This week's column
There'll be no hero's welcome for Art League at the next round of Truth and Reconciliation hearings Friday and Saturday at N.C. A&T State University.
In fact, there'll be no welcome at all.
League, cited for his bravery by author Elizabeth Wheaton during the first hearings in July, plans to be somewhere else.
The former Greensboro police officer-turned-private investigator who helped arrest a van load of heavily armed Ku Klux Klansmen following the Nov. 3, 1979, Klan/Nazi shootings, has changed his mind. He will not testify at the hearings.
Wheaton detailed his actions in her richly detailed book on Nov. 3, "Codename Greenkil."
Contacted at his office Wednesday, League, 52, said he's decided he wants no part of the hearings. He had said in an interview last month that he would readily participate if asked.
League seemed more than eager to share his perspective back then. All they had to do was call, he said. On that day League talked about Nov. 3 for more than 40 minutes. He phoned back later to say more.
His comments last week consumed eight short minutes at best.
"I just changed my mind," League said. "I'm just not gonna get involved in it. This is my choice."
League partially blamed the venue for the next round of Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings. He said he was uncomfortable that they will be held on the campus of N.C. A&T. League said he believed the audience would be less objective in that setting --more prone to express hostility toward his testimony.
When asked if he really felt that A&T would present a biased environment, League replied: "Oh yeah. Definitely. Y'all might not, but I do."
But he also said he would not stand alone as the only voice from the Greensboro Police Department, past or present, during the Truth and Reconciliation sessions. "I'm not going to be the only policeman," he said.
The hearings, which the City Council has voted officially to oppose, seek to re-examine the Nov. 3, 1979, shootings at Morningside Homes that claimed five lives and injured 10.
That Saturday morning, a caravan of Ku Klux Klansmen and Nazis clashed with demonstrators at a "Death to the Klan" rally organized by the Communist Workers Party. CWP fliers had dared the Klan to show up.
Pressed further about the motives for his decision, League only would say, "I'll talk to you about anything but that. This story is over."
League's decision is surprising and unfortunate. In the earlier conversation, he had offered a variety of wide-ranging insights about Nov. 3, including his skepticism about the premise and the value of revisiting one of the darkest chapters in Greensboro's history.
He suggested that people hadn't considered fully enough the context of the time --the distrust and hostility that a large police presence could have provoked.
He noted march organizer Nelson Johnson's disdain for the police and his desire that the police not show at the rally.
He ridiculed the notion of an FBI-Greensboro police-city leader conspiracy to plot the demonstrators' deaths.
"There were a lot of stupid things done," he said. "But there was not a conspiracy."
He recalled how unexpected and unprecedented the bloody confrontation had been, and chuckled wryly at his own inexperience. "The only march I'd been involved in at that point was the Greensboro Christmas parade," he said.
League's absence does not diminish the courage he displayed on Nov. 3. His cool head and firm hand helped prevent further pain, death and ugliness that day. He and his partner, Sam Bryant, kept an angry crowd at bay while arresting the Klansmen.
But his absence definitely will diminish the hearings.
Meanwhile, the Truth and Reconciliation commissioners have expressed hope that an even higher-profile personality who has wanted even less to do with their inquiry will speak his mind after all.
That would be Jim Melvin, Greensboro's mayor in 1979. Until now, Melvin hasn't wanted to touch this thing with a 550-foot pole.
But he said Thursday that he could step forward. "Well, I might," he said. "I'm still thinking about that."
His voice would add an invaluable dimension to the dialogue --if he decides to speak.
Stranger things have happened, haven't they? Um, no, actually they haven't.
Comments (17)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Art League's words mirror the situation I've described in the N&R blogs several times; Capt. Trevor Hampton chose a minimal police presence that day in order to lessen anti-police tension. There was no "police conspiracy" with the Klan to kill CWP members.
I'm sure I'd feel much the same way as Mr. League does now: I'd not relish being the sole police lightning rod (even though he is a former officer) at a gathering of anti-police communists and other assorted zealots over on the A&T campus.
Has the T&R tried to track down Capt. Trevor Hampton so they can ask him directly why he chose to minimize police presence that day? As a black ranking officer, he'd offer more of an exact answer than Mr. League, who was just one of a number of officers who responded after the shooting. Capt. Hampton was the planner and responsible for the security of the gathering that day.
After reading Steve Flynn's recent letter recounting Claude Barnes's mis-representation of the facts surrounding the Dudley/A&T riots in the late 60's, I don't think much "truth" is coming out of these hearings. To me, Barnes's speech affirms my suspicion that this whole commission thing is about rewriting history, not discovering it.
Posted on August 21, 2005 10:28 AM
I regret that Art League has decided not to testify before the T&R Commission. It is essential to the process to have voices like Art League help explain Nov. 3rd. I wrote an OP-ED piece that was published in the N&R back on Oct. 31, 2004. In that piece I quoted several comments from Officer Jim Ballance's insightful presentation about Nov. 3rd that he gave at the Ashby Dialogue Series at UNC-G. However, in recounting some of his presentation I overemphasized and misrepresented some of his comments and he rightly noted my mistakes. I realized that even after what I considered to be my careful listening, I did not listen carefully enough to what Officer Ballance was actually saying. I was interpreting his presentation through my inflexible views.
Nov. 3rd remains a glaring example of an event where we all seem to have our rigid preconceptions and view the testimony and stories through our rigid perspectives. The real success of the Commission may be to help us listen more carefully to the multiple perspectives about Nov. 3rd. I have tried to move from "knowing the story" to being open to hearing other perspectives and realize that the comments of Art League, Jim Ballance and Jim Melvin are very important to understanding more fully the events of Nov. 3rd. This T&R process has forced me to actually listen to the diverse voices and give those voice the legitimacy they deserve.
Posted on August 21, 2005 3:16 PM
I'm uncomfortable with JayCee's use of my letter to the editor to question Dr. Barnes' integrity. JayCee does not know me, yet he assumes I accurately recounted Barnes' comments. My letter was an accounting as I witnessed the hearings. But I'm no journalist, nor historian. In my view if anyone's account was accurate, it was Barnes'. It was his own lived experience, after all. I would suggest an accurate transcript would settle all of this. Is there one? I notice in JayCee's post that "Mr." Teague and "Capt." Holmes are accorded the appropriate respect. How about for the professor?
Posted on August 21, 2005 4:35 PM
I apologize, Mr. Flynn, I mistakenly thought you had accurately recounted Mr. Barnes's speech. I believe the whole issue with your letter was what you wrote versus what the N&R wrote in correcting your letter versus what Claude Barnes actually said. Not having hear Mr. Barnes's speech, I relied on your account.
And that's Mr. "League" and Capt. "Hampton", or were you trying to be deliberately mistaken for comic effect?
Mr. Young, I wonder what you think the "Truth" and Reconcilition commission should be seeking. If it's the truth, then you don't want opinions, reflections, explanations, insight, or perspectives. That is not "truth," it's opinion. Do you wants facts, or do you want everyone who's ever heard of it to give their opinion, or those who stand to gain by misrepresenting the facts to give their distorted "story" so they can rewrite history to their satisfaction?
Posted on August 21, 2005 6:43 PM
JayCee,
I tried clicking on your name to send you an email attachment of the summary and conclusion of the Greensboro Police Department's own Administrative Report about Nov. 3rd. I think you may find their report helpful. However I was not able to reach you by your email address. Certainly the opinions and insights of people like Jim Melvin and Art League are very important to the understanding of Nov. 3rd. The last round of T&R public hearings allowed us to hear the testimony of two central Klan members, academics like Jeffrey Wood, and Elizabeth Wheaton who understands Nov. 3rd in great detail. I think that volunteer testimony from Virgil Griffin and Gorrell Pierce could not have occurred in the 1980's. Only significant time allowed that to happen. Time often provides deeper reflection and better insight to provide understanding about a very controversial event. Historians understand much more today about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan than they did in the 1940's and 1950's.
Posted on August 21, 2005 10:23 PM
I agree absolutely with John Young's observation that time tends to add clarity to historical analysis.
I remain willing to give the Truth and Reconciliation process the chance to succeed or fail on its own merits.
I remain puzzled why some others won't.
Posted on August 21, 2005 10:42 PM
Art does have the right not to testify. Let's not loose sight of that fact.
When he was a police officer, he did his duty. You people should be thanking him, and moving on, rather than attempting to crucify him because he won't "testify".
Posted on August 22, 2005 9:20 AM
If you interview 10 witnesses five minutes after they all witness an event, you'll get 10 different descriptions of said event.
If you interview those same 10 witnesses 25 years later, do you honestly think their memories will be improved, or even remain as clear as they were 5 minutes after the event?
I'm sorry, this just defies all logic and common sense.
Now, if you're not seeking the truth, but instead what to explore how people "feel" today about something that happened 25 years ago, then that's achievable. But don't call it a "Truth" commission when you're seeking something else.
Posted on August 22, 2005 10:14 AM
Amen JayCee. Very nicely said.
Posted on August 22, 2005 1:40 PM
league would not have been the only police to testify. Rick Ball...police captain on GSO force is up to the task....the rest of the story is at
http://thetroublemaker.blogspot.com
Posted on August 22, 2005 5:31 PM
That's very interesting and encouraging news, Ben.
Posted on August 22, 2005 5:37 PM
Actually, I've always been bothered by the use of the term "testify" at meetings such as the T&R.
It's more of a discussion of feelings, thoughts, and what-if's and what-I-wish-it-had-been's and not really a statement of the facts of the event. The facts are clear, they're detailed in reports and trial testimony from the legal proceedings after the event. There is no adversary questioning to verify or challenge anything anyone is saying, just a public forum for people to talk about what happened.
Somehow "testify" just doesn't seem an appropriate description of what goes on there.
Any other thoughts?
Posted on August 22, 2005 7:51 PM
JayCee,
The Commissioners share your concern with the term "testify." Although others have used that term (this discussion thread is a good example)we have actually been careful to use other language to describe what speakers do at the public hearings because we want to be clear that this process is not a legal proceeding. The trial testimony and legal proceedings after the event will all be a part of the Commission's research, but, even though it is readily available, most of the public will not review this information. We hope that listening to the public hearings speakers' statements will help the community to better understand the context, causes, sequence and consequences of Nov. 3, 1979. The facts of the event are very much at the heart of this research, as are the feelings and opinions of people who were involved. Rumors, myths, etc. do not survive unless they make sense to people. Part of the Commission's work is to separate the myths about this tragedy from the facts so that (a) the community understands more about what actually happened that day and (b) so that we can learn more about how our community can heal based on which rumors (often conflicting) have survived in its different groups. Thanks, JayCee, for bringing up this important issue of language when referring to the public hearings.
Posted on August 22, 2005 9:11 PM
I agree, very good point JayCee.
Posted on August 22, 2005 10:16 PM
The Troublemaker is full of encouraging and interesting news Mr. Johnson. If you were a regular reader you could have gotten that scoop sooner. Jaycee are you against the word TESTIFY being used in church? Example: Testify my Brother. I am going to share my testimony with the lord today.....the lord told me to testify to you today....Is that kind of use ok?
Posted on August 22, 2005 10:39 PM
Ms. Williams, thanks for addressing that point.
Mr. Holder, I was thinking of the term "testify" in a legal sense, in that it's used here in conjunction with terms such as "hearing" "commission" and "witness."
Posted on August 23, 2005 12:09 PM
Another good point, JayCee. We have been intentionally not used the term "witness" either. The people who speak at the hearings are referred to as speakers and what they say is called a statement.
Speaking of the hearings, I hope that you will all be able to make the next round this Friday (2-9pm) and Saturday (9am-4pm). As Mr. Johnson wrote in his column, they will take place at NCA&T State University in McNair Hall.
Posted on August 23, 2005 12:18 PM