To the Editor,
During my longest career, some of my closest relationships were with black women. That sounds odd. I did not identify them by the color of their skin. That was not a sign of disrespect, rather an indication that race did not define or divide us. Work brought us together; destiny made us friends — whether we celebrated the birth of a child or delivered Meals on Wheels to community members; whether we shared deep matters of the heart or had the same educational aspirations and pursuits; whether we walked a similar path of faith or participated in a Celebration of Life Memorial Service for a well-respected, well-known minister, the husband of a coworker who continued to stand beside him after 50+ years of marriage while we embraced and she exclaimed, God is so good!”
Another work relationship caused friction when a coworker developed a habit of disparaging himself because he was black. We overcame our difficulties and grew. Later, he became my supervisor and we worked well together, until …
I attended a presentation about an IARJ (Interfaith Action for Racial Justice) initiative. The objective was to foster open, honest dialogue about race by facilitating small groups of residents from Baltimore City and the surrounding counties. Hoping to bring the initiative to our organization, I met with the Director of our Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights (OEOCR). She was interested and arranged to temporarily reassign me to OEOCR.
I turn from work and friendship experiences to a different topic: truth telling. In January 2020, a letter appeared in The Swarthmorean comparing Presidents 44 and 45, and claiming that 44’s administration was scandal- and corruption-free. When that familiar narrative found its way to our paper, I felt a moral obligation to shine a light on what I knew to be a lie. I submitted a letter citing five reliable sources that painted a different picture.
I thought my letter might meet resistance but did not anticipate a letter from the editor stating that she “wanted to check with [me] to make sure [I was] aware that the letter is likely to generate an angry response from some readers, and there may be unpleasant letters coming back.” She continued by saying she “wonder[ed] if [I] might be willing to rewrite the letter so that [I] actually tell the readers what [I] think… .” In closing, she deferred the decision to publish.
I began to question the paper’s position on freedom of speech, divergence of thought, and acceptance of voices. Did the paper have a political slant that welcomed some voices and rejected or questioned others? My focus shifted from responding to a lie to responding to the editor.
Why do I mention these events now? Because they pertain to The Swarthmorean’s current transition. Because a reading of What I Hope brought them to mind. Because a moral obligation to speak the truth is satisfied by speaking the truth.
Carmen Bruce
Swarthmore
