Some questions for Professor Beckles

by MICHAEL HALL (WIPA Director)

The West Indies Players' Association (WIPA) has, correctly in my view, made public its position on the professor’s comments by releasing to the media, letters which it sent to the Vice Chancellor of the UWI, the Chairman of CARICOM and the President of the WICB, all on May 10th, 2011.

“We do not believe that Professor Beckles should continue as a member of the Board given the statements he has made and would expect the WICB as the custodian of West Indies Cricket, to terminate Beckles membership of the WICB as a non-member Director.  We would normally have asked that he be suspended, and the matter taken to the Code of Ethics and Disciplinary Committee, however, given the fact that no action has so far been taken against Director Conde Riley for what he himself termed a breach of the Code, we fear, justifiably in our opinion, that the WICB may take no action.”

Two quotes from the letter to the UWI are shown below:

“In the meantime, we will be calling for the immediate resignation or expulsion of Dr. Beckles from the WICB and any dealings with West Indies Cricket including the High Performance Centre and the Combined Campuses and Colleges Cricket Team.   Our organization and its members cannot deal with a person who is so blatantly prejudiced against some of the players and who, because of his position both as a WICB Director and a Principal of our regional university campuses carries credibility with the public.”   

"We strongly believe that the UWI must ask Dr. Beckles to account for his statement and must also issue an unconditional public apology to the two players concerned.  While we also believe that he has severely jeopardized the reputation and credibility of the UWI that is something that the University and its Board of Governors must consider for themselves.”

WIPA wrote a second letter to the WICB on May 16th, expressing disappointment that it had not yet received a response from the board to its letter of May 10th, and also expressing disappointment with the contents of an e-mailed response from one of its member Directors to that first letter, characterizing the concerns raised in the May 10th letter as “Just a set of b…s… from Ramnarine!!” – a response which was copied to every WICB director as well as some senior WICB staff members.  

Also in the May 16th letter, we reminded the WICB of an issue raised in the May 10th correspondence regarding what Professor Beckles referred to in his lecture as Interviews which he says he conducted with the WI U-19 players, as follows:

"In that said letter we also asked about “interviews” which Professor Beckles claims to have conducted with members of the WI Under-19 team which led him to say that those players do not wish to be like Gayle or Samuels, thereby insinuating that there is something wrong with these two players.

As the accredited and authorised representatives of these two players (and of WI players including members of the under 19 team), we believe that the WICB, by not replying to our letter before making public statements on the subject, has treated our legitimate concerns with considerable disrespect. This view is reinforced by the Director's email and an apology by Professor Beckles which seems to blame others for his remarks.”

We closed our letter of May 16th with the following paragraph:

We deem the lack of response from the WICB, as well as the attitude to WIPA by Director Nanthan, sufficient grounds for further action on our part. However, we will give the WICB until May 21, 2011, before taking any further steps in this matter consistent with the agreements between the WICB and WIPA.

WIPA first of all wishes to make it perfectly clear, that contrary to certain assumptions already being made by some members of the media, the “further steps” referred to in our letter of May 16th have absolutely nothing to do with any industrial action by members of WIPA. Indeed, the headline in the Sports section of Jamaica’s Daily Gleaner of May 17th WIPA wants Beckles removed by May 21 is quite erroneous as our letter merely calls on the WICB to respond to our correspondences by that date. We are happy to say that we received a response from the WICB today, May 17th, although its contents suggest that the matter will require further dialogue between both parties.

Some questions, asked already in certain quarters, are worth repeating:

If Professor Beckles did not intend his remarks to be construed as coming from a Director of the WICB, why were they laced with so many references to what the WICB was doing, and why did he not so state at the outset of his speech? Clearly, many of the points he made sprung from his Director’s inside knowledge of WICB policies and initiatives.

What was the necessity of his reference to Marlon Samuels, who has paid very dearly for whatever indiscretions he may have committed? Marlon is a talented and dedicated player who has fought to and succeeded in regaining a place on the West Indies team.

What were the specific questions asked of the under 19 players by Professor Beckles which elicited their alleged negative responses about Gayle and Samuels, and why was it necessary to ask them?

Finally, we come to the statements made by Professor Beckles on May 17th, 2011, on the programme Scoreboard, broadcast by the Jamaican radio station KLAS Sports FM89. The professor attempted to have listeners believe that others (including WIPA) had deliberately “edited” his speech to distort the truth and create controversy in Jamaica over his comparison of Gayle to Christopher “Dudus” Coke. This is a total and complete fabrication and WIPA categorically denies interfering in any way with the tape of Professor Beckles’ speech which was broadcast via various media.

In all of this, it is difficult for me to understand how Professor Beckles would not have foreseen that even at its most favourable construction, the comparison made involving “Dudus” would not be deemed inappropriate. Even more interestingly, he has never denied using the words being complained about in any of his public pronouncements.

Professor Beckles is officially recognised as a professor of history, and other scholars, far more qualified than I am, have already commented on the validity (or lack thereof) of many of the historical “facts” presented in the lecture given in St Kitts earlier this month, as well as his omission, in their estimation, of many important references which could have made his presentation more fulsome.

WIPA maintains its view with regard to the professor and his relationship to cricket within the UWI and the WICB by his unwarranted and ill-advised statements about Gayle and Samuels, and by his subsequent  attempts to firstly, express regret, and secondly to appear to cast blame on others for the furor which followed the publication of his statements.