Howard Professor Sparks Fury, Urges White Allies to 'Be Like John Brown'

Paul Riverbank, 10/23/2025Howard professor sparks debate by urging white allies to emulate militant abolitionist John Brown.

I've spent the better part of two decades covering political movements, and Patton's provocative comparison to the militant abolitionist caught my attention. "Ask yourself, what am I willing to burn so somebody else can breathe?" she wrote, referencing Brown's infamous 1859 raid on Harper's Ferry. It's the kind of statement that demands unpacking.

For those who need a refresher, John Brown's raid left ten people dead and helped spark the powder keg that would become the Civil War. Some remember him as a freedom fighter who took decisive action against the moral horror of slavery. Others see a dangerous zealot whose violence only hardened divisions.

What makes Patton's message particularly striking isn't just the historical parallel – it's her critique of modern activism. She takes aim at what she calls the "emotional outsourcing" of white allies who constantly ask how they can help. While well-intentioned, she argues, these questions ultimately center white perspectives in spaces where they shouldn't.

Howard University's response walked a careful line. While defending faculty members' right to express individual views, they made sure to distance themselves from any endorsement of violence. "Howard University condemns all forms of violence," their communications office stated firmly.

The timing couldn't be more charged. Just last month, Melbourne saw heated confrontations between protesters and police. Similar scenes have played out across several major cities, raising real questions about the boundaries between peaceful protest and more aggressive forms of political action.

I've watched as critics raise red flags about promoting historical figures known for violent tactics. They point to troubling examples of extremist groups co-opting similar historical figures to justify attacks on federal facilities. It's a legitimate concern in our current political climate.

Yet beneath the immediate controversy lies a deeper question that's worth examining: How do we balance the urgent need for social change against the risks and consequences of political violence? Patton's message clearly resonates with activists frustrated by what they see as performative allyship. But even among those sympathetic to her critique, many worry that advocating Brown-style militancy could lead down a dangerous path.

There are no easy answers here. But as someone who's covered social movements for years, I can say this: The tension between gradual reform and radical action has always defined American progress. How we navigate that tension today may well shape the next chapter of our national story.

The halls of Howard University are buzzing with controversy this week. Professor Stacey Patton's recent Substack post – calling for white progressives to "be like John Brown" – has thrust a centuries-old debate about political violence back into the spotlight.I've spent the better part of two decades covering political movements, and Patton's provocative comparison to the militant abolitionist caught my attention. "Ask yourself, what am I willing to burn so somebody else can breathe?" she wrote, referencing Brown's infamous 1859 raid on Harper's Ferry. It's the kind of statement that demands unpacking.For those who need a refresher, John Brown's raid left ten people dead and helped spark the powder keg that would become the Civil War. Some remember him as a freedom fighter who took decisive action against the moral horror of slavery. Others see a dangerous zealot whose violence only hardened divisions.What makes Patton's message particularly striking isn't just the historical parallel – it's her critique of modern activism. She takes aim at what she calls the "emotional outsourcing" of white allies who constantly ask how they can help. While well-intentioned, she argues, these questions ultimately center white perspectives in spaces where they shouldn't.Howard University's response walked a careful line. While defending faculty members' right to express individual views, they made sure to distance themselves from any endorsement of violence. "Howard University condemns all forms of violence," their communications office stated firmly.The timing couldn't be more charged. Just last month, Melbourne saw heated confrontations between protesters and police. Similar scenes have played out across several major cities, raising real questions about the boundaries between peaceful protest and more aggressive forms of political action.I've watched as critics raise red flags about promoting historical figures known for violent tactics. They point to troubling examples of extremist groups co-opting similar historical figures to justify attacks on federal facilities. It's a legitimate concern in our current political climate.Yet beneath the immediate controversy lies a deeper question that's worth examining: How do we balance the urgent need for social change against the risks and consequences of political violence? Patton's message clearly resonates with activists frustrated by what they see as performative allyship. But even among those sympathetic to her critique, many worry that advocating Brown-style militancy could lead down a dangerous path.There are no easy answers here. But as someone who's covered social movements for years, I can say this: The tension between gradual reform and radical action has always defined American progress. How we navigate that tension today may well shape the next chapter of our national story.