Thursday, October 21, 2010

Freedom of speech is great, unless you choose to exercise it.

Freedom of speech is a great right. But be careful before you exercise it.

Juan Williams is the latest journalist/commentator to learn that harsh lesson. National Public Radio fired Juan for a comment he made on Fox to Bill O'Reilly. Juan stated that he gets "nervous" or "worried" when he gets on a plane and sees another passenger in Muslim garb. That was it. Goodbye Juan. After ten years on National Public Radio, Juan Williams is fired within a couple of days of making his comment.

Juan is only the latest casualty to suffer the loss of a job for something he or she said. A few weeks ago Rick Sanchez of CNN got fired for calling Jon Stewart a bigot and suggesting that people like Jon, i.e. Jewish people, control the media. Sanchez, who apparently had been a target of Stewart's The Daily Show made the comments in a lively interview on talk radio.

Then there was Helen Thomas. Helen got fired by Hearst News for telling a reporter in a sort of impromptu sidewalk interview that Jews should go back to countries from where they came, including Eastern European countries, where millions had been killed in the Holocaust.

And before Helen Thomas there was employee Shirley Sherrod. She got summarily fired from the Department of Agriculture for comments she had made earlier which some thought were racist (against whites). When the true meaning of her statements were made clear, Shirley was offered her job back.

No-one has a "right" to keep their jobs and subject to actions for wrongful dismissal or human rights violations, employers should be able to fire who they want. But should all of the above have been fired for what they said?

Let me start with the easiest case first - Shirley Sherrod. I think everyone agrees that her firing by the Obama administration was rash, precipitous and uncalled for. No-one defended it - neither on the left nor the right.

The other cases are less clear. Helen Thomas' comments were hateful and ignorant, and I for one was happy to see her go. Had she been kept on at Hearst, I think she would have been very ineffective as a White House press correspondent, with no credibility. She would not have done her employer any good. At the age of 90, she was probably well past her "best before" date anyway and there were few if any defenders as far I am aware.

Rick Sanchez's comments were flippant and ill considered, but probably not fireable speech. After all, Jon Stewart makes his living by insulting others and in my view is fair game. Sanchez's comments about Jews controlling the media, which were sort of obscure, were stupid because Jews don't control the media. And what is wrong with controlling the media anyway, even if we did?

Juan Williams' firing was inexcusable. He is a well regarded civil rights advocate, has made it crystal clear on Fox News that he is totally opposed to racial profiling and scapegoating, and no-one, I mean no-one, can doubt his bona fides. That he feels "nervous" or "worried" when he is on a plane with someone in "Muslim garb" seems very weird to me, but hey, if that's how he feels, that's how he feels. One cannot isolate however that one sentence from Juan Williams' clear beliefs in civil rights and equality which he frequently espouses. If he was a bigot, he would not have lasted on politically correct NPR for ten years.

NPR made a huge mistake. It is time for fellow journalists on NPR and on other networks to stand up for Juan. It would be great if other NPR reporters refused to work for NPR until Juan Williams is offered his job back. I hope that happens, but doubt that it will.

4 comments:

  1. Lewis,

    You have to make up your mind about whether a contract of employment can or cannot limit or otherwise override an employee's right to free speech. I think it can, irrespective of the subject. You apparently think the answer depends upon whether the subject includes the right of Jews to live in Israel.

    The reasons you give justifying Helen Thomas's firing are curious. True, you mention that she might not have been as effective an employee now that she had made "hateful" comments, and you mention she was getting old (nice - will you be voting to reinstate mandatory retirement at the University?), but you also give two additional reasons: (1) "[You] for one [were] happy to see her go"; and (2) she had "few if any defenders as far I am aware."

    Lewis, I am confused. Please explain to me how the popularity of speech (with you in particular or with others in general) determines whether it may be freely expressed without employer sanction.

    Russ

    PS - by the way, since you evidently understand free speech to be in part a question of the popularity of the speech, I will add that I did not think Helen Thomas's comments were somehow illegitimate or, as you characterize them, "hateful". She advocates what you and I might see as a radical solution to the Middle East problem, to be sure, but then again displacing millions of people is hardly a novel suggestion in many parts of the world, including the Middle East, is it? I don't think it means that she "hates" Jews, or even Jews who live in Israel. Rather, I suspect - but do not know - that she views this issue from a perspective that is not untypical of her fellow Arab-Americans with cultural and maybe even familial connections to the people who were displaced 60 years ago in the same manner that she now suggests might be applied to their displacers. What is particularly interesting to me is that most people were surprised that she held this opinion - which, I think, demonstrates that she had managed to separate that opinion from her work.

    By the way, I DO agree with something else she said: (my paraphrase) criticizing Israel is not something that someone in public life in the US can usually get away with. There's truth in that, and I think that's a pity. I also think that crapping on people who criticize Israel is a misguided way of garnering support for Israel.

    (Lest you try to get me fired for expressing tolerance for Helen Thomas or support for one's right to criticize Israel, I should perhaps add that my personal opinion is that Jews should be able to live in Israel if they want, and that any solution to the Middle East problem must include a Jewish state. More fundamentally, I support Helen Thomas's employer's right to terminate its contract with her, BUT I also support that right in every instance, not just instances where someone has advocated a different solution than I would advocate to achieving peace in the Middle East.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Any opinion whether the Juan Williams scenario proves that Muslims control the media?

    Any second-thoughts about your comment that someone who is 90 is past their "best-before date"? (Agist much?)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lewis,
    I, too, am astonished by your distasteful comment about Helen Thomas's age. And I am puzzled by your further note that she had "few if any defenders." Defining the proper extent and limits of free speech is difficult enough without muddying the waters with such gratuitous and irrelevant considerations.
    Ron C

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with One Red Sock and with Ron C regarding your "well past her "best before" date."

    I've met some remarkably spry past-ninety-year-olds, and others who were old at fifty.

    It's also a rather dehumanizing remark, IMO. She ain't a can of soup, after all.

    "Juan Williams' firing was inexcusable. He is a well regarded civil rights advocate, has made it crystal clear on Fox News that he is totally opposed to racial profiling and scapegoating, and no-one, I mean no-one, can doubt his bona fides. That he feels "nervous" or "worried" when he is on a plane with someone in "Muslim garb" seems very weird to me, but hey, if that's how he feels, that's how he feels."

    - Well there's a difference between opinions held in the intellect as a matter of principle, and irrational, unreasoning psychic processes going on in the unconscious. The reality is that Juan Williams doesn't WANT to be a bigot - but he is.

    The signs are right there, Lewis. You just don't want to admit it, IMO, because you can't reconcile the evident conflict in your own mind. Maybe you have issues admitting that you have an unconscious yourself... dunno... don't know you at all.

    I agree that he shouldn't have been fired. He is, nevertheless, despite his best will and intentions, a bigot.

    Could be a hangover from childhood. I feel very lucky that my parents, did not have racism as one of their faults. I have observed that racist impulses which are ingrained from childhood are really hard to eradicate.

    ReplyDelete