A Tale of Two Universities……

For the DIFF 2015 Review by Truth in Cinema click on the following:
DIFF 2015 Review: 'The Guy With The Knife' Digs Into Media .

On Tuesday April 21, 2015 there were two separate showings of Alison Armstrong’s, “The Guy with the Knife”.   The first showing was at Texas Southern University, located in the heart of Houston-minutes from downtown.  The University is home to nearly 10,000 students yearly.  The documentary was hosted by Associate Professor of Journalism, Michael Berryhill.  The second showing was at the University of Houston, also located in the heart of Houston-minutes from downtown.  The University is home to 40,000 plus students each year. The documentary was sponsored by The GLBT Resource Center, Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies, Department of History, The Center for Public History, and The Department of English and hosted by Associate Professor of English, Maria Gonzales. The day would prove to be a major contrast played out in the two universities between 2 pm and 9 pm. TSU, students and Alumni gathered to view Alison’s film to understand the importance of truth in journalism.  U of H students and Alumni were not integral to the showing of the film.  Rather, GLBT community members with an interest in the contents of the documentary gathered to view and debate the issues presented before a selected panel arranged by the host, Associate Professor Maria Gonzales.

The TSU showing was attended by protagonists of the film, excluding Andy Kahan.  At the U of H showing Professor Berryhill was not available, however Andy Kahan, victims advocate, was at the U of H showing.   Jon Buice, while a major player in the documentary, was not at either showing due to circumstances beyond his control.

The TSU showing catered mostly to journalism students and Alumni who were there to see Professor Berryhill’s participation in the documentary.  There is no apperception of the contents as none of the students, Alumni or Professor Berryhill had seen any of the content prior to the showing.  Professor Berryhill from the first days of his involvement in the plight of Jon Buice, as it related to Chaplin Hill’s unjust persecution at the Wynne Unit, become an avid researcher.   He involved his graduating class in an exercise to gather facts in the case in order to show the importance of truth in journalism.  Many of the players in the film from opposing sides were interviewed by these students.  The facts were refined and utilized by Professor Berryhill into an Article posted in the Blog: “Grits For Breakfast” - 'The Death of Paul Broussard, the Parole of Jon Buice: How the News Media Have Played and Were Played', Michael Berryhill, Thursday, July 11, 2013  see,  Death of Paul Broussard, the Parole of Jon Buice - Grits for ...

After the showing of the documentary at TSU, Alison Armstrong conducted a ‘question and answer’ period for audience participation and feedback about the film and its contents.  Ray Hill, Linda Hill, Professor Berryhill and I were on hand to answer questions if queried.  Also available were, Jerry Hattan – Cinematographer and Allan Pogue – Photographer who provided black and white stills of prison life in the film.  The audience directed various questions to each of the participants in the film. 

Ray was asked about his change of position from organizer of media and GLBT community outrage to confident and friend.  They were seeking to understand if Ray in a moment of conscience felt that he had done an unjust action in the conviction of Jon.  Ray was not apologetic about is part in the media extravaganzas during the days prior to the conviction or for the yearly vigil’s for Paul Broussard conducted in the Montrose GLBT community.  He did confirm that after knowing Jon that he realized that the death was not a ‘Hate Crime’ as portrayed year after year by Activists, Media and various GLBT Caucus members in the media after his change in position.  Professor Berryhill was asked about his motivation and his views concerning the early media and the continuance of hate crime dicta by activists like Andy Kahan and Noel Freeman.  Professor Berryhill explained his position in the matter and his disdain for the subjection of a Catholic Chaplin, Linda Hill, in a travesty of injustice conducted by the Wynne Unit in Huntsville, Texas.  A longtime associate of Linda Hill, Michael Bass exposed the lunacy of the accusations presented in the Houston Press article, "Hate Crime and Punishment," noted in the documentary, about the purported scandal that cost Jon his parole in 2010 and Linda Hill’s dismissal of a 27 year ministry within the Texas Prison System.  Michael expressed that Linda was both Jon and his spiritual advisor and that she was instrumental in helping him to become successful in his life outside of the TDCJ.  He stated that Jon and he made a pact to stay on the straight and narrow, not join gangs, educate themselves and strive to be successful when released.  Michael now owns a successful real-estate investment company and is the proud father of a beautiful daughter, Grace Evelyn Bass.  Other questions were directed to the results of the polygraph.  It was explained that Jon passed a total of three (3) polygraphs.  One concerning the accusations of inappropriate involvement with Linda.  One concerning the night of Paul’s death and his motivation (hatred towards Gays) and one concerning the coercion by Wardens in the TDCJ - Wynne Unit admitting involvement with Linda.  The polygraphs confirmed that Jon not only passed the tests but did so under adverse conditions that would produce sporadic results if lying were attempted. 

