What do u guys think?
 

Published on Thursday, December 12, 2002 by Time Magazine
Trent Lott's Segregationist College Days
At Ole Miss, the Senator helped lead a fight to keep blacks out of his national fraternity

by Karen Tumulty

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott helped lead a successful battle to prevent his college fraternity from admitting blacks to any of its chapters, in a little-known incident now four decades old. At a time when racial issues were roiling campuses across the South, some chapters of Sigma Nu fraternity in the Northeast were considering admitting African-American members, a move that would have sent a powerful statement through the tradition-bound world of sororities and fraternities. At the time, Lott was president of the intra-fraternity council at the University of Mississippi. When the issue came to a head at Sigma Nu's national convention — known as a "Grand Chapter" — in the early 1960s, "Trent was one of the strongest leaders in resisting the integration of the national fraternity in any of the chapters," recalls former CNN President Tom Johnson, then a Sigma Nu member at the University of Georgia.

The bitter debate over the issue took place at the convention in a New Orleans hotel, as Johnson recalls. Sigma Nu's executive secretary Richard Fletcher, a legendary figure in the fraternity, pleaded with the Sigma Nus to find some common ground between those who wanted to integrate and those who didn't, Johnson says. But the southerners were unbending about permitting no exceptions to the all-white policy. With their chapters threatening a walkout, the fraternity voted overwhelmingly to remain all-white.

Johnson, who voted on Lott's side, now calls that vote "one of the biggest mistakes of my life." Over the years, as Johnson became a media executive, word would get back to him from time to time that Lott was repeating the tale to mutual acquaintances — to embarrass him, Johnson believes. (Lott did not make himself available for comment to TIME today for this story.)

It was Lott himself who first told me this story, back in the mid 1980s. He was a Republican Congressman and I was a reporter freshly assigned to cover Capitol Hill for the Los Angeles Times, where Johnson was then the publisher. "In later life, it seemed that Trent felt he 'had something on me,' when he would share the fact that he and I had been on the same side in the national fraternity debate," says Johnson, who later went to work as an aide in Lyndon Johnson's White House and more recently helped lead the battle to have the confederate battle flag removed in Georgia. Johnson recalls of Lott back then: "He was against integration. I was against splitting the fraternity. Yet my vote had the same impact and is subject to the same interpretation — that I also opposed integration. I am very disappointed in myself. I hope my record for the past 40 years speaks louder than that."

Lott has been under fire since last week, when he declared that his state was proud to have voted for Strom Thurmond's segregationist ticket in 1948. "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead," Lott added in remarks at Thurmond's 100th birthday party, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years either." Lott has since apologized, and on Thursday, President Bush said the apology was deserved. "Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive and it is wrong," Bush declared.

Lott was a witness to one of the pivotal episodes in that past. During his senior year at Ole Miss, violence erupted there when U.S. marshals moved to install Air Force veteran James Meredith as its first African-American student. Lott was not among the students advocating integration, but did succeed in persuading his fraternity brothers not to join in the rioting. In 1997, Lott told TIME: "Yes, you could say I favored segregation then. I don't now. … The main thing was, I felt the federal government had no business sending in troops to tell the state what to do."

MY Opinion:

This man is a pig and a bigot and should resign NOW! Makes me wonder if he has had a hidden agenda all along and this slipped out by accident. I wonder how many other politicians follow his lead. I bet there are a lot. I also read that he supported the ban of interacial dating at Bob Jones University just over 20 years ago. If I find the article I will post it.

Lott is a Nazi.

Lott's not a Nazi, and Lott's not the problem. The problem is Lott is honest and is showing that every politician is capable of spouting pretty platitudes at the right time, but it doesn't mean that what they feel in their heart has changed. What he did was stupid, and he should have known better, but I'm not really surprised.

I applaud Tom Johnson for being honest. More people should be as honest as he is -- even when it has the potential of bringing him down as well.

The convention was in I think '67. We integrated at the next convention in '69. It passed by one vote. I've spoken with a brother that was present at that one (has gone to every Grand Chapter for like 50-60 years).

Other than the record I was not there in '69 or '67 to hear what happened so I can really say no more except that it was generally all of our Southern chapters that were for segregation. We're a Southern fraternity in origin so I suppose that would explain (not excuse) what happened.

As for Lott's comments at Mr. Thurmond's birthday party.. Well I'm a realist. I didn't hear anything about segregation... I didn't hear any pro-segregationist speal. What I did hear was Mr. Lott being very complimentary of his friend and colleague. Perhaps he did not take the time to think how his words might be (badly) taken out of context.

