Tom Brown Rebuttal to The Franklin Observer Article and the Marcus Vaughn Video

This October 29th in the evening, I finally got around to reading – with my wife Judy – the defective article published in the Franklin Observer, authored by Republican Alan Earls. Also, watched the Marcus Vaughn video, one of the phoniest pieces of film imaginable.

So, to you the members of the Wrentham Democratic Town Committee, and to any other Democratic Committee or state Democratic official, I offer up this belated, but sincere, rendering of what happened in Norfolk on Friday afternoon. Last night, Mr. Earls offered me the opportunity of an interview, which I declined over the phone, offered to take in person, then rejected when I heard he was a Republican. So my comments to that effect were brief and accurately transcribed on page 4 of the article.

But the Vaughn comments about me are riven with numerous distortions and outright lies. Clearly, Marcus Vaughn has chosen the correct political party to represent, so much so he apparently has borrowed the style and substance of our former, twice-impeached president.

So I will address these comments in the order they appear. First, I was the initial person Mr. Vaughn encountered, and I did introduce myself and state my position. We did shake hands. Both of us have firm grips, but there was no “iron grip” and nothing was prolonged. That part of the encounter lasted no longer than 20 seconds. So, nothing was “unyielding” about the greeting. I have never tried to detain a person with whom I wish to speak. Mr. Vaughn made this part of our discussion sound like an attempted kidnapping. Right, a 74-year-old guy goes up against a 30-something ex-track star!

The second point involves the use of the words “…loudly harangue and attack Vaughn.” At no time did I engage in a harangue as defined in Webster’s as an “oration, especially a loud and vehement speech.” I started with a stock question about the status of Joe Biden: “Is he the legitimate president of the United States?” Mr. Vaughn pleasantly answered, “He was elected and inaugurated.” Off to a good start, I thought.

Then I asked him specific questions about local issues previously brought to my attention. One I brought up involved “book banning” and he replied, “No, I just want to give parents a veto power over the books they are assigned.” I mentioned a couple of other issues, but his responses – like his debate comments – were vague.

At a point about two minutes into our conversation, I asked, “Well, what is your platform?” At this point he stated very clearly, “I am the law-and-order candidate”. I replied to the effect, how come? Then added, “When was the last time a murder occurred in these towns [meaning Wrentham and Norfolk]? No answer was forthcoming. I said, “We live in safe towns in this area.” As a matter of fact, homicides are very rare in Massachusetts suburbia with rates running about 1.5 per 100,000 in 2019 according to a recently released state report.

I’ll admit the “law and order” comment disturbed me, because it harkened back to the Nixon days when stoking fear produced winning elections. Trump also uses that sort of rhetoric; just check out his now infamous inaugural address entitled “American Carnage”. And he - like Marcus Vaughn – apparently loves an audience and inventing excuses and blaming someone other than himself.

We parted and he walked down the line of peaceful sign-holders. I did not see Mr. Vaughn talking to Greg Wehmeyer (KP Board member) , and more importantly heard nothing of a raised voice by either party. It does sound as though from the article Mr. Vaughn has established quite record for trying to ban books (elementary up through high school), something I never witnessed in my 25 years as a history teacher and department chairman at Westwood High School. I’ve always thought challenging fiction and non-fiction broadens student minds, encourages inquiry, and raises course interest, so do DESE officials and MCAS professionals.

At this point, I am referring to page 3, and though a conversation is proceeding between Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Wehmeyer, Vaughn claims I “…still wouldn’t release [my] grip.” Then Vaughn claims, he … asked both men [Wehmeyer and myself], “Why are you doing this to me, is it because I am black?” This statement represents a complete fabrication. And should be considered either a deliberate lie or a delusion on Vaughn’s part. What it wasn’t is an assault – that charge was fabricated, or perhaps a simple delusion. To be clear, neither Greg nor I ever laid hands on Mr. Vaughn. And we were never together speaking with Mr. Vaughn.

In fact, Mr. Vaughn and I had parted before he met with Greg Wehmeyer, who was – I believe – midway down the line of sign holders. By the way, everyone – about a dozen – of the Kalkut supporters were peaceful and there was never any jeering or inappropriate behavior. This wasn’t a mob like the Trump insurrectionists on January 6th, just peaceful, lawful supporters exercising their constitutional rights.

As part of the article on page 3, Vaughn alleges still another untruthful comment, claiming he said to me “That’s the most racist thing anyone has ever said to me.” His claim about being “badly shaken” and needing to “compose” himself upon entering the studio left out an important second conversation we had at the end of the sign-holding line.

At that point, I decided to approach him again, for a personal, one-on-one conversation, wondering as I did, how he ended up joining the current Republican Party. We resumed our conversation – alone with no one listening. I said, “It’s hard for me to believe you are a Republican because of their attacks on the ‘65 Voting Rights Act.” Though I didn’t use the words “voter suppression”, that’s what has been occurring in many states. He looked at me as if he had never heard of that vital piece of civil-rights legislation. I followed up, “Why did you become a Republican?” Then, Vaughn said, “Are you asking me because I am black?” I replied “yes”.

Marcus Vaughn took offense, then said coolly to me, “I’m going to use this in the debate [against Kevin Kalkut].” He wasn’t shaken, he wasn’t unnerved, he was purely calculating its effect on his audience. He simply turned on his heels and headed off to the television studio a few yards away.

