Somebody call John McWhorter
Heres the nut graph of a commentary piece by David Williams that ran in OSUs Daily Barometer:
My point, however, is this: There is a lack of morality in the black community because African American leaders, whether Jesse Jackson or the NAACP, choose to rally around minorities who seem to have little quality characteristics about them.
Why don’t black leaders call out people like Allen Iverson and Sammy Sosa and say, “Hey, there are millions of young African Americans who worship you; why don’t you start showing up for work on time and stop putting cork in your bat?”
Sure, that’s contrite and overly simplistic and there are bad apples in more than just athletics, but you get the point.
Heres the Barometers response after the usual bunch of leftists staged a protest:
On Friday, April 9, The Daily Barometer published a column by staff columnist David Williams that was racially insensitive and inappropriate.
We apologize to everyone for printing the column.
While the opinions expressed in columns are not representative of the staff members of the Barometer, we have a policy never to print material that is discriminatory, racist or sexist.
By printing such material in the Barometer, we legitimize the messages, even if we don’t agree.
We never meant to offer racially insensitive opinions as valid ones by printing the column. . . .
The plain and simple fact is this: We made an inexcusable mistake.
We apologize to the African American community, who was [sic] no doubt disappointed, hurt and outraged by the column. . .
David Williams will no longer be writing for the Barometer.
Heres the Editor In Chiefs contact information:
EDITOR IN CHIEF Niki Sullivan
541-737-3191 [email protected]
I know Ill be wishing her my best! I caught wind of this controversy on Lars Larson, but its spreading all over the usual conservative websites. Expect to see the author on OReilly shortly
health insurance price quote home owner insurance online quote insurance rate term life insurance quote health insurance quote home owner insurance rate home owner insurance rate term life insurance quote online health insurance quote car insurance quote term insurance rate home owner insurance rate life insurance rate online auto insurance quote home insurance rate term life insurance quote online life insurance quote online insurance quote term life insurance quote insurance quote
Can we leave this one up, Sho? It’s a found-art masterpiece.
I will kill it!
Hey, is this our first ever comment spammer? Wow, just like the big-time blogs get.
Forgot my footnote:
*Nees v. Hocks is a funny case name.
Ooh, a legal question! Time to crawl out of my cave! After about an hour of research, here’s a shot at it:
Short answer: Maybe.
Long answer: Unfortunately, there is no spot-on Oregon precedent on this question, probably because no one else in the media has yet thought it wise to fire an editorialist for editorializing.
The nearest analogy is a case involving a public school teacher circulating materials critical of his employer’s facial hair policy. In Shockey v. Portland, 313 Or 414, 425-26 (1992), the Oregon Supreme Court declared that “a teacher’s exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment.” However, I assume Williams was an at-will employee, as opposed to a unionized public employee, and hence enjoyed far fewer legal protections in his employment relationship.
At-will employment relationships can be ended by either party at any time for any reason, with a few exceptions, one of which is the “public policy” exception. Under Oregon law, a discharge of an at-will employee may be deemed “wrongful” when the discharge is for either:
(1) fulfilling some important public duty (Some examples include refusing to defame a fellow employee, Delaney v. Taco Time Int’l, 297 Or 10 (1984), and serving on a jury, Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210 (1975).* “Public duties” are those positive actions mandated by the constitution, statutes and case law.), or
(2) exercising a job-related right that reflects an important public policy. (In Brown v. Transcon Lines, 284 Or 597 (1978), an employee was unlawfully discharged for filing a workers’ compensation claim.)
At first glance, the free expression of an opinion would appear to fit better in the first category, with refusing to defame or serving on a jury–rather more civic actions than workers’ comp. The catch is that, unlike jury duty or an obligation not to break the law, free speech is not an affirmative “public duty”, merely a right to be freely exercised.
But if free speech is a right, and one is a paid opinion columnist, it’s not a big leap to consider it a job-related right. So the discharge can be seen as unlawful for contravening the public policy interest in free speech.
However, the right of free speech gives as much support to the Barometer’s position as it does to Williams’. To hold the Barometer liable in this situation would be to infringe on their freedoms of speech and of association. Compelling the Barometer to retain or to pay money damages to Williams would impact “their right to print what they want,” Collard v. Smith Newspapers, 915 F. Supp. 805, 811 (1996). See also Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 256 (holding that a right-of-reply statute violates First Amendment because it operates as regulation on what newspaper publisher prints).
This point — that both parties have the same right to free speech — distinguishes the Barometer situation from that seen in Transcon, above, where the public-policy related right at issue was exclusively that of the employee. (It also largely distinguishes it from Shockey, way above.) The tension here between the rights of the newspaper and of the writer — both implicating the public interest in free speech — may cancel public policy right out of the equation. Firing Williams was both an act of free speech and a suppression of it, both a promotion of public policy and a thwarting of it. Meaning Williams has no case.
But it’s a matter that’s untested in Oregon. Maybe we’re heading someplace interesting here.
Interesting management style: Allowing a columnist to run a column and then firing him for it. Since Sullivan felt it necessary to respond to the outcry, she should have left it at the rather blatant apology. If she still felt further action was needed, she should have resigned. The question is whether he has a liable lawsuit against the paper or not for being wronfully terminated.
There’s a good editorial about the whole uproar over at The Oregonian. It compares and contrasts the Barometer columnist’s piece with some commentary written by Leonard Pitts Jr. earlier this month (Pitts is an African American columnist).
It’s a somewhat lame column, but it pretty much gets the point across. And, of course, the guy was fired and branded a racist. Typical. This guy said, essentially, that maybe Jesse Jackson et. al. shouldn’t rally around people whose actions are questionable or whose behavior is shady. Iverson, Simpson, R. Kelly? These are not good role models for anyone, and rallying around them does nothing positive…where’s Jackson congratulating Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Thurgood Marshall, or Clarence Thomas? Oh right, three of the four are turncoats to the cause and thereby to be denigrated. Granted, this kid didn’t make his point in a terribly nuanced way, but the editor at the Barometer should know better than to can him over a few hyper-sensitive folks calling him a racist.