On a side note I heard Maxine Waters last night on CNN saying something to the effect that Lott was saying the same racist stuff that he had in 1948. Ms. Waters he was around 9 years old at the time :rolleyes:

Tom Johnson (former President of CNN who was mentioned in the article) has gone on the record saying that he regretted his vote in '67. I'm certain Lott has as well.

This reeks of the media making an event out of a non-event. See Gary Condit.

I honestly don't know what to think. I too feel his statement was hideous, but as someone who OFTEN puts my foot in my mouth, I wonder if it all came out wrong. I really don't think Lott was saying-"Damn, if only Strom had been president..." It was his way of making, to a very old man, an exaggerated compliment.

I also think the media-being very liberal-smelled blood and jumped all over this statement. It's about the BEST piece of fodder they've had on a Republican for a while. Now they are digging up a story over 30 years old! How many of us haven't said or done things we regret within the past couple of years? I understand his leadership position, but once again, another story told that's older than most of the people on GC!?! Are ANY of us the same person we were 5 years ago?

People can and do change. Those changes are reflected in our actions and THAT is how we should judge. There are many politicians who hold one belief, but follow the voice of their constituents or party. If his policies reflect a new thinking, then maybe we should consider the possibility that he just made one tremendous faux pas.

It's just a different perspective...

edited for BAD MATH!:o

Actually, the media sat on this for days after the event, and it wasn't the "liberal media" or the "liberals" who went after Lott first -- it was members of his own party, who are trying to make great strides in bringing more African Americans to the Republican party who brought this to light.


From an article in The Nation, posted yesterday:

Where is the outrage? The general silence is more alarming than Lott himself. The New York Times initially found his remarks un-newsworthy and acknowledged them only after Lott issued, first, a slippery denial, then a grudging apology. The Washington Post published a crisp, comprehensive account by Thomas Edsall, but it ran on page six, not on the front page where it belonged.

And for those doubting what Thurmond's campaign was about all those years ago, here's a quote from one of his stump speeches given back in 1948:

I want to tell you, ladies and gentleman, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n****r race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.

It was the "liberal media" who tried to spin Thurmond's original comments by saying that he used the word "Negro" in the original speech. Thank the Associated Press for that little bit of media distortion.

You can listen to the audio file here (requires RealAudio).

It's not a non-issue. It's important to know that the person who is the leader of the party in power harbors racist sentiments so apparently. It's important to show that the head of the Republican party -- the party that is doing its level best to bring more minorities in the party -- has gone on record in support of a known segregationist not once, but twice. It's important to know that such a powerful man is a known supporter of the Council of Conservative Citizens -- formerly known as the White Citizens Council, one of the most virulently, violently racist organizations in American history (Lott said about the CCC: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let’s take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries.") It's important to know that one of the most powerful politicians on the hilll isn't interested in representing all of the people, just some of the people.

Yes, people can change, and it's truly wonderful when it happens. George Wallace changed -- I really believe that. Fraternities and sororities have changed -- look at how many have very clear statements against discrimination. Lott hasn't changed a bit. He just had the misfortune of being "caught out there."

I have no idea whether Mr. Lott has changed or not.

I believe his effectiveness as Majority Leader will certainly be compromised by this situation. I think he should resign.

If he still harbors racist thoughts, he shouldn't be sitting in Congress.

The real problem is that there is no way to know the truth.

I am sure Trent Lott was saying things that his OLD mentor Strom would like to hear at his old mans celebration!

Well Strom like many of the Good Ole Boys should have been long gone many years ago!

I have seen damn stupid things said by our duly elected moronic asswholes but he did him self proud for STUPIDITY!

I bet his weenie is flat from stepping all over it!

What a sad state of affairs, and they call us wrong as Greeks?:(

We as Greeks do more on GC site to promote understanding than any other group that I have ever seen!

I finally got on GC pix site and what a great buch of people that I now have seen in real life! It makes it more real for me and I hope for each of you!:cool:

God Bless to each of you, I for one love all of you!:)

LMAO!!!! ROFL!!!!


Hugs-n-Kisses right back at ya, Mr. President :)

Points of interest:

1. Dixiecrats came from the Democratic Party.
2. Without the votes of Republican senators, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed.
3. Al Gore's father voted against the CRA.

A friend of mine was at Ole Miss when Trent Lott was there and knows him personally. She said he is a fine man. He came from a blue-collar family, so whatever he accomplished, he accomplished without financial aid from his family.

I don't think he was wishing for slavery to return. I think he was just complimenting Strom Thurmond on Strom's accomplishments. He may have misspoken, but I don't think he is a racist. What politician with any political hopes for advancement would have said something so inflammatory in such a public forum and meant it?!? Mr. Lott has apologized, which is more than a lot of politicians do.

