Nikole Hannah-Jones Sparks Controversy with Column Praising Convicted Cop-Killer Assata Shakur
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Nikole Hannah-Jones, a former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner known for her provocative perspectives on American history and race, has once again ignited controversy with a recent column praising Assata Shakur, a convicted cop-killer and radical revolutionary. The piece, published in the New York Times, has drawn sharp criticism for what many see as a revisionist narrative that overlooks the suffering of victims and distorts historical facts.
Assata Shakur, born JoAnne Deborah Byron and later known as Joanne Chesimard and Shakur, was a member of the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army during the 1960s and 1970s. In 1977, she was convicted of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster, a Vietnam War veteran, during a violent confrontation. Officer Foerster left behind a widow and a young son. Shakur escaped prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba, where she lived in exile until her death earlier this year. The U.S. Department of Justice classified her as a domestic terrorist in 2005, and the Obama administration placed her on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list in 2013.
Despite these facts, Hannah-Jones’s column appears to downplay Shakur’s conviction, attributing it to an “all-white” jury and framing her as a radical revolutionary rather than a convicted murderer. Critics argue that this approach erases the trauma experienced by Officer Foerster’s family and disregards Shakur’s extensive criminal record, which included involvement in bank robberies and violent attacks on law enforcement.
Shakur’s violent history is well-documented. She was previously shot in the stomach during a drug-related incident at Manhattan’s Statler Hilton and was linked to a grenade attack that injured two police officers. In 1972, witnesses identified her as a suspect in an armed robbery at Our Lady of the Presentation Church in Brooklyn, during which a priest was held at gunpoint. Shakur herself once described such crimes as “expropriations,” framing them as acts of racial reparations.
Hannah-Jones’s unapologetic embrace of activism in journalism has been a hallmark of her career, famously declaring that “all journalism is activism.” Her 1619 Project, which sought to reframe American history by centering the legacy of slavery, received both a Pulitzer Prize and widespread criticism from historians for factual inaccuracies. This latest column continues that pattern, prompting renewed debate about the responsibilities of journalists to balance advocacy with historical accuracy.
The New York Times has stood by Hannah-Jones, even as critics from across the political spectrum have condemned the piece. The controversy has also drawn attention to the broader media landscape’s handling of contentious historical figures and narratives. Some defenders argue that Hannah-Jones’s work challenges entrenched perspectives and highlights systemic injustices, while detractors emphasize the importance of acknowledging victims and maintaining factual integrity.
For those interested in the official stance on Assata Shakur, the Federal Bureau of Investigation maintains a profile detailing her status and criminal history. The Department of Justice also provides information on domestic terrorism designations. Meanwhile, the ongoing debate surrounding journalistic activism and historical interpretation is reflected in discussions hosted by organizations such as the Poynter Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union, which examine the intersection of media, justice, and civil rights.
As the discourse unfolds, the legacy of Assata Shakur and the role of journalists like Nikole Hannah-Jones remain deeply polarizing subjects, underscoring the challenges of reconciling history, activism, and the pursuit of truth in contemporary America.
Leave a Reply