news-record.com

NEWS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Jesse Jackson shares thoughts on rapper Gucci Mane, A&T's decision

Friday, October 30, 2009

(Updated 5:41 am)

GREENSBORO — The Rev. Jesse Jackson , a civil rights leader and head of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, sat down for an interview Thursday with Allen Johnson , the News & Record editorial page editor.

Here are some excerpts of what Jackson had to say while he took a break from homecoming festivities at his alma mater, N.C. A&T.

His thoughts on rapper Gucci Mane and A&T’s refusal to back the concert because of his controversial lyrics, and other rappers:

“Some rappers know better and do better, and some are exploiting the culture when they could be transforming the culture. The result is that so many of the artists who project the violence end up getting killed, like Tupac (Shakur) and Biggie (Smalls, born as Christopher Wallace),” he said. “They end up going to jail. And with the level of talent that they have, they must lift the language and their vision to a higher level.”

His reaction to MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer mistakenly calling Jackson by the name of noted civil rights activist Al Sharpton on Oct. 21:

“She made a mistake, and I think too much was made of it. There was more focused on the innocent mistake she made than what we were discussing,” he said. “We shouldn’t be too hypersensitive until we fight our necessary fights.”

He said the focus of the conversation was on rising unemployment, foreclosures, student debt and other issues.

“She made a mistake, and that’s behind us, really,” he said.

On the Duke University lacrosse team case, and rape allegations by a stripper who Jackson originally supported before the N.C. attorney general intervened, investigated and ordered all charges against the accused players dropped:

“The good news is those boys’ parents paid to get the proper legal representation and get them vindicated. So often, young black youth and youth who are poor, don’t have legal protection. That’s why you have 2.3 million Americans in prison,” he said.

Jackson’s impression of new A&T Chancellor Harold Martin , with whom Jackson met Thursday:

“I knew of him, and when he was at Winston-Salem (State University), I was very impressed by him,” Jackson said. “He’s just gotten here, but he will get traction because he’s a very attractive leader. He’s an alumni (of A&T), number one; he comes out of this system with seven years in Winston-Salem. He doesn’t need a lot of on-the-job training.”

Changes to the campus of A&T since he was a student in the early 1960s:

He said there’s a direct connection to construction at A&T and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that gave suffrage to all U.S. citizens over age 18.

“Now, with the Voting Rights Act, you have more blacks, more women, more whites working together and expanding these campuses,” he said.

“Those buildings reflect, most vividly, impacts of the Voting Rights Act. Because without that leverage in Raleigh, you wouldn’t have all those new buildings.”

-- Gerald Witt

Accompanying Photos

Jerry Wolford (News & Record)

Photo Caption: Jesse Jackson on Thursday.

What do you think?

15 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

Gemini

October 30, 2009 - 7:46 am EDT

I agree with Rev. Jackson's comments about rap music. I think the way he replied to that question was insightful and sums up the problem with some rappers. I grew up with Public Enemy, Run DMC, and the Beastie Boys. The rappers today do not reflect the social and political stance that those before them articulated.

CherylP25

October 30, 2009 - 1:58 pm EDT

Ditto, what Gemini said.

eduguytoo

October 30, 2009 - 11:27 am EDT

The headline for this "news article" in the print edition of the paper is this: RAPPERS MUST LIFT 'THEIR VISION' and subhead of The Rev. Jesse Jackson talks about N.C. A&T homecoming and other hot topics.

The "hot topics" covered in the interview include these (in the order in which they appear): Gucci Mane as a performer at the A&T homecoming, being mistakenly called Al Sharpton during an interview with MSNBC, the Duke lacrosse team case, opinions on A&T's new chancellor and changes to the A&T campus since Jackson was a student there.

Am I alone when I consider that list and find one of the "hot topics" rather incongruent with an interview being conducted this week? I scratch my head at how the Duke lacrosse case is a "hot topic" anywhere. Did Jackson say: "Let me tell you, the Duke lacrosse case is what is on my mind when I come back to NC A&T," or did the interviewer artificially raise that as a "hot topic"? If that's a hot topic, then let's get his take on the Tawana Brawley episode. That was another racially charged event, and it was only what...20 years ago? For goodness sakes, just report the news and don't artificially create it. That cheapens even more the pathetic excuse for journalism that this newspaper has become. If your reporters cannot come up with questions and topics any more germain, then move on to another profession.

