50 years later: How racism allegations against a Montreal professor turned into the greatest student riot in Canadian history
11:50 / 28.01.2019 National Post, Source -- https://theworldnews.net/ca-ne...-in-canadian-history
On Jan. 28, 1969, The Georgian, the student newspaper at Sir George Williams University in Montreal, published a special edition in conjunction with the Black Students’ Association. In it they blasted the school’s administration for failing to adequately respond to charges of racism a number of black Caribbean students had made against a biology professor, Perry Anderson. Among the allegations: that Anderson graded them unfairly and addressed them using honorifics, such as “mister,” whereas he would address white students by their first names. Anderson voluntarily stepped aside from teaching while the university set up a committee to investigate the complaints. But the students opposed the makeup of the panel and said the process amounted to a “kangaroo hearing.” “Should this travesty of justice continue,” an editorial warned, “the university could very well find itself the centre of an international storm.”
The next day, hundreds of students occupied a ninth-floor computer lab, the protest expanding to a seventh-floor faculty lounge as it continued through the subsequent days. A solution looked possible on Feb 10 when both sides reached a tentative agreement to restart the investigation, but the deal quickly fell apart and violence broke out. Protesters erected barricades in the stairwells and shut down the elevators. They trashed computers and tossed debris out the windows. Then a fire erupted inside the building. On Feb. 11 riot police moved in, arresting nearly 100 people. The incident, which caused almost $2 million in damage, came to be regarded as the largest student riot in Canadian history.
To mark the 50th anniversary, the National Post’s Douglas Quan spoke with Rodney John, 77, of Toronto, one of the six students who signed the original letter accusing Anderson of racism. The interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.
The front page of The Georgian student newspaper from Jan. 7, 1969.
What were the complaints against Prof. Anderson?
In the academic year, 1967-68, there were about 13 of us West Indians in a class of about 30 students. And we all had our individual issues with Anderson.
Our class went up north to collect specimens for biology class. Three of us got into an accident; the car was totalled. When I came to, I suffered from total amnesia. The midterm exam was the same month. I told Anderson and he would not make any allowances for me to write an exam late. So I could not write the exam.
What made it even more farcical was the experience of Terrence (Ballantyne, another student). He had a white lab partner. Terrence handed in his lab. His lab gets 7 out of 10. His lab partner borrows Terrence’s lab and copies it word for word. The guy gets the lab back and guess what? He gets a higher mark and doesn’t get any marks deducted for being late. Just imagine you have 13 students each with their own stories. This was a pattern.
What did you do?
A meeting was set up in the spring of 1968 at which we all met with the dean of students, the chairman of the biology department and the dean of science. It lasted over two hours. We were told they would investigate the matter.
When we got back to school in September, we were told the committee had determined our accusations were baseless and Anderson had been cleared. When we asked to see a copy of the report, nobody had a copy. Eventually it was stated the report had been sent to the principal. So we went to his office. He didn’t have a copy of the report either. What was told to us was it got lost in the internal mail.
What we were asking for was the right to have those issues be heard in a fair and unbiased manner.
How did you spend that fall of 1968?
From September, I did not attend any classes for the entire year. My time was taken up with the issue. What we wanted was an opportunity to tell our collective story before an audience.
I spent my days at the university talking. I would on occasion find myself on the cafeteria floor talking to a group of students. You come back three hours later, I’m still there.
In late 1968, the principal of the school agreed to form a new committee to hear the complaints. What happened?
The committee had two black professors, two white professors and one East Indian. The two black professors felt pressure at some level so they resigned from the committee.
On the one hand, as professors they were members of the university establishment. At the same time, being black, I suppose it was seen that the students would have more trust in their objectivity. They were in a difficult position. Within the student representation, there were radical members in the group. One or two of the students confronted the professors about how reliable they were going to be as arbiters. It caused the two professors to decide to withdraw.
After that you couldn’t come to a consensus on who should form the panel?
We could not come to an agreement. They were also not prepared to have a meeting that was open to the public.
