Dr. Randy Persaud’s op-ed, calling for an apology from Dr Terrence Campbell and Attorney Nigel Hughes, dripping with sanctimony and selective indignation, is an astonishing display of intellectual laziness masked as academic rigor. His article in Demerara Waves not only fails to address the structural inequities plaguing Guyana but also perpetuates a dangerous narrative that denies Afro-Guyanese their lived experiences of systemic discrimination. It is time to hold Dr. Persaud accountable for his own words and demand the academic rigor he so conveniently abandons in his self-serving diatribe.
Persaud demands an apology from Dr. Terrence Campbell and Mr. Nigel Hughes for comments he deems offensive to Guyanese Indians. Yet, the very foundation of his argument—that Dr. Campbell’s remarks reduce Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s governance style to his ethnicity—is tenuous at best. Any credible academic knows that accusations of racism must be supported by evidence, not by rhetorical sleight of hand. Persaud’s claim that Dr. Campbell implied all Guyanese Indians are “duplicitous” is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum, not scholarship.
If Dr. Persaud were genuinely committed to combating racism, he would address the systemic issues faced by Afro-Guyanese; the expropriation of ancestral lands, biased allocation of government contracts, selective application of laws, pervasive political exclusion, and extrajudicial killings that occurred under Bharrat Jagdeo’s leadership. Instead, he chooses to weaponize identity politics to shield a racist Vice President from legitimate criticism, ignoring the glaring evidence of policies that have disproportionately harmed Afro-Guyanese communities.
Persaud invokes the names of Stuart Hall, Frantz Fanon, and Amie Césaire to lend credibility to his argument, but his selective use of these thinkers betrays a shallow understanding of their work. For example, Stuart Hall’s critique of racialized discourse is not a free pass for political leaders to escape accountability by crying foul at the first mention of their ethnicity. Hall’s work demands nuanced analysis, something glaringly absent in Dr. Persaud’s op-ed.
Furthermore, Dr. Persaud’s characterization of Dr. Campbell and Mr. Hughes as elitists disconnected from the struggles of working-class Afro-Guyanese is ironic, given his own position as a professor emeritus in Washington, DC. His accusation that these men are “urban elitists” reeks of projection, not analysis. It is Dr. Persaud, not Dr. Campbell, who appears out of touch with the lived realities of Guyana’s marginalized communities.
Persaud’s op-ed is conspicuously silent on the plight of Afro-Guyanese, who have endured decades of systemic discrimination under successive PPP governments. Where is his outrage over the expropriation of Afro-Guyanese lands? Over the skewed allocation of government contracts that favor Indo-Guyanese businesses? Over the selective enforcement of laws that disproportionately target Afro-Guyanese activists? His silence on these issues speaks volumes about his priorities.
If Dr. Persaud wishes to be taken seriously as an academic, he must address these issues with the same fervor he reserves for defending the vile, racist Bharrat Jagdeo. Failure to do so reveals his bias and undermines his credibility as a scholar.
Dr. Persaud’s op-ed is a classic example of what happens when an academic trades intellectual rigor for political expediency. His arguments are not only unsubstantiated but also dangerously divisive. If he is to maintain any semblance of credibility, he must do the hard work of addressing systemic inequities in Guyana, not simply serve as an apologist for those in power.
Dr. Campbell and Attorney Hughes do not owe anyone an apology for critiquing governance in Guyana. However, Dr. Persaud owes an apology to the people of Guyana for his attempt to obscure the truth with selective outrage and pseudo-intellectual posturing. An academic should seek to illuminate, not obfuscate. Dr. Persaud has done the latter, and it is time he is held to account.
