Double Standards & Racism: Williams & Thomas

On the firings of Juan Williams and Helen Thomas:

It was a rash decision to fire Juan Williams. A thorough review should have occurred. While his comment that seeing Muslims on airplanes made him feel uncomfortable certainly had racist undertones–which I'll explain–media outlets and other entities that value a diversity of opinions, like universities, should not so easily fire people based on their opinions. People from different backgrounds with different ideas are the sign of a vibrant organization. When those opinions are harmful to individuals or unsupported with good scholarship, then they deserve review.

The real question about Williams' comments is why did he express them in the first place? Also, why were these comments not denounced outside NPR as the comments of Helen Thomas that lead to her firing from the Washington Post were?

On the first question, we can see that Muslims have now been associated with terrorism, particularly on planes. What role has the media played in this? Is this portrayal accurate? Would these comments be appropriate if another group of people were used instead of Muslims?

The media has certainly played up the Muslim-terrorist connection, particularly related to air travel. While Muslims were involved in Sep 11, certainly the millions of Muslims that fly on airplanes are not terrorists. Finally, if Williams said he was uncomfortable when he sees a black man in a grocery store (implying black men have robbed grocery stores) would such comments be acceptable? Of course the answer is no. Those are not only stereotypes, but are racist. (admittedly Williams probably wouldn't say that because he is black himself, but that's not the point)

Now when comparing the reaction to Williams' firing with Thomas', you can see two columns appearing in the same section of the New York Times on the same day. In the one regarding Thomas her comments were called "insensitive," "infamous," "incendiary" and her new job "naturally stirred up anger." She is also described with positive terms, such as her "tenacious," reputation and was noted for her "stature and professionalism" by her new employer. In general, however, she was described as a controversial figure. The author said her "misguided anger" was the result of being the child of Lebanese-Syrian parents. Does that mean that all immigrants have misguided anger or just Lebanese-Syrians? Does that mean Lebanese and Syrian frustration at Israel are misguided? Such a sentence leaves too many questions, makes too many implications and does not take history into consideration. The author also said that she defended her statements in a recent speech, ignoring that she made an apology when she left her job.

In the one regarding Williams no such negative adjectives were attributed to his comments. Instead, NPR's decision to fire him were "hasty," and created a "firestorm" and a "flashpoint." NPR executives were labeled "Nazis" and as part of an "incestuous culture in that institution that’s not open to not only different ways of thinking but angry." The article noted twice that federal funding to NPR was in question. Not only that, but it also leaves NPR "with no prominent African-American male voice," implying that NPR has not made efforts to hire black males and possibly that race played into his firing.

In journalism we are not supposed to introduce the race of a person unless it is relevant to the story. Both articles decided race was relevant. You may also note that no voices critical of Williams' comments or hiring at Fox News occur in the story, such as from a Muslim organization. In the column about Thomas several critical opinions appear about her comments and her new job, including from a prominent Jewish voice, Ari Fleischer.

What both these affairs indicate is a rejection of racism in America directed at some groups, but not others. It is no longer acceptable to publicly denounce Jewish or black people, but Muslims (and Latinos) are fine targets because they are largely considered law-breaking illegal immigrants and terrorists. This is an obvious case of double standards

and a clear example of bias in the media, as shown by the two New York Times columns.

On immigration 2006

On immigration….

October 10th, 2006 by abossone

This was an email exchange between a friend and me. Guess which one I wrote.

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let’s say I break into your house. Let’s say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I’ve made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I’ve done all the things you don’t like to do. I’m hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family’s insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there.

It’s only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m just trying to better myself. I’m hard-working and honest, um, except for well, you know.

And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Reply:

Let’s say one day you wake up and your house is clean. Your find your refrigerator stocked, your laundry washed, your lawn mowed and your garden pruned. Even your sickly old mother has her bed sheets changed. You know who did it; you got a great deal on the whole thing. But you don’t want to say anything because you don’t want to put it on your tax forms. You come find out that the same person built your house, paved your driveway and streets, grew the produce in your fridge, packaged the laundry soap for your clothes and made the food in your favorite restaurant, in addition to doing everything for your neighbor that he did for you. And you also found out he was invited all the local businesses.

Then you hear this person has children, and wants to give them an education, just like your children. And he too has a sickly mother who desires proper health care. You’re bothered by this because YOUR government is failing to give these things to your kids and parents, so why should it provide for someone else’s? And on top of that, this person, along with his 40 million friends who have been living in YOUR country, doesn’t even speak the same language as you. Of course you know that all 6 billion people on this Earth should speak the same language as the 300 million in YOUR country. Why doesn’t he know this? Of course you ignore the fact that your grandparents didn’t speak your language, and struggled for all of their lives to just to learn this language only to be insulted for the way they pronounced it.

Still, you don’t say anything. You know he’s not supposed to be here, but your house is clean, your food is plentiful and you even heard this person goes to church so he won’t burn in hell like those other people.

But one day, someone with similar colored skin (but looks entirely different) who speaks a different language, comes from an entirely different part of the world, and got into YOUR country with the permission of YOUR government, blows up your neighbor’s business.

Now there’s a crisis. How could this person who has worked diligently for so long have gotten into YOUR country? Who does he think he is? He has worked cheaply and efficiently for years, giving savings to you and your friends, and he actually has the nerve to ask for basic services? How could he dare put a burden on HONEST taxpayers like you? He has to go, and thank God for YOUR government for doing
something about it and protecting more businesses.

Of course you don’t blame YOUR government for allowing this situation to reach this point. You don’t blame YOUR government for creating the proper means to enter YOUR country, like it did for YOUR grandparents. You don’t blame YOUR government for instituting free trade agreements that only benefit big companies and further reinforces poverty. You don’t blame YOUR government because that would be unpatriotic; we all know dissent is contradictory to Democracy and we have to support our politicians who have it sooo much harder than we do.

You don’t blame the guy who invited this person to YOUR country and employed him, at wages lower than allowed by law, for longer hours than anyone else, and under conditions detrimental to his health, and then didn’t claim this person worked for him because he might have to pay taxes that support services like health care and education.

And of course you don’t blame yourself for taking advantage of this person for so long simply because you got everything you wanted for cheap. And you don’t blame yourself for being a hypocrite that goes to church every Sunday but fails to acknowledge the basic human rights that every person should be afforded.

And who cares anyway? There’s those other dark people who live on the other side of town and would just love to scrub the toilets that you are too lazy and proud to do yourself.