What we were asking for was the right to have those issues be heard in a fair and unbiased manner. What we were doing was challenging the conventional order of how the world operated. And people never ever relinquish power voluntarily.
Aftermath of the Sir George Williams University riot on Feb. 12, 1969.
What was the reaction from the rest of campus?
We’re talking about an era of social change and development of a social consciousness. Many students were prepared to join the cause on that basis. At the height of the occupation you had anywhere from three to five hundred bodies involved. A great majority at that time were white students. But you also had black students who identified with the struggle. Racism was rampant in the community and the university was not insulated from that racism. And so you had a tremendous rippling effect.
What was the atmosphere like during the sit-in?
By this time, the incident had taken on a life of its own. There were six students who had signed the complaint. We were lost in a movement that involved hundreds of people. Try to imagine the flavour of Woodstock.
Ultimately, what happened was reflective of how social movements evolve. You have people who joined for their own particular reasons. It’s not always a hundred-per-cent equivalent but at least a common cause.
What led to the violence?
A meeting was held between the lawyer for the university, the lawyer who represented us and the six of us who were still around. It was at the hotel down the street. We signed it around one in the morning. At that time, it was assumed we were on the way to establishing a hearing committee.
I went back to the university to inform people that an agreement-in-principle had been signed. People decided to celebrate. By the next morning, a lot of people who had been around the occupation took off. I cautioned people we have to wait until the matter is signed by the principal. I knew it was not over. As the day went on, we learned the agreement was being blocked by various factions within the university.
When it was evident the agreement was not going to be signed, it had a dampening effect on people’s moods. The decision was then made to escalate the sit-in. The next morning, Feb. 11, I get a call back from Doug (Mossop, another original complainant). They had started putting up chairs to block off the top floors when the p
Rodney John says he looks back at the incident with neither pride nor anger.
So you weren’t in the building when the violence broke out?
I was at home. I got to the university around four o’clock. I was not allowed in. While I was waiting, I was escorted by two police — they drove me down to Pointe-Saint-Charles (another neighbourhood in Montreal), let me out, told me if they found me back at the university, I would be arrested. It took me two-and-a-half hours to walk back to the university. By that time, all hell had broken loose. Somewhere along the line, the fire started.
Did you fear for your safety?
I understood very clearly what it must’ve felt like to be a black in the southern United States and facing a lynch mob. That experience has been seared indelibly in my consciousness. There was a small group of us black students who were outside the building. You were surrounded by hundreds of whites. Between that group and the group of us was a line of police. And as we stood there, in that proximity, you had people shouting, “Let the n—–s burn!” Mississippi migrated to Montreal.
You’ve made some provocative statements about how you think the fire started.
The violence was perpetuated — I have no hesitation saying this — by the police and the administration. Are students going to start a fire when they’re locked in?
But there’s no proof of that.
It’s never been clarified. But you know, the original reasons for this whole event have not been clarified either. Who the hell wants to hear the truth when lies will suffice?
Rodney John eventually went on to get a PhD in psychology.
Do you look back on this episode with pride or anger?
None of the above. Time has a way of putting things in context. What I see is a sense of the absurd — that we had to fight so hard against the notion a professor was racist when the society was openly racist. You have a society where racism is part of the DNA of the community. All we wanted was for him to be not allowed to be so openly and blatantly destructive to our students’ careers.
One question I often get asked is: Have things changed over 50 years? If you look around, there’s still a lot of denial. You can’t go to the web on a weekly basis and not see the constant issues of racism and discrimination. In this time of Trump, racists have become emboldened. You have this paradoxical backward and forward movement. I realize that the fight against oppression never ends; it is a fight that has to be reviewed every generation.
Five of the six complainants went on to get postgraduate degrees. Rodney John obtained a PhD in psychology. Perry Anderson was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing and reinstated. In an interview for the 2015 National Film Board documentary Ninth Floor, Duff Anderson suggested his father was guilty of “cultural bias,” though not personal bias. Anderson’s family did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.
• Email: 9Cdquan@postmedia.com%22">dquan@postmedia.com | Twitter:
The Henry F. Hall building in 1970