I've seen accounts in the media of things I know about that totally misrepresent the facts. Taking things out of context puts a bad light or good light on those situations, depending on the slant the reporter wants.

I'm not politically savvy, but this "jumping on [people] like a duck on a June bug" mentality is tiresome, especially when it only goes one way.

Well said, DeltAlum. He's going to have a hard row to hoe if he continues, and he's going to be a serious liability for a party that's trying to rid itself of the stigma of exclusionary policies and politics.

Trent Lott should NOT resign. As was mentioned earlier, I believe he sorta got his words confused, and was speaking more-so in a way to commemorate Senator Thurmond at his 100th Birthday.

And quite frankly---

I am absolutely sick of this.
Jesse Jackson says all Jews live in Heine-Town, and no one blinks an eye. Trent Lott makes a stumble over his words, and suddenly everyone's demanding his resignation. Sorta the old, "you can dish it out, but you can't take it" routine.

And don't you remember?
Former President Clinton didn't resign when he lied UNDER OATH, folks.

OK - here's the problem:

Lott's statement wasn't "We're glad we voted for Strom Thurmond, because he was Segregationalist" - it also wasn't "We wouldn't be in all this mess we have with the Negros" . . .

These are all added by the reader - now, from his past record, it is very easy to see how these assumptions could be added, and they may actually be valid. But realistically, they're still assumptions - it seems well within the realm of possibility that Lott was simply making empty statements to build up his associate, without thinking of how they'd apply to a certain segment of his past.

Lott's recent commentary has stated as such, saying he was "winging it" and that "no venal thoughts entered [his] mind" - now, whether that's covering his ass is up for debate, but again it's just that - UP FOR DEBATE.

While certainly less than intelligent, it seems like something where we can't assign value statements without making a leap to judge meaning behind somewhat vague statements. Should that lead to his resignation? He's the one that has to live in his own skin . . .

I don't care what anyone says. I still think Clinton kick a$$! And really, what he does with his interns really isn't anyones business (and I am speaking strictly about Monica). Countries in Europe were making total fun of our country for the big deal people made about it. The only person who should have been all over him about it was Hillary.

Yeah, and does that mean that it's right? Two wrongs don't make a right, regardless of which party does "wrong" first.

Why are the sins of the Democratic party being aired out here? We are talking about TRENT LOTT and some ignorant comments he's said. He may be a "wonderful Southern gentleman" and all, but that does not prevent him from saying things that are just wrong. If he was such a wonderful Southern man, he'd be the bigger person and RESIGN.

Was it the "liberal media" that some of you criticize so much that jumped on Clinton back in 1998? Or for that matter, Gary Condit? It's funny how the media changes political leanings when it's "our" guy who's in trouble.

On a Greek-life note, his daugher is a KD...at her wedding (which was in Southern Living Weddings in 2000), all of the flowers were white roses. :)

ADPiViolets, Jesse Jackson was raked over the coals for this, and for the record, it was (pardon my French) hymie-town, not heine-town. And he didn't say "all Jews live in h-town", he was referring to a political stop in New York City, which has a very large Jewish population, hence the "h-town" reference.

The difference is, Jesse Jackson was not an elected official who claimed to represent the views of all Americans. He was running for president at the time, but had never been elected to any other office. Jackson apologized profusely, and his gaffe cost him a great deal of support at the Democratic convention that year (1984).

To this day, relations between Jesse Jackson and the Jewish community are strained at best, hostile if people are being honest, and rightly so.

I remember all of this vividly because I was actually old enough to be interested when this happened. :p :D

I don't care what he does with his Interns or anyone either. He can f**k Al Gore for all I care.
What I do care about it the fact that he LIED under oath. If you or I were to go to court, and try half the S**t that he did, we'd be in jail.

Because it's a "vast right-wing conspiracy." :D

Just kidding!

But it is interesting how people are making this into a liberals vs. conservatives battle, when it was conservative Republicans who first brought this to light, and Republicans first asked him to step down.

A Democrat -- Tom Daschle (Senate Minority Leader) -- actually said that Lott shouldn't step down. If anything, the Democrats missed out on a huge opportunity, and are very silent about this whole thing.

What ticks me off about the so-called "liberal" media is that lately whenever they bring out someone who is calling for Lott's resignation, they trot out the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, as if only black people should be/are upset about this. :mad:

I am not talking about political parties. You misunderstood me.
I do not consider myself to be a Democrat or a Republican, as I have voted for members of both parties.

