Illiberal Liberals: The Firing of Juan WIlliams

witch-king

Mr Williams should probably drive rather than fly if "Muslim garb" strikes so much fear in his heart.

Aside from netting him a $2 million dollar deal with Fox News for being a bigot, for which he'll continue to simply talk off the top of his head about all sorts of issues he knows nothing about, this may also help toughen up the erstwhile liberal. Certainly working for Ailes will put some steel in his huevos; but he should stay clear of the emocon Beck.

mougar

lol, emocon

mha

What blows my mind about this is thread that every time I am in the 'hood and the sun has set , if I am 5 feet behind any of the whitegirls who tramp about, they hold their purses as if they have a million dollars in it. So many of the same people here who are tsk-tsking at JW's candor are some of the most fearful fools on the planet. The hypocrisy is stifling. The uniformity of thought is crippling. If at least HALF of you said, 'You know, it was refreshing to hear a Black guy mention cognizance about his own bias...'; if only a quarter of you were able to parse what he said, separating the valid points from the bias; but no. Sheep I tell you. Sheep, sheep, sheep, sheep. Narcissistic sheep blinded by your own sense of noblesse oblige... RALPH! I just vomited in your honor...

whynot_31

I heard he got a good offer from Fox. ....they will let him speak his mind.

They seem let just about anyone who doesn't fear white conservatives people speak their mind.

It's like watching 1950s TV, but with cool graphics.

krowonhill

Like MHA, I was amazed at how many posters here supported Williams' firing. When I surfed on over to the NPR site, it was a very different story. The majority of comments there were extremely critical of NPR's decision.

whynot_31

I'd take a stronger position on his firing if I knew what happened behind the scene. Other than that, I am just a fan of Employment at Will.

krowonhill

In the mid 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville, the French intellectual, had this to say about the American character:

"I know of no other country where there is so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America ... The majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent if he ever step beyond them."

But for the reference to writing instead of speaking, he could have been talking about this very incident

cool the kid

MHA wrote: if I am 5 feet behind any of the whitegirls who tramp about

Wow....

mha

"Rowlf!" The puddle that the pigeons peck at is in your honor CTK.

rosweed

MHA wrote: "Rowlf!" The puddle that the pigeons peck at is in your honor CTK.

Hope you feel better. Unusual way of feeding the wildlife, though.

MHA wrote: "What blows my mind about this is thread that every time I am in the 'hood and the sun has set , if I am 5 feet behind any of the whitegirls who tramp about, they hold their purses as if they have a million dollars in it. So many of the same people here who are tsk-tsking at JW's candor are some of the most fearful fools on the planet. The hypocrisy is stifling. The uniformity of thought is crippling. If at least HALF of you said, 'You know, it was refreshing to hear a Black guy mention cognizance about his own bias...'; if only a quarter of you were able to parse what he said, separating the valid points from the bias; but no. Sheep I tell you. Sheep, sheep, sheep, sheep. Narcissistic sheep blinded by your own sense of noblesse oblige... RALPH! I just vomited in your honor...

As far as I can tell you are the first person to mention race in this thread. In any case what does that have to do with anything?

krowonhill

rosweed wrote:

As far as I can tell you are the first person to mention race in this thread. In any case what does that have to do with anything?

rosweed, perhaps you missed that Juan Williams himself first mentioned race?

Ah, the allergy against discussing race seems to be spreading across this board. Sad, since the rest of America is rising to the challenge of talking about it, in wake of the Juan Williams' firing.

rosweed

krowonhill - Williams may have mentioned his race, but not on this thread. I have no allergy, I just don't think race is relevant to his dismissal.

whynot_31

While Mr Williams may believe his firing was due to his race, I think it important to reserve making a decision on his perception.

It is very difficult to guess ones motivation behind ones actions.

In this case Mr Williams has his opinions and NPR cites it's contract with reporters and editorial board members. I prefer to avoid such debates, and let the standard of Employment at will stand.

Mr Williams should pursue NPR in court if he believes he was fired as a result of being a member of a protected class. If he is upset over being fired for expressing his views, I'll gladly give him a Kleenex, but he does not seem to have legal grounds for reinstatement.

....but I'll wait for any court case before taking a firm position.

mha

I am not saying that Williams was fired because of his race. I am saying that what Williams is referring to is no different than white women who clutch their purses when they see someone that they think has the potential to threaten them: Those who have expressed approval of Williams' termination don't see the irony between his comments and their own likely similar behavior.

Has Juan Williams made commentary about his race being a variable in his termination? If such is the case, I truly have not heard him say that. I am intrigued by that. I can see how the argument could be made, but I have not yet seen that.

Roseweed, maybe you ought to clarify. You too whynot. Where has Wiliam's made the argument that he was fired because of his race?

booklaw

Whatever he may have thought, and whatever reason he may have had for thinking it, is irrelevant; as a newscaster at a radio station, his duty is to preserve the station's reputation for objectivity.

If he is more interested in being a pundit than a newscaster, perhaps he should go to Fox... oh, wait, that's exactly what he did, and exactly where he belongs!

rosweed

I didn't say Williams mentioned race. I don't know if he did, and I really don't care. My point was that somebody brought up race in this thread when it wasn't relevant to the discussion and it still isn't.

whynot_31

I hope the next correspondent reads their contract carefully, and follows it. I feel as if I know some of the familiar voices on NPR.

Ms Goodman, Mr Smiley, Mr Glass, etc

mha

I agree -- and I disagree Roseweed. I agree with you because this thread isn't about race, per se. It is about Juan Williams making a two prong faux pas.

The first prong is that he admitted to his uneasiness when he is at the airport and he sees Muslims.

The second prong is that he takes issue with these Muslims because, he thinks that their fealty is to Islam before it is to America.


I made comment about race because I think that, like him, many people prejudge. As Whynot likes to quote Avenue Q, 'we are all a little bit racist'. And I equated the prejudice I witness from white chicks as they tramp -- or walk -- about Franklin Avenue, with Juan Williams own prejudice when he sees Muslims.

From what I can tell, folks here blathered on and on about the virtue of his termination for his PREJUDICE, but few have spoken about the real error of his ways: the second prong I referred to earlier.

So yeah, it ain't about race, but yeah, it is. And yeah, it's relevant.

whynot_31

If NPR was smart, they didn't give him a reason other than breaking the contract.

If he feels he did not, he could pursue them in court.

Actually, he might not even have that remedy because many employees (even those with contracts) can be terminated without cause as a result of (yup, you guessed it) employment at will tenets.

mha

Yep, employment at will means NPR has the right to terminate employment contracts -- at will. However, what of the argument that NPR's termination of Williams imputes stereotypical liberal political correctness on NPR's part, and an unwillingness to deal with differing ideas? Their firing of him seems so self-righteously Victorian. And what of freedom of speech?

Many will say, 'How would you feel if someone did or said something racist and did not get fired ,? And I guess that's a valid counter argument. However, I think so much is lost from not challenging Williams' , and I think that won't occur at Fox; rather his perspective will be encouraged, as I have no doubt that many in this country view Muslims and Islam as 'unpatriotic', and they watch Fox TV.

whynot_31

I predict they weighed such factors, then canned him.

I'll keep listening

booklaw

"Freedom of speech" only means that (in most cases) the government will not interfere with your right to speak your mind. Private parties, such as employers or websites, are not required to provide "freedom of speech" to their employees or users.

whynot_31

I can only imagine what a nightmare it would be if employers had to provide freedom of speech.

mha

But the Supreme court recognizes corporate entities as individuals, and thusly, the freedom of speech is afforded to them. NPR would not have gotten sued by anyone because of Williams comments. They fired him because of ideological differences, and maybe because some corporate sponsor told them to do so. They devalued their goