A Dishonorable Dartmouth Degree

by Christopher Pearson

On June 13, Dartmouth College bestowed an honorary degree on Johnetta Cole, former president of Spelman College and a member of the board of Coca-Cola. For Ms. Cole, it was yet another degree in her growing stable of university accolades. Institutions as diverse as Michigan State, Emory, and Mt. Holyoke have all given Ms. Cole their own honorary degrees.

Yet, in choosing to honor Ms. Cole, all of these institutions, including Dartmouth, have ignored a disturbing aspect of her career. In the past two decades, she has played an active role in Communist and anti-Israel organizations, extracurriculars that may have ended her chances of being appointed Secretary of Education in the first Clinton Administration.

Shortly after his victory in 1992, President-elect Clinton announced the appointment of “cluster coordinators” to run his transition teams. Clinton appointed Ms. Cole the supervisor for education, arts, labor and humanities.

In a short profile of Cole published on November 26, 1992, The Washington Post noted only her presidency of Spelman, a traditionally black college for women in Atlanta and her membership on the board of directors of the Coca-Cola Co. In a term that would soon be beset by problematic nominations, Clinton seemed to have made a safe, if predictable, choice.

Around Washington, the reigning consensus predicted that Cole would be Clinton's nominee for secretary of education.

Two weeks later, however, cracks began to appear in her facade. On December 12, the conservative weekly magazine Human Events published a cover story by a former staff member of the House Intelligence Committee, Herbert Romerstein, which alleged that Ms. Cole had served on the executive boards of various Communist front organizations, including those actively defending the Communist dictatorships of Grenada, Cuba, and Nicaraugua.

In 1976, Ms. Cole was actively involved in the Communist front the Venceremos Brigade and was the director of the organization's American arm, the Committee to Stop U.S. Aggression against Cuba. Among its other activities in support of Castro, Cole's group recruited leftists in the United States to visit Cuba, ostensibly to cut sugar cane.

However, a 1976 FBI report recently declassified under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that the Venceremos Brigade was doing more than promoting tooth decay.

A limited number of people from each Venceremos Brigade contingent “have been trained in guerilla warfare techniques, including the use of arms and explosives” by the Cuban intelligence agency.

In his Human Events article, Romerstein also detailed Ms. Cole's close association with Julian Torres Rizo, a Cuban intelligence officer who later became the Cuban ambassador to Communist Grenada. In a speech to Venceremos Brigadiers, Rizo declared, “...the first thing that a U.S. revolutionary must be convinced of is precisely the fact that he does come from a decadent society, that he comes from a society that must be destroyed....”

After Rizo became the Cuban ambassador to Grenada, Ms. Cole was president of the U.S. Grenada-Friendship Society, a front organization in support of the Communist dictatorship.

The two continued to remain in contact as a 1980 note to Grenadian prime minister, Maurice Bishop, revealed. “Dear Comrade Bishop: Enclosed are the most recent declarations by members of the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus, related to the Caribbean. Johnetta Cole, of the U.S.-Grenada Friendship Society, asked me to forward them to you.”

In May 1980, fourteen individuals, self-described as “long and consistently active in the Cuban solidarity movement” met in Havana. Ms. Cole was one of those in attendance, as a representative of the Venceremos Brigade. Also in attendance were officials of ICAP, the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, a front for the Cuban intelligence agency, the DGI.

Ms. Cole and Sandy Pollock, another of the Havana Fourteen, were assigned to write the group's official statement. At the time, Pollock was a member of the Central Committee of the Communist party of the United States. As Romerstein noted, however, “Despite Cole's close connections with Communists, there is no indication in the documents that she herself ever joined the Communist party.” Cole may never have actually joined the Party apparatus itself but she would continue to directly associate herself with Communist organizations throughout the 1980's.

She soon joined the executive board of the U.S. Peace Council, a front for the Soviet Union funded indirectly from Moscow. Following the 1983 U.S. liberation of Grenada, Cole co-authored an attack on the Reagan administration through the Peace Council, alleging “the U.S. invasion put an end to four years of tremendous progress.” During the time Cole served on its board, the Peace Council was also vociferously opposed to the sovereignty of the state of Israel and conducted propaganda campaigns on behalf of the Palestinians.

Following Romerstein's piece, Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic and a strong supporter of Zionist causes, assigned another article to investigate Cole's past activities. The New Republic's piece largely confirmed Romerstein's findings.

Alarmed at the revelations concerning Cole's past, The Jewish Forward asked Clinton to explain his choice. Long associated with organized labor, the Forward editorialized that if Cole has not changed her views and Clinton was unaware of them, ”the logical step would be to ask her to resign her role in the transition.”

Cole made no attempt to defend herself from the charges levied against her and the Clinton administration also made no official response concerning the revelations about her past. One high-ranking Clinton aide did tell the columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “I've never heard of anything like this. It makes no difference what groups she belonged to a long time ago.“ Yet when asked whether Cole was under consideration for a Cabinet post, the aide curtly responded, “Not true!”

Cole was ultimately not appointed to any further position in the Clinton administration. The rumors, of course, may have been wrong. Clinton may never have considered Cole for Secretary of Education or any other position in his Cabinet.

Yet Clinton would later readily dump nominees from Zoe Baird to Lani Guinier, after impediments to their Congressional approval surfaced. Whether Johnetta Cole was a precursor to such fiascoes or merely an aberration is ultimately a choice between conjecture and an administration that has elevated deceit into a sacrament.

What is more certain, however, is that Dartmouth has awarded a degree to a person with a record of active support for Communist and anti-Israeli causes. Even in the liberal circles where college administrations tread, such dubious affiliations puts one outside of the mainstream of politics.

Honorary degrees are an opportunity for an institution to show esteem for individuals who the school believes exemplify its ideals and values. Some universities, however, now seem to take the occasion more seriously than others.

The University of Chicago some years ago denied an honorary degree to Queen Elizabeth II, on the grounds that she had contributed nothing to scholarship. In choosing to honor Ms. Cole, Dartmouth has exceeded the bounds of the blithe liberalism that usually mark those to whom the College awards its honorary degrees.

Abraham Foxman, the president of the Anti-Defamation League, said in 1993 that Cole's affiliations made her as unacceptable for political office as a Republican official who belonged to the John Birch Society.

If anything, Foxman understated the case. Cole was not merely a member of Communist fronts with anti-Israel ties, just a name on a mailing list willing to offer an occasional contribution.

As an executive board member of such organizations, Cole was integral to the formation of policies designed to subvert the sovereignty of the United States and its allied foreign governments.

That role apparently disqualifies one from holding high political office. It does not, however, seem to bar one from the good graces of Dartmouth College.

As The Dartmouth Review went to press, Cole herself was unavailable for comment. Parkhurst, meanwhile, had no comment about Cole's past associations. It would be useful, however, if at least someone did.