Later that evening an entirely different audience assembled in a small viewing room in the Student Center at the U of H.  The showing mostly catered to the GLBT community who were interested in the documentary.   A panel was assembled by Professor Gonzales to address questions at the conclusion of the film.  Professor Gonzales was in the documentary and like Professor Berryhill had not seen any of the content prior to the showing. In the documentary Professor Gonzales had expressed knowledge of Jon Buice that was largely dependent on Media and participation in activities around avocation to keep Jon in prison.  Professor Gonzales’ willingness to view any information that would bring more light to her understanding was apparent and manifested in the hosting of the film for the GLBT community.  Alison Armstrong’s documentary clearly showed that Professor Gonzales had an open mind and was approachable to learn what Alison had found in her research.

Prior to the U of H showing I met Professor Gonzales briefly and found her to be a pleasant woman with a cheerful personality.  I was moved by her willingness to undertake a complex issue of opposing perspectives in the matter of Jon Buice.  As the attendees gathered, I noticed Andy Kahan who sat two rows directly behind me.  I was not alarmed by his presence because while I take great issue with his advocacy, to keep Jon in prison, I have no personal issues with the man. 

After the showing of the documentary at the U of H, Professor Gonzales assembled a panel consisting of Alison Armstrong, Ray Hill, Christopher Haight and herself for a ‘question and answer’ period allowing audience participation and feedback about the film and its contents.  Linda Hill, and I were on hand to answer questions if queried.  Jerry Hattan, Allan Pogue and Michael Bass also were present. 

The feedback was different and unlike that at TSU.  The participants that spoke were there largely there to express their view-points centered on experiences as Gay persons rather than the contents of the film.  The first to speak was a gentleman. [Names not given due to respect for their privacy]  He began by expressing his experiences as a Gay man living in the Montrose area and the plight of its citizens over the years prior to and after Paul Broussard’s death.  Being made aware that I was present he tempered is disdain for the film and Ray Hill’s advocacy to free Jon.  Ray and he momentarily exchanged opposing view-points that seemed to elevate but were quickly deflated by Professor Gonzales.  The gentleman later apologized to me, although not necessary, for his advocacy to keep Jon in prison for the duration of his sentence, if not for life.  The next to speak was an Elderly Lady that expressed her fear over the years and that she likewise felt that Jon should remain in prison because she considered him a threat.  It was apparent to me that she was victim to the sensationalism surrounding the issue of Jon Buice. After her views were expressed another Gay gentleman began his disdain for the film by expressing that he was present during the assault of Paul that night and had returned to the bar just moments before the actual altercation.  This was quickly dispelled by Ray Hill and the opposing view-points quickly escalated into verbal exchanges that required intervention by Professor Gonzales and others present in the panel.  Alison expressed that her research had not indicated any such person and that even the other victims had not wanted to be interviewed for the documentary. After the issue was settled about his attempt to interject himself into the night of July 4, 1991, a younger black gentleman ventured his views but did not direct them to what he had seen on the film.  He touched on a point that I had made in the film on the morality of killing as a combatant in war and person killing in a crime.  His expose’ quickly escalated into the killing of black persons and in particular to the wrongful deaths of black men by police.  Professor Gonzales quickly discharged his attempt to redirect the audience from which the forum was assembled.  After the room quietened Alison asked Andy Kahan if he had anything that he wished to express.  Andy Kahan unlike most viewings that I have seem of him in the public seemed somewhat subdued and only expressed that he has known Nancy Rodriguez for twenty plus years and that he wished Jon to remain in prison for at least 27 years, the age of Paul at his death.  Ray Hill quickly responded with the absurdness of this view point but was again quickly reined in to keep any escalation from reoccurring.  Andy was also asked to disclose the politicians that had written to keep Jon in prison.  He declined to name them however Professor Gonzales did saying that she was largely responsible for their continual involvement in protesting Jon’s release.  I appreciated her honesty in the matter and hope that she will use that same ability to undo the continual bashing of Jon’s parole.  I believe that she was earnest in her desire to know the truth about Jon and would respond positively to the caucus and inspire others to move from all the lies to the truth.