Voice of Reason

October 30, 2009 - 12:36 pm EDT

Yeah. Funny how none of the "hot topics" were the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson's extra-marital affair and illegitimate child, and how he used money from his coalition to pay them off, or what he'd like to do to President Obama's nether regions, or his feelings toward Jews. Why does anyone listen to this man again? I can totally see how he'd be confused with Al Sharpton- they're joined at the hip and show up where ever there is a camera in hopes to be interviewed and stay relevant. Oh, and neither actually went to school to become ministers- they were given honorary titles, Sharpton when he was like 10. So yeah, I can see how there would be confusion. Welcome back to Greensboro Mr. Jackson.

DivineMindPower

October 30, 2009 - 11:41 am EDT

Is wondering how long will NR go on and on about this Gucci Mane Topic A&T has dropped the name from the concert move on. It seems to me that some people of this city wants A&T homecoming to be a big disaster by feeding into the fears of a few. NC A&T brings in the most money for any event in Greensboro every year and the city seems to want to fight it in some way every year...

autismmom

October 30, 2009 - 12:54 pm EDT

"The good news is those boys’ parents paid to get the proper legal representation and get them vindicated. So often, young black youth and youth who are poor, don’t have legal protection. That’s why you have 2.3 million Americans in prison,” he said.

So is he implying that these boys were acquitted because they were rich white boys and not because they were in fact INNOCENT? So the 2.3 million Americans in prison are there because they were too poor to get lawyers? I thought it was because they COMMITTED A CRIME!!!! Give me a break!

CherylP25

October 30, 2009 - 2:02 pm EDT

Maybe...maybe not...
"The Innocence Project ("IP") was established in 1992 at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law by civil rights attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and is dedicated to exonerating the innocent through post-conviction DNA testing. Since its inception, more than 240 people in the United States have been exonerated, including 17 who were at one time sentenced to death. The Innocence Project’s groundbreaking use of DNA technology to free innocent people has provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events but instead arise from systemic defects." http://www.innocenceproject.org/

eduguytoo

October 30, 2009 - 3:25 pm EDT

The point I raised doesn't have anything to do with whether the Duke lacrosse players were guilty/innocent/black/white or anything else specifically related to that sordid episode. I simply noted that the topic seemed strangely out of place, out of context, out of chronology. If the N&R had wanted to ask the Reverend Jackson his opinion on that a few years back when it was a "hot topic," then that's fine. Maybe they did. In an interview/article conducted and published on Oct. 30, 2009, it is a very odd inclusion. That's all. Of all the things that could have been asked and of all the things asked that could have been printed, that one is very strange. I could even rationalize the Reverend Jackson commenting on the racial strife in the Greensboro Police Department...but the Duke lacrosse case? Give me a break!

Beachwalk

October 31, 2009 - 12:32 pm EDT

"If the N&R had wanted to ask the Reverend Jackson his opinion on that a few years back when it was a "hot topic," then that's fine."

The Duke lacrosse issue is still relevant today because the "Rev." Jackson never applogized to those players for falsely accussing them. And it is relevant still today because the "Rev." Jackson continues to make false statements and lies. Just recently he told flat out lies about Rush Limbaugh, and it has been proven those statements were lies, but yet he refuses to appologize. The "Rev." Jackson and the "Rev." Sharpton are anything but reverend.

eduguytoo

October 31, 2009 - 4:46 pm EDT

That makes sense. Alan Johnson, the editorial page editor who supposedly conducted this interview, was raising this issue because it is timely and it was the perfect opportunity for the Rev. Jackson to apologize. Have I got it straight? I'm a pretty conservative person, but Rush Limbaugh is an idiot who chooses to place himself into the crosshairs of every other idiot out there in the media spotlight. As a chosen public target, Limbaugh deserves whatever he gets. He dishes it out; he's got to take it. I used to listen to Rush regularly many years ago, and then I realized that he said the same thing every day. No need to waste three hours a day.

