Should Juan Williams have been fired...

[Army Husker]

I personally like Juan and hate to see him get released from NPR. Guess Fox News will now have a new, full-time, moderate anchor somewhere.

 

 

Should Juan Williams have been fired?

 

Adam Serwer is a staff writer for The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

 

Recently journalists like Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas have been fired or forced to resign for remarks they made about Jews, exposing a rather glaring double-standard in the media regarding similar or equivalent statements about Muslims. The last few weeks have offered further examples, with media figures like FOX's Bill O'Reilly and Brian Kilmeade trumpeting the idea that Muslims everywhere bear collective responsibility for 9/11, and saying things like "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

 

I'm sympathetic to Glenn Greenwald's argument that generally speaking, it's a bad idea to fire people for remarks like these without an actual pattern of behavior, unless the instance is really egregious -- but if there's going to be a high standard of sensitivity it should be applied equally. When I initially heard about Juan Williams being fired for his remarks about Muslims on the O'Reilly Factor, I thought NPR had jumped the gun. But going back and watching the video, I think too much focus has been put on this half of the statement:

 

I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

 

Jeffery Goldberg writes that "The first quotation reflects the views, I'm guessing, of the vast majority of people who fly in this country." That really doesn't matter as to whether or not the above remarks qualify as prejudice -- assuming people might be terrorists because they are wearing "Muslim garb" is the textbook definition of prejudice. Prejudice doesn't cease to be prejudice because it is widely held. Whether or not Williams "is a bigot" is beside the point, this is a bigoted statement.

 

That said, because it's a feeling that's so widely shared, it's a topic worthy of public discussion. Everyone at some point succumbs to their prejudices -- if reasonable people couldn't possess them then prejudice wouldn't be a problem. Had Williams phrased his statement differently, or made it under different circumstances, the conversation might have been constructive. The problem is that it's clear from the context that Williams wasn't merely confessing his own personal fears, he was reassuring O'Reilly that he was right to see all Muslims as potential terrorists. This is how he prefaced his remarks:

 

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don't want to get your ego going. But I think you're right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality.

 

The thing is, the idea that one should be afraid of anyone who "looks Muslim" isn't reality, it's silliness. He wasn't speaking some brave truth or making a personal confession, he was suggesting there's nothing wrong with looking at Muslims that way.

 

That's a genuine problem, especially for a news outlet as studiously neutral as NPR, which has gone so far as to bar reporters from attending the march being held by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. FOX News' treatment of Muslims also can't really be called news coverage -- given the sheer volume of falsehoods about Muslims and Islam it's injected into the national discourse, it's really more accurately described as a politically motivated smear campaign. Given NPR's previously expressed discomfort with Williams' affiliation with FOX, it's not surprising that they would feel that Williams had finally crossed a line. Indeed many of Williams's conservative defenders are objecting because they believe Williams was correct to look at complete strangers as potential terrorists just because they're Muslims, not because it's wrong to fire people for impolitic statements.

 

That said, like Conor Friedersdorf, I think firing people for things like this tends to chill the public discourse. Misconceptions should be discussed publicly rather than driven underground where they can fester and remain unchallenged. The problem is that on FOX, they are both widely expressed and unchallenged. That isn't promoting honesty, it's enabling Islamophobic hysteria.

 

 

By Adam Serwer | October 21, 2010; 11:24 AM ET

Categories: Political media

[knapplc]

NPR also barred their employees from the Glenn Beck rally, or any other political rally. They do that so there's no semblance whatsoever that they approve of or turn a blind eye toward advocacy of a party or political movement. Funny or not, satire or not, Stewart and Colbert both lean Left, and their rally will be viewed by some as Left-wing propaganda. So banning their employees from these rallies is pretty on-par with NPR's SOP.

 

It's a close call whether Williams should have been fired. Certainly in a pre-9/11, less-PC world he would not have been. What he is saying is true - but that doesn't mean it should be said.

[Husker_x]

Yawn.

 

The fact that we're at war with Islamic terrorism unfortunately puts the moderate Muslims under a microscope when it involves airports. I didn't notice Juan concluding anything from his statement, e.g. that Muslims shouldn't be allowed on planes or allowed to wear whatever clothing they like, but only a personal unease. It may be a dumb comment, but media types are way too quick on the draw these days with words like 'bigot' and 'racist.' Chill out.

[carlfense]

Eh. Can't say that I have strong feelings one way or another on this one.

 

Looks like NPR was within their legal rights.

 

A bunch of people have asked me whether NPR’s firing of Juan Williams for his statement about Muslims on The O’Reilly Factor violates the First Amendment. The answer is “no.” NPR is not a government actor, and thus not bound by the First Amendment; that it gets some funding from the government does not make it a government actor, just as private colleges’ getting grants and other benefits doesn’t make them government actors bound by the First Amendment. See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982) (so holding, even as to a school that got 90% of its money from the government).

 

The government may by statute impose many conditions on the use of government funds — that’s what Congress did with Title VI and Title IX (which generally bar recipients of federal funds from discriminating based on race and sex). Congress thus might condition NPR’s funding on its not firing commentators based on their off-NPR speech. (I say “might” because there are some twists which I set aside for now.) But Congress hasn’t enacted such a statute, and it is of course under no obligation to do so.

 

Volokh Conspiracy

[huskertim]

I kind of liked Juan on NPR. I really don't think his firing had much to do with this more or less benign comment. Sounds like NPR has been pretty bent about his affiliation with fox for awhile and this just provided an excuse. Sorros aside, most of NPR's support comes from a predominantly libral listenership (and yes I listen but let's call a spade a spade here). I suspect that, had this conversation occured on Anderson Cooper, it would have been deemed insightful and worthy of further discussion. Just my opion.

 

Just an aside, are there any african ameicans left at NPR now?

[sarge87]

Just an aside, are there any african ameicans left at NPR now?

Nope. They're just as lily white as MSNBC now.

[huskertim]

Just an aside, are there any african ameicans left at NPR now?

Nope. They're just as lily white as MSNBC now.

 

 

Wow, how very progressive of them.

[Nebula]

You can disregard anything you hear on NPR as scripted now. They made it pretty clear that there are acceptable viewpoints at NPR, and then there are perceptions that are completely unacceptable and will apparently result in immediate termination. It's entertainment, not news. They aren't interested in expanding any kind of discussion, only in furthering their own agenda.

 

I'm pretty sure the same rules apply at Fox News and MSNBC.

[Vuren]

NPR also barred their employees from the Glenn Beck rally, or any other political rally. They do that so there's no semblance whatsoever that they approve of or turn a blind eye toward advocacy of a party or political movement. Funny or not, satire or not, Stewart and Colbert both lean Left, and their rally will be viewed by some as Left-wing propaganda. So banning their employees from these rallies is pretty on-par with NPR's SOP.

 

It's a close call whether Williams should have been fired. Certainly in a pre-9/11, less-PC world he would not have been. What he is saying is true - but that doesn't mean it should be said.

completely disagree.

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

Is he doing anything other than occasionally appearing on Fox news?

[sarge87]

Is he doing anything other than occasionally appearing on Fox news?

Williams is a contributor to a number of national magazines, including Fortune, The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, Ebony magazine, TIME and GQ and frequents a wide range of television programs including ABC's Nightline, Washington Week on PBS, and The Oprah Winfrey Show.