Watching my friend Barbara Kopple's two-hour sort-of documentary on Mike Tyson, I was reminded of the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg four decades ago. Both cases depended upon the collaboration of the American media in publicizing negative stereotypes that made conviction and sentencing popularly acceptable. Just as Jewish Communists in the early 1950s must be guilty of spying, so successful young black male athletes from lower-class backgrounds must in the early 1990s be guilty of sexual assault. There were two nagging problems here, however. Just as there were no witnesses to Tyson's purported rape (and certainly a good deal of "reasonable doubt"), so there was no evidence of any nation-threatening secrets purportedly passed by the Rosenbergs. The Rosenbergs might have wanted to be spies, but without any irrefutable evidence they were merely self-dupes. Tyson might be a rapist, but a persuasive conviction would need a stronger example than this. Given the tragedy of their trials, it is not surprising that both the Rosenbergs and Tyson suffered from ineffective legal counsel.
Both defendants became witless pawns in other people's show trials. To state the obvious, just because someone was a Jewish Communist did not necessarily make him or her a successful saboteur; just because a young black is sexually aggressive doesn't necessarily make him a rapist. Indeed, being a Jewish Communist is no more a crime under American law than being an African-American stud. Convicting them for being what they are, insufficient evidence notwithstanding, "sends a message," as we say, precisely because of disrespect for the law.
Just as Kopple's film shows that even after his conviction Tyson has defenders who continue to assert his innocence, so the Rosenbergs are forever being exonerated by a few predisposed to believe them innocent. My heuristic purpose in making this unlikely comparison, no doubt challenging to many, is that if you understand how Desiree Washington's testimony convicted Tyson, you begin to understand how the Rosenbergs were convicted forty years ago. And vice versa. Since the legions of those who believe Tyson innocent scarcely overlaps with the Rosenbergs' defenders, the purpose of such a provocative comparison is prompting people to make sympathetic leaps that transcend bias and stereotype.
Read Full Article »