Although Professor Gonzales was a welcome light in the darkness it became very apparent that there was great polarization among the audience with the exchanges that had been presented by those noted above. Other exchanges of a lesser extent not noted here.  It is not to say that the views were inessential to the value of the forum, but they like the others only redirected attention from the documentary and its message to personal experiences.  At this juncture I elected to speak with the audience about Jon.  I told them that I had members in my family that were Gay and processed no animosity whatever.  I expressed that Jon was never homophobic or racial and that he had a lot to offer society if but given the chance.  I asked those that had expressed negative views to re-examine their hearts and realize that avocation for continual imprisonment of Jon are construed by those that support Jon’s release equal to the crimes against Gays they have felt over the years.  The room went quiet and the forum concluded with Professor Gonzales and Alison Armstrong thanking all those that had attended.

After the closing of the forum I briefly met with Professor Gonzales again and expressed my appreciation for her part in the documentary and open mindedness.  I encouraged her to visit with Jon and she indicated that she would.  I told her that she would have to give information to Jon in order to be included in his visitor list.  She indicated that she would get with Ray on the particulars. I spoke briefly with Christopher Haight, Historian and panel member and told him that he could find out more about Jon on this blog.  He indicated that he was not aware that it was my blog and that he would look into it.  To my surprise Dough Caddy, Attorney-retired, a Gay gentleman that I have known for years, supporter of Jon’s release, approached and spoke briefly of his appreciation for the documentary and asked how Jon was doing.  I told him that Jon was doing well and admonished him to write Jon.  He said that he would as they had lost contact over the years. 

As I readied to exit the room, I noticed various participants and panel members in conversations about the room.  I also noticed Andy Kahan standing alone with a Journalist that I did not know, that had attended with him, adjacent to the exit.  I did not speak nor was there a visual exchange.  On exiting Alison approached and asked how I was doing and expressed her appreciation for my attendance in both showings this day.  I expressed my gratitude and proceeded to leave.  On my way through the student center to the parking area I noticed the Elderly Lady who spoke in the question and answer period, sitting with one of Jon’s supporters at a table.  The significance to this was that she was talking with a gentleman along with his wife that had told both audiences this day that he had been convicted of killing and had redeemed himself and was a productive member of society and that Jon was deserving of a second chance.  I briefly spoke with her, thanked her for her attendance and expressed that she had nothing to fear from the release of Jon and that she should re-examine her heart and find forgiveness in her heart for Jon for his transgression.  She expressed that she would think about the issues and left.  I too proceed to leave.

On the hour long journey from Houston to my home I thought to myself about the stark contrasts between the attendees of TSU and the U of H.  It became apparent that redemption and forgiveness were issues that tore at the hearts of those peering into the issues at hand.  On one hand there were those that viewed the issues without bias as they did not feel victimized by the crime.  They expressed that Jon, seventeen at the time, now forty-one had shown remorse and had redeemed himself and deserved a second chance. They took offense at the involvement of Activists and Politicians in the processes of Jon’s Parole.  They spoke of avocation against those forces.  On the other hand there were those that were in great opposition to Jon’s release as they felt victimized by the crime.  They had sought to express their own plight as a Gays rather than the merits of Jon’s plea for absolution.  I can only hope that the documentary “The Guy with the Knife” will continue to be shown and that individuals like Professor Gonzales will be receptive to its message and no longer use the political power they possess over local and state politicians to derail the parole of my son, Jon Buice. As I approached home and collected my thoughts for the night I realized that there is a long journey ahead to the end of this “Tale of Two Universities” which has just began. 

James Buice

4/25/2015