin]

12:23 AM on 04/17/2009

"Don't know why S. Palin is picked on so much"

I do. She very rudely implied that many Americans are not true Americans, patriots, or moral. She chose to flavor her discourse with demeaning and condescending caricatures of her political opponents and those who supported them.

She has one of the most thinly veiled hypocritical approaches to both life and civic responsibility of any modern politician.

And, yes, it is very different than that choices made by the current administration. She picked, for the attorney general, someone who clearly has no interest is protecting the all the rights of all of the citizens of the State of Alaska.

Could you give an example of similar behavior by "the present Govt."?

[johnr49]

11:17 PM on 04/15/2009

What if this had occurred in, say, 2002, the "monster" depicted had been Osama bin Laden and the protester had been someone who had lost a relative or close friend on 9-11?

Would the 1st amendment rights issue be so clear cut, and would you be so quick to condemn the protester?

Would Ross have had the "intestinal fortitude" to mock her and wish for her expulsion from the University?

[CSE]

08:51 AM on 04/17/2009

Interesting analogy.

I am not sure I understand why the art project assigned to depict "monsters" would be offensive in that light. In either case, the article and your analogy, the depictions facilitate an adequate artistic expression of 'monsters'.

It would further appear that the art student who created the statue and the complainant have in common the belief that the subject was a despicable part of the nation's past. The objection to displaying what represents this belief makes little sense.

Is there an objection to a generalized visual stimulant or a desire for censorship of an idea that the KKK are monsters?

[ryno106]

03:17 PM on 04/15/2009

I hate Palin as much as the next liberal, but come on guys. It's stuff like this that makes the HuffPost look like the Liberal Free Republic.

The art project was to create a monster. Any jerk in the KKK would be classified as a monster by my accounts. One misinformed student protests the statue (instead of finding out why it existed).

Even though he's probably not that awesome if Palin is supporting him, he was correct in calling out the protester for being misinformed.

[Bankenstein]

12:35 AM on 04/17/2009

Hmm, okay...You're so obviously NOT a liberal with a sentence that reads: "I hate Palin as much as the next liberal". Sorry but, we don't hate. We merely oppose, disagree with, and for the most part we pity those like Palin.

Another thing, your logic on this subject is somewhat skewed. You say the student who is protesting the statue is misinformed. How so? And even if she is, what need would there be to inform herself about hate groups? The mere fact that the student happened to be black was enough to protest the statue!!!

[postman606]

03:06 PM on 04/15/2009

This guy has some other issues for sure, but if the class project was pick a monster, the artist did a magnificent depiction, hence this is a not an issue.

[aflyinyoursoup]

07:34 PM on 04/16/2009

Agreed.

[MBarber]

02:09 PM on 04/15/2009

Why waste time or energy on people who want to cecede from the Union. Let them. We would be better of as a country without Alaska.

[petef59]

01:37 PM on 04/15/2009

Is Palin building an audition tape for Comedy Central?

[Bluejay00234]

11:13 AM on 04/15/2009

He should fit right in.

[sdskelton03]

10:04 AM on 04/15/2009

The assignment was to create a monster!

[carmenjonze]

01:05 PM on 04/15/2009

The "monster" was unmarked and unexplained.

People have a right to protest random kkk statues showing up on campus.

[LowGenius]

07:14 PM on 04/16/2009

I'm not sure that I see the support for the 'unmarked and unexplained' assertion, but that's neither here nor there; with the right to protest comes the responsibility to not only understand what you're protesting, but to be willing to withdraw your protest if it becomes clear that there's a misunderstanding involved.

The failure to accept that responsibility is *precisely* the same broken thinking that has a significant segment of the right-wing kneejerk brigade still clinging to the ridiculous - and meaningless - assertion that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

If 'we' can't hold ourselves to any higher standard than 'they' do, what right have 'we' to criticize 'them?'