Dear Editor,

Having last spoken to Professor Barry Chevannes at a July 15, 2010 forum on crime, I am among those most saddened at his passing. Society is that much poorer for the loss of a man who was not merely one of the few remaining ‘brand name academics’ but a gentle, particular and dynamic thinker.

Among the points he made at the said forum was that ideally, both political parties should desist from finger-pointing re garrisons and deal with the socio-political conditions which fostered the creation of garrison constituencies.

It was his contention that while one party might have had the ‘Mother of all Garrisons’, the other has arguably a greater proportion, hence the blame game was hypocrisy epitomised.

A very aware man, he pointed out that, with both parties having played a roll in laying the foundation for pervasive crime and violence, it was time this was acknowledged and the sin atoned for.

Professor Chevannes reminded his audience of a former politician who, by his account, put a house in the street in Arnett Gardens to keep out the opposing party. Perhaps such attempts are less literal but the professor argued that the mindset in society which pandered to maintaining a distinction between the “dem and the us” should be redressed.

In the aftermath I had quiet but lively discussion with him about his statement that poverty is not responsible for crime. “But Prof,” I reasoned, “when a man hungry is a serious ting. Bounty Killer said it in his controversial tune Look. ‘Anytime mi hungry again yu a go si mi 9’, it’s a reality where many criminal acts emanate from social and economic distress.”

In his mild but assertive manner the professor responded to the effect “young Fitz-Henley, something has gone wrong with the socialisation process. Poverty isn’t responsible for crime, for a gun has never fired by itself, it is a weak mindset which is the decisive contributor to crime and violence, why a man will bus a gun, rather than seek alternative industry”.

While he commended what he understood to be the prima facie intention of the recently established Integrity Commission, it was Barry Chevannes’ recommendation that this be extended into a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. For atonement, he reckoned, was where a positive renaissance in our social and political processes would begin.

I made note of his comment that if the prime minister could come on television in the proverbial sack cloth and seek atonement, the political parties, including past and present political leaders, should.

Professor Barry Chevannes reasoned that the media should purge itself of productions (cartoons and musical forms included) which, whether implicitly or explicitly, persuaded violence. The focus, he argued, should be on educating the youth, rebuilding the family structure and putting forth productions which promulgated such.

The resourceful person he was, ‘Prof’ spoke about the World Bank study which found that the longer children stay in school the more diminished crime rate a country experienced. This, he suggested, should be used as an indicator of the way forward for Jamaica, and it should not take a World Bank study for this path to be pursued rigourously.

Never was he a man to impose his thoughts on anyone, or initiate a discussion for the sake of having the listener hear what he had to say. I respected immensely the fact that Professor Chevannes was a mild man, a man whose conversation compelled learning, mutual listenership and ultimately educational exchange.

The particular segment of Professor Chevannes’ work for which I have the most respect was his efforts in repairing one of the most significant breaches in our society, that of absent fathers, or as he put it, biological parents who though physically present did not function as a father. In implementing and continuing much of his extremely relevant ideas, we owe it to the legacy of Alston Barrington Chevannes.

Abka Fitz-Henley

abkafitzhenley@yahoo.com