A letter to the editor in today's Times-Dispatch:
The Times-Dispatch occasionally expresses disapproval of “political correctness” in political discourse. Your editorial “Wrong Word,” taking John Kerry to task for his “apartheid” comment, suggests to me that the malady has penetrated even your own good offices. Speaking at a closed-door meeting, Kerry expressed concern that if a peace agreement is not achieved, providing for two states (Israeli and Palestinian), then Israel risked becoming an “apartheid state.” Kerry has, as noted in your editorial, expressed regret for using the term., even though top Israeli leaders have themselves invoked the specter of apartheid in a single, unitary Israeli state.
During his many years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry had a strong record of support for Israel and its security. Since becoming secretary of state, he has given highest priority to achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians. None of this moves the Times-Dispatch to forgive the secretary’s politically incorrect choice of words. Rather, you liken his comment to those of “Israel bashers from the hard left.” Your concluding statement tops that, declaring that “Kerry either is ignorant or malevolent, or both.” From my perspective, your editorial follows the mantra of the hard right — any statement even conceivably critical of Israel is forbidden. Perhaps we can agree that rigid adherence to “political correctness” -— whether in deference to the right or left — impedes the search for truth.
It always happens, without fail. You could practically set your watch by it.
Someone, somewhere, in a public setting, says something stupid. Or racist. Or sexist. Or all of the above. As they are reaping the consequences for their poorly-considered words, however, someone almost always comes out of the woodwork to whine: "free speech! They're entitled to their opinion!". This is the common thread running through the Chik-Fil-A CEO, Phil Robertson and Donald Sterling sagas.
It represents a major misunderstanding of what the First Amendment says. It entitles you to the freedom to say whatever you like - not the freedom from consequences when you do so. Words are powerful. They have consequences. The freedom to say whatever we like with no consequences is one of the rights we voluntarily surrender to live in an orderly, civilized society.
There is also the right of a business to control how they are perceived by the public. If the NBA, or A&E, or any other company don't want to be associated with some idiot with diarrhea of the mouth, they have the right to disassociate themselves - via firing, suspension, fines, or whatever other punishments they decide to mete out, within reason.
Before we start treating people who casually toss out racial (Sterling) or sexual (Robertson) slurs and stereotypes as put-upon heroes, it would behoove us to remember that our society has set certain standards of behavior, and the gentlemen above have violated them. Anywhere else, as a result, they would be asked to leave as punishment for their transgression. Why should the public arena be any different?
No comments:
Post a Comment