Justice for Daniel Faulkner

But their special guest, via telephone, was Mumia Abu-Jamal. Most people who do not hail from Philadelphia probably do not know who he is or why he provokes such passion, for or against him, almost any time even his name is mentioned. The answer to both questions is the same one that explains why he could not be there in person: He is currently sitting on death row in Pennsylvania for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Everyone is entitled to free speech, convicted cop-killer or otherwise. But it is another matter to afford someone such a prestigious platform in an academic discussion or elevate him or her to celebrity status. The burden on the rest of us is to fulfill the reciprocal obligation that comes with free speech by finding out who Abu-Jamal is and deciding whether we wish to associate with him as people or as a university.

Since his conviction, Abu-Jamal has become a cause celebre the world over. He already had a political history before the shooting, including a membership in the Black Panthers. As a member of the group, he preached political violence. After leaving the group, he worked for a time as a journalist, often sympathizing with organizations such as MOVE, a radical back-to-nature outfit. Since his conviction, he has remained an outspoken critic of the justice system where he has spent the last three decades.

He has earned the label of “political prisoner” in some quarters, often where the facts of his case are not known, and few labels could be more inappropriate. Supporters range from activists to musicians to public intellectuals. In a world where autocrats and tyrants imprison their own people, it seems to cheapen extraordinary men and women like Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi by placing Mumia Abu-Jamal alongside them.

Almost 30 years ago, shortly before sunrise on Dec. 9, 1981, Officer Daniel Faulkner was on duty in one of the less savory parts of Center City in Philadelphia. He pulled over a car, apparently for a traffic violation, and out jumped the car’s occupant, William Cook. Cook punched Faulkner, and as Faulkner attempted to subdue Cook, the latter’s brother Wesley, aka Mumia Abu-Jamal, ran across the street. According to two eyewitnesses at the trial, Abu-Jamal shot Faulkner, who managed to return fire.

The ballistic evidence confirmed that Faulkner was shot twice at close range, once in the face and once in the back, with bullets consistent with a gun owned by Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal also had a bullet in his stomach that matched Faulkner’s gun.

When Abu-Jamal was taken to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in downtown Philadelphia, he reportedly yelled, “I shot the motherf***er and I hope the motherf***er dies.” It was perfectly clear that the “motherf***er” was Officer Faulkner.

In June 1982, a Philadelphia jury found the case clear, too. The jury convicted Abu-Jamal of murder in the first degree after deliberating for less than a day. They also returned a unanimous sentence of death.

Abu-Jamal has made multiple appeals of his conviction, all unsuccessful, at the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court of the United States. As to his death sentence, although a federal appeals court upheld a lower District Court ruling invalidating his death sentence, the U.S. Supreme Court recently sent that case back to the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of an intervening ruling by the high court in a separate case. In short, Abu-Jamal has failed to prove over two decades that he is not guilty. The question of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been asked and answered time and time again by a jury and judges.

The harder question is whether we ought to let a convicted murderer like Abu-Jamal speak out about the justice system. He is absolutely entitled to — and continues to take full advantage of — his right to appeal, with the assistance of able counsel and the unbiased ear of a judge. This process is the proper and necessary safeguard against unjust conviction in a society ruled by law. But outside of the courtroom, his right to free speech carries no entitlement of an audience, should we choose not to listen.

The even more difficult question is whether Princeton ought to provide Abu-Jamal with a platform in an academic conversation. It would be unacceptably ad hominem to throw out everything Abu-Jamal has to say simply because he has been found guilty of killing Daniel Faulkner. We should contemplate uncomfortable facts, unsavory people and difficult situations in our academic discussions, because that is how learning takes place.

But discussing these issues does not require making a celebrity out of a man like Mumia Abu-Jamal, as some would like. Understanding his view of the world does not require actually inviting him to speak at a conference. His copious writings already do that job, and his status as a special guest of this University only gives celebrity and academic legitimacy to a man who deserves none.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Here or anywhere, we only have a finite amount of time with which to learn about the world, and there are many other men and women from whom we could learn a great deal more about life and justice. One of them wore badge number 4699.

Brian Lipshutz is a politics major from Lafayette Hill, Pa. He can be reached at lipshutz@princeton.edu.