Let me say it again...very clearly...so there can be no misunderstanding. There are lots of "timely" and "hot" issues out there that could have been discussed in this interview. The Duke lacrosse case isn't one. To have included it in the article shows incredibly poor judgment from THE NEWSPAPER. And it only got into the interview because the N&R chose to raise it. I would bet my right arm that Jessie Jackson didn't broach the subject on his own. To be honest, I'm pretty surprised that the Klan/Nazi shootout didn't emerge as a "hot topic." It always seems to when Greensboro is concerned.

Beachwalk

November 1, 2009 - 10:41 am EST

"Limbaugh deserves whatever he gets."

It is that kind of twisted thinking that is causing so many problems in this country today. NO ONE deserves to be lied about. And that is exactly what the "Rev." Jackson and the "Rev." Sharpton did. They LIED about Rush Limbaugh (and the Duke lacrosse players, "Tawana Brawley episode, etc.) The two "Rev." are habitual liars. If you think anyone "deserves" to be lied about, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

eduguytoo

November 2, 2009 - 1:23 pm EST

I submit that Rush is no better. He lies...or at the very least does not tell the truth. He takes drugs (and lies about it). He is incendiary when he need not be. His tact is to belittle people who do not believe as he does. As I said before, he chooses to be in the crosshairs, and he makes huge $$ for it. If he feels strongly enough that he is the victim of slander or liable, then he certainly can take matters to court. He can afford to do it. And that sort of begs the question: why doesn't he? Rush is entirely within his right to spew the stuff he does, and you are entirely within your right to believe him and follow him. What is is that Rush calls folks like you, "Ditto Heads"? I just choose not to be a Ditto Head. History does not paint a nice picture of people who blindly follow around after people who constantly vomit hatred and venom.

mohair.sam

October 30, 2009 - 4:29 pm EDT

The Innocence Project only intervenes where there is DNA evidence or otherwise compelling reason to believe the convict is actually innocent, so there are likely many more who are in jail and are, in fact, innocent.

That said, it's safe to assume that at minimum 2 million of the 2.3 million are guilty as sin. That, and not their ability to afford an attorney, is why they're behind bars.

On a related note, I hope that there will soon be standardization of forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony reliability, etc., so that some of the major abuses of the justice system by unqualified technicians and either mistaken or lying eyewitnesses can be corrected, and soon.

Paul Daniels

October 31, 2009 - 9:16 am EDT

I am troubled by the fact that Rev. Jackson is still a credible figure in the minds of many who report on the news. Given his history of racial slurs: Jews as "Hymies" and New York as "Hymie Town", and the other issues raised here, one wonders why he has not been assigned to the category of persona non grata, as the media typically do with others with a similar histories. The only reason I can come up to explain this is that there is a double standard for black and white public figures. The media is hypersensitive when it comes to anything said by whites that could be considered remotely racial while giving a pass to race hustlers like Jackson and Sharpton. If someone else has another explanation, I am all ears.

batshalom

October 31, 2009 - 9:59 am EDT

As a student and intern from other universities, my work has taken me to A&T on several occasions. The students, staff, and faculty are incredibly welcoming, warm, and cohesive; and yesterday during homecoming festivities I was invited to join in pretty much everywhere I walked. My experience at A&T is has been that of an open and encouraging environment (not that this has anything to do with this story - just thought I'd toss in some positivity). A&T exhibits a solid and positive atmosphere and I look forward to each visit.

If the chancellor wants positive artists associated with the school, good for him for taking a stand. Freedom of expression is important, sure, but I think some are forgetting the Chancellor's right to express himself. To not want his university, which is not only his current workplace but is also his alma mater, to be associated with someone who glorifies violence is a proper stance for a university chancellor to take.

Why would any of us want one of our great local educational institutions associated with not just a person but also his background? Why would we, as a city or as a state, want any of our public institutions to support or tacitly accept that a criminal lifestyle is worth glorifying? It's a university, not a record label.