Kissoon is no Socrates

Jul 01, 2013 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
There is no end to Freddie Kissoon’s academic rascality. His response to me “Did Forbes Burnham see me and Walter Rodney as Socrates’ children?” (KN June 30, 2013) confirms this ‘leopard’ is comfortable in the spots of counterfeit academics. Now Freddie seeks to equate himself to Walter Rodney and Socrates.
In academia, Rodney was a student of par excellence, he was never accused or caught engaging in academic dishonesty in classroom work. And the reason Rodney was not given a job at the University of Guyana (UG) was not the same reason Kissoon was not given as he deceptively wants us to believe.
And the equation to Socrates is another deceit. Kissoon is no Socrates! Socrates was a thinker/philosopher of no mean order who operated in a time when the political establishment wanted the society to think in a particular way and outside of that was considered heresy.
In Kissoon’s case it was not brilliance or deviation/dissent in thinking it was his academic rascality which influenced his dishonourable discharge from completing his doctoral study that caused him not to be employed at UG during the Forbes Burnham administration.
And yes, much to Kissoon’s chagrin, this will be repeated ad nausea a la nursery rhyme style, until he gets it and all understand a primary basis for his angst with Burnham.
Kissoon is mixing up and deliberately abusing concept. What he considers in his instance Burnham’s “denial of [his] right to work” at UG is not so.  Kissoon was not denied the right to work, what he was denied was the opportunity to carry his academic rascality at UG to negatively influenced young and impressionable minds. Nothing prevented Kissoon from seeking employment elsewhere, nor has he said if he sought to and was denied.
This is an issue he must be honest and forthright about and stop blaming Burnham for not enabling his dishonourable academic conduct. In this regards, Burnham did the society a great favour by saving a few generations from being exposed to questionable academics.
Over the years, Kissoon has also accused Burnham of victimising Mrs. Freddie Kissoon. Let him provide the case, in all its honesty, to cause right-thinking persons to believe this is not one of his constant foray in delusions and counterfeit to gain public attention/sympathy.
The others whom Kissoon claims were denied opportunity to teach at UG let him provide the evidence for each why such was denied. Because no right-thinking person would accept that such was done in blanket form and without a reason. Let him give the society the opportunity to so determinate, on a case by case basis, the merit or demerit, justification or lack thereof for those identified.
The Walter Rodney/Forbes Burnham matter is about unearthing the truth how Rodney met his death, and whom ((including him) may be responsible.
This is what I seek and I would want to think right-thinking persons also want. For 33 years Kissoon, et al, in gospel-like fashion have repeatedly said Burnham is responsible.
And even as ordinary folks, religious scholars and archaeologists continue to revisit and question the Holy Bible, on the Rodney matter it is heresy to even dare to think outside the 33-year gospel as handed down to us by the WPA on June 13, 1980.
For the believers, daring to demand getting to the truth or having a different opinion makes one deserving to be stoned (I hope they stick to the verbal stoning because that I can deal with it).
Now when called upon to support the accusation of Burnham’s guilt by providing the evidence, there is a mad dash to refashion the gospel (e.g. see Kissoon’s column of June 30, 2013) or deviate from the issue by attacking those who are calling for proof or the Independent International Commission of Enquiry (IICE). Note Kissoon and his comrades-in-arms apparently are not interested in this for they have not joined the voices of those calling for the IICE.
There is an old saying that he who asserts must first be called to prove. Is this what terrifies Kissoon, et al? Is he afraid his counterfeit will be further exposed, he does not have the “evidence” he made claim to over the years? Why accuse and not want to prove when the opportunity may be nigh?
Contrary to Kissoon’s academic deceit, nowhere in my writings on the Rodney issue have I said, “Burnham didn’t kill Rodney.” All I am asking is that the evidence be provided to prove so and the IICE offers the opportunity to do so. I also await the requested proof to his claim (letter of June 17, 2013) that: “Ms. Bacchus falls into a category of very crude political and racial primitiveness that has no place in the world, not only in Guyana. She is the mirror image of her East Indian counterparts.
Their binary is what destroyed Guyana and continues to devastate this lovely country with lovely people.” In my June 25, 2013 letter, I requested this academic counterfeit provide proof of same. He responded on June 30, 213 but has not done so.
And contrary to Kissoon that this is his “final” response to me, I assure him when it comes to exposing his academic counterfeit there is no finality with me. He has had free reign for too long, accusing without proving, and targeting the undeserving to malign and alienate. Enough is enough!
Minette Bacchus

---

---