Research Gem (Rhetoric, Silence, Silencing)

Part of the work of making myself write is that I’m trying to broaden my knowledge of women in elected politics, as most of my research has been in nontraditional forms of politics (slave resistance, abolition, educational reform, anti-lynching etc.) So I am working on sketches of various women in politics (which will soon become my contributions for a forthcoming encyclopedia). Today, I researched US Representative Corrine Brown (D-Fl). Representative Brown has been very vocal regarding the 2000 presidential election and has expressed on numerous occassions that she felt her constiutents were robbed of their votes. What I didn’t know until today was that in 2004, Brown said something to this effect on the House floor—a comment resulting in her words being stricken from the record and her mouth being “shushed” for the day on the grounds of unparliamentary behavior. The specific comment was:

I come from Florida where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure that it does not happen again. Over and over again, after the election, when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No, we are not going to get over it. And we want verification from the world.

The Congressional record now looks like this:

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to turn in a copy of the Certified Vote Organization. Over 1,700 people, that is technologists, lawyers, political scientists, says that the technology that we are using in the upcoming election is flawed.I come from Florida * * * No, we are not going to get over it. And we want verification from the world. (obtained from Congressional Universe, Lexis Nexis)

This incident came to my attention through an article on CQ Weekly, so I went back through the Congressional record to find how it played out on the floor and to see what the record looked like. (Now the real silly thing is, the clerk had to read back what Rep. Brown said, so we still have the full comment.) The CQ report is what really got my attention. The article noted that the chamber rules (designed to keep decorum) “mostly forbid cursing and language that maligns a House colleague, a senator or the president.” Therefore, Brown was silenced and erased by the Speaker Pro Tempore for the reason:

As stated by the Chair in response to a parliamentary inquiry on February 27, 1985, Members should not accuse other Members of committing a crime, such as "stealing" an election. By accusing an identifiable Member of stealing an election, the gentlewoman's words are not in order.

I need to examine the record further, but it is not clear that Brown accused an “identifiable Member”—I assume that the record refers to the person that started the election discussion. Well, what makes this really interesting for me is that the CQ article points out how rarely this occurs and notes one recent instance where Members called for a comment to be striken and it was not. In 2003, an object was raised on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus regarding a racially insensitive comment made by Barbara Cubin. Cubin’s comment, because it did not directly address a member, was kept on the record. Her comment was in regards to gun legislation that was on the floor. Cubin said (courtesy again of LexisNexis):

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment and all of the other amendments which have been offered today on this bill, and I encourage Members to vote against the amendments and for the bill.I am the mother of two sons. One time when they were young, little boys, the boys and I were alone at night and we had a burglar break into our house. The fear that caused me to find out that someone had been in my house, rifling through my house, really made me take a look at self-defense and my right to own and bear arms. I became a big advocate of that at that time.I appreciate all of the scenarios the other side is throwing out about why we need this amendment, because I agree, there are too many deaths due to gunshot wounds in this country. Too many children are dying because they are getting ahold of weapons that were legally owned, but were not taken care of correctly and were not separated from the ammunition. That is happening, and that is a problem. But these folks have entirely the wrong answer.We need a common-sense, balanced answer to treating problems like this, and it does not involve taking away our second amendment, our right to own and defend ourselves. We not only deserve to be defended from terrorists home and abroad, but we also deserve to be able to
buy guns to defend ourselves in our own home.My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my__

When an objection is made, Cubin states that she was not out of order and that she would never say anything to offend her “neighbors on the other side.” She apologized to her colleague “for his sensitivities” and attempts to go on with her statement, but her remarks are suspended by the chair. But the chair decided (after the clear reads the comments back into the record twice) that the words are not unparliamentarily under any rules and precedents in the House. The House resumes its business and takes a vote on the issue on the floor. Following the vote, Cubin offered an apology and this is how it appears in the Congressional Record (emphasis mine):

(Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)
Stereotyping Is Always Wrong
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the Chair's ruling and the fact that it was upheld, but this is not something that I can just leave as it is, because I do not think that the situation that just occurred is good for the body, and it is not good for the individual people involved in it. My words intended to state, and if I had been able to finish my sentence and my thought, they would have stated that I do not believe in stereotyping anyone, any time, ever, for anything. That is what I believe, and I believe that from the bottom of my heart. I do apologize, not just to the gentleman from North Carolina. I apologize to everyone who may have been hurt in any way or insulted because of my remarks. But I really intend only, only to make the point, and I will speak on this bill later, but to make the point that stereotyping is always wrong. It does not matter who it is; it is always a wrong thing to do.I thank the Chairman, and I thank the gentleman for allowing me to have the time to address the body.

These two stories leave me with more questions than answers. I’m still trying to figure out how Representative Cubin was going to originally end that statement—one of those scenarios that seems doomed from the start….But anyways…Questions are a good thing to have in order to create arguments. Right or wrong, politically correct or incorrect, these two instances have motivated me to think about the place of silence and silencing—yet another reminder to read Cheryl Glenn’s Unspoken. Is part of what I’m calling “womanist rhetorics/politics” speaking out even when you are “out of order”? In the political arena, which women get to speak? When? Why? Why do Black women politicians keep speaking out of turn if they are continually told to be quiet? What sustains a Black woman politician when she is the first to speak on an issue or the only one to hold a certain position? (i.e. Barbara Lee) What is it drives this independence—this “out on a limb stance”—when you know that you may not be given the leniency others might? These are admittedly generalized questions, some more psychologically based than my project can handle, but questions are a good starting place I think.

(Excerpt #2 from today's writing)