And I am am not going after the Democratic Party. If it were Ronald Reagan who had lied under oath instead of Bill Clinton, I would have said the same thing, only with different names.

And no one should have to resign for making an error in his choice of words. Do you think he honestly would have said anything like that deliberatly? And risk his integrity and his future political life?
Perhaps the same can be said about Bill Clinton. But perhaps if anyone needed to be the "bigger person and RESIGN" it should have been Clinton, instead of allowing his country to drag through the long and expensive Impeachment process. But that's just my opinion.... and I'd think the same if it happened to Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for the little jab at my age there, Sistermadly. I appologize for not being old enough. ;)

I am NOT making this into a lieral vs. conservative battle. And I am full aware that it was the Republican who initiated all of this.

I'm not a member of either party, for what it's worth. I just noticed that it's convenient to pull Bill Clinton (or Gary Condit or Gary Hart) out when the heat's on more, shall we say, conservative politicians (who tend to be Republican) who say or do stupid things. Oh, I totally understood you. I just made a point in response to what OTHER PEOPLE have posted.

I don't think Lott said what he did deliberately, but as you should know, it's not what we say deliberately that often gets us in trouble, it's the backhanded, off-the-record things that bite us in the @$$.

You're forgiven.:D It wasn't a jab at you, by the way. If anything, it was a reference to how positively ancient I feel because I remember it clearly. :)

Me either. I voted for Nader in 2000. ;)

My point was simply that he should not have been on trial under oath anyway. It was no one's business what his sexual activities are. Lying under oath is bad, no doubt.

Something Good From This...
 

Time Magazine makes an issue of the struggle within Sigma Nu over the so-called "white clause". We all went thorugh it in the 1960s, and it was a highly volatile issue.
In the 1960's all the national fraternities integrated, but the thing we can all point to with pride is that no one made us do it. There was pressure from administrations, sure, but there were no lawsuits, and there was no way anyone could force fraternities to integrate. Greeks had been specifically exempted from the Higher Education Act of 1965.
The reason fraternities began pledging men who were not white is that they were smart enough not to cut themselves out of a great market. They realized that if they wanted to be a good fraternity, they needed to rush the best men on campus. If you had a chance to pledge a young Michael Jordan, or Tiger Woods or Colin Powell, wouldn't you do it? The smart fraternities realized to their credit that they should seek out the best guys. Period. We should take great pride in the fact that we came to that conclusion because we recognized that character is colorless, and no one made us do it.

Munchkin03Why are the sins of the Democratic party being aired out here? I'll throw in Richard Nixon if it helps!;)

Sistermadly-I have to say you have made some excellent points.
It's too far back, but was it you that pointed out the fact that the discussion in the media was now questioning why some were acting like it was only blacks who should be offended when we ALL should be incensed? I too heard this discussion. You were also right when you said it was FIRST noticed by the conservatives.

On FOX ( No Arya, I still haven't mended my wicked ways LOL) they did point out something about this fact. Why was it that no one cared about the comment initially? Could it possibly be that at first glance it was just taken for what it was-a birthday toast albeit a poor one? Why DIDN'T the liberals SEE it first? Sure, people can say the conservatives wanted to beat them to the punch... Fox also said this comment will probably be the "slogan" in the next election as the Democrats try to paint the entire Republican Party with that now infamous comment. So, in light of THAT, perhaps he should step down. I just won't judge what was in his heart, because I really believe he was paying homage to a 100 year old statesman, NOT implying "The South will/should rise again".

Yup, it was me. I don't get Fox News up here, so I was relying on CNN. That's when I noticed that all of a sudden, they were trotting out the Congressional Black Caucus at every opportunity. Thank heavens for the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation): At least I can get a fairly unbiased reporting of the story.

Oh, and if anyone's interested, there's a really long piece on Trent Lott in today's New York Times. It's also available online: http://nytimes.com/2002/12/15/national/15LOTT.html

Apparantly the reason they
 

went after Sigma Nu is that an editor at the Washington Post was a Sigma Nu contemporary of his at another school, and they both voted to support segregation. The W-Post editor blew the whistle, according to one of the posted articles, because over the years Lott has referred to the story of the supposedly liberal editor voting the way he did in 1960.

People change...but
 

True, people change. But the NYTimes article gave me the impression that we aren't just talking about choices Lott made when he was a kid in college. It's the things he said and did as an adult -- like make a near-identical statement in 1980, like hire ONE black staffer out of 65 in a city that's two-thirds black to minister to a state that's one-third black, like tie himself to segregationist candidates well into his career -- that make me wonder what was really behind his statement about Thurmond.

We all stick our feet in our mouths sometimes. Lord knows I've made a habit of it in my life! But taking this statement in the context of an entire career, it's hard for me to feel confident that it does not reflect a very serious historical blind spot on Lott's part.

A lot of conservatives have mentioned the general acceptance of Senator Byrd, a "reformed" member of the Ku Klux Klan and Democratic senator. I'm a Democrat, and I think it was an embarrassment to the nation to have someone like that in the Senate. If I lived in West Virginia, I'd have voted for almost any Republican rather than for him.

I think of it this way. If you commit a felony after the age of 18, you are not allowed to vote in national elections -- you are not allowed to become a lawyer -- you are not allowed to adopt children -- EVER. You steal a TV or pass a bad check at 18, and you are branded with a scarlet F for the rest of your life. You know Trent Lott, a born law'n'order man, would never try to change that law. Why then should promoting white supremacy well into your career as a public official be forgiven? At what point do we say, you were an adult, and you're accountable for the choices you made? I'd be a hundred times happier to have a reformed burglar creating national policy than a reformed KKK member (or White Citizens' Council supporter, in this case).

As for whether he should step down -- it's up to the Republicans to decide whether they want him to be their figurehead. If he were a Democrat (as he easily could be), I'd be calling for his figurehead on a platter.

Ivy

I would never hold against someone something they did years ago without further info. People change, people can admit mistakes, people learn, people can move on. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, especially if more recent actions/statements indicate a change of heart. But...

Sorry, but the statement reeked of segregationism. The only, repeat only, repeat only reason that Strom Thurmond broke with the Democrats and ran as a Dixiecrat was segregation. Thurmond was crystal clear about this. His campaign had a one-note campaign message: he ran for president vowing to maintain the "segregation and integrity" of the races. This was well understood at the time -- Democratic candidate Truman literally turned his back on Thurmond because of this very position.

Lott's comment was "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." This can only have one meaning: He was proud that Mississippi had voted for someone whose sole campaign message was to keep the races segregated, and the US would not have had "all these problems over all these years" if we had remained a segregated country. Period. There is no other plausible interpretation.

If Lott did not understand the implications of what he was saying, then he has an appalling understanding of American history for a leader of the United States Senate. If he was trying to say something nice (take a look at Bob Dole's remarks at the same party -- nice compliment tempered with historical and political understanding) and this is what he came up with, then he shows appalling judgment for a leader of the United States Senate. Either way, I think that Republicans in Congress are rightly questioning whether he can be an effective leader now.

Lott's comment was "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

The more I read it, the worse it sounds...

I guess I can only HOPE he didn't mean it the way so many have taken it... Everyone can speculate, but few will ever know the unadulterated truth.

It will be interesting to see him on BET. I didn't miss it did I? I just can't recall what time.

8:00 PM EST
 

BET.com says that the interview will air at 8:00 pm EST tonight (Monday).

all i know is . . .
trent lott got on BET and apologized for what he said
and he tried to clear it up
to me, that's more embarassing than saying


personally, i don't care. . .
he's not my senator
let his state deal with him



THANK GOD FOR TEXANS!!!!!!!

Quote:

"I wanna say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." - Trent Lott, 2002.

Excuse me, but if Trent Lott wasn't referring to Strom's segregation, what exactly WAS he referring to? None of his defenders have been able to answer this question.

Think about the quote below. If you defend Trent Lott, then you defend the following idea:

The following quote has some striking similarities to Strom's:

I would like to ask everyone to rethink certain things before they post. If you'd like to discuss Trent Lott on the basis of what he said, then you are more than welcome to without making comparisons to other groups.

-Rudey
--I think the segregation and disgusting racism shown to black people is qualified to be criticized independently of that shown to other groups.

From what I've heard, I think Mr. Lott was referring to Mr. Thurmond's conservative values and how they would have been better for the country than liberal ones.

Oh my gosh...open your eyes!
 

Okay..."conservative values" meaning what? In 1948, "liberal values" included INTEGRATIONISM, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN, and VOTING RIGHTS FOR ALL. "Conservative values" were the opposite. I know it sounds simplistic, but it's true. Let's not try to sugar-coat this.

I think that everyone who's trying to make this into "Oh, Lott was just trying to be funny. He didn't mean that Strom was a segregationist" is in denial and should read a history of Southern politics, especially the Dixiecrats.

Whomever said that Lott's appearance on BET is embarassing is right. That just makes it look worse.

I do care, and I'm not from Mississippi. Basically, he represents the majority of the Senate--he represents our representatives. I hope this isn't the way my senator feels!

What Munchkin said.