His statement about his performance in the debate being “terrible” was truthful. He mangled the language, failed to produce clear facts, and stumbled until the very end. But then he played his ace card as he had promised outside. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE FALLEN FOR IT!

The claim I’m a racist is pure falsehood, something thousands of my students would confirm. One of my specialties in graduate school at Northeastern University (M.A. full fellowship and teaching assistantship) was African-American History (three full courses, with B+, A and A for grades). I am well versed in all aspects of the black experience from the horrors of the slave voyages to contemporary times. I have taught AP European History (twice) and AP US History (16 times) at Westwood High School, and never had any student – of any color or national origin – accuse me of racism. I’ve assigned books and short papers on slavery, nativism, and racism.

After I retired from Westwood High in 2006, I lectured at retirement communities on voting rights, the culture wars, racism, nativism, anti-semitism, and many other historical topics. I also served as a professor (lead teacher) in the Educational Cooperative or TEC’s “Teaching American History” series for 8 years, dealing with all sorts of issues involving American government and social issues. As an ADJUNCT (NOT ASSOCIATE) PROF at Bridgewater State University – pretty much coterminous with my lecturing and TEC positions – I taught Western Civilization (His 111 and 112), World History (His 131 and 132) and US History to 1865 (His 221) for 22 semesters and about 50 sections. I’ve had a lot of advanced placement, undergraduate and graduate history teaching experience: 47 years in all.

I retired at age 70 in 2018, not because I was put out to pasture, but because our son in Colorado was suffering from an increasingly debilitating spinal condition, eventually leading to surgery and a long recovery (ongoing). I have been highly respected wherever I have taught, my students have appreciated me, and my evaluations proved it. For instance in AP history courses, all 800 of my students took the AP exams and over 80 percent scored 3 or above.

History teachers can’t bluff their way through classes with top students, especially from sophomore year on. We’re not like neophyte politicians who show up at a debate unprepared, and who stumble through questioning, only to invent an excuse for a “terrible” outing. Let’s see, Brown made me fail! Classic deflection!

What’s more, highly effective instructors stress the need for the world to become a better place, while pointing out past and present achievements and shortfalls in that respect. For the US, we continue to strive to attain that elusive “more perfect union.” Along with that in my case went emphases on critical thinking and analytical writing skills. What I witnessed in viewing the debate, was one candidate who clearly mastered his material and proved his mettle, and one who failed utterly, then looked for an excuse to cover his incompetence.

Intriguing then, isn’t it, how the one who flopped, played the “race card”! Well, I think I know why Marcus Vaughn became a Republican. That Grand Old Party, founded by Lincoln and others, won the Civil War, abolished slavery, and launched a Reconstruction aimed at creating equality.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line - in the not-too-distant past - the party which contributed substantial votes in the passage of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, (renewed many times) lost its way. Beyond the recent gutting by Supreme Court decisions written by Republican justices, the party of Lincoln wants the ’65 act repealed entirely. Perhaps that explains Mr. Vaughn’s affinity for the party of his choice. Don’t you just love how a failed Republican candidate like Chris Doughty quotes Martin Luther King Jr.? Great way to defend attacks on the hard-won freedoms for men and women.

Was I so wrong in asking a young black man why he became a modern-day Republican? Well perhaps I could have put it somewhat differently, but Mr. Vaughn, based on the evidence from the Earls article, saw his pretext, and happily hopped away – not in despair – to salt away his charge to cover his own weak performance.

Lots of people have fallen for the nonsense. But it’s a funny thing about training as a teacher in my specialty – you develop a “history-teacher’s memory”. The Earls article is loaded with lies and distortions, some destructive enough to a reputation to please even Trump.

Now, to wrap up my defense, I turn briefly to the Vaughn video. I remember vividly the cocky exit to the television studio and the premeditated attempt to sabotage an opponent’s well-earned victory. Frankly I laughed through the whole thing, spotting a political faker right off the bat.

How come? The whole presentation was contrived. The feigned tears, the heartbreaking pain of husband and wife, and the alleged collapse when reaching home.

Bunk…derived from watching too much Trump! The whole debate plan by Mr. Vaughn involved a lie. I never called him any terrible names. I never grabbed his hand in some “iron grip.” He was never harassed by any of Kevin Kalkut’s supporters. There was no “mob”, just enthusiastic supporters waving to passing motorists. Mr. Vaughn was asked serious questions, by serious people. And let me emphasize, everything which transpired involved free speech, political in nature. We after all live in a republic, built around free citizen political discourse.

Marcus Vaughn pulled off a ruse, deflecting his own inadequacy onto me. Kevin Kalkut felt guilty without even knowing the full story. Alan Earls of the Franklin Observer bought the whole story hook, line, and sinker. And numerous liberal Democrats in Norfolk County have fallen over backwards begging forgiveness from a scheming faker for my supposed horrible comments. What a scam!

Today, my wife hit upon what really may have happened. Two Bristol County guys – or perhaps two city guys, one from Fall River and one from Dorchester – exchanged serious words and had a political disagreement. One (me) walked away and left for home with Judy, while the other guy – ill-prepared and sloppy – concocted an excuse for his “terrible” performance before it ever happened.

He blamed me for his screw up, but he and any other of my critics receive no apology. A delusional – perhaps pathological – candidate, in over his head, bears the responsibility for what happened on Friday afternoon. And the ensuing upheaval.

“And that’s the way it is”, as Walter Cronkite used to say nightly on CBS in an era of serious journalism.

Respectfully submitted by,

Thomas J. Brown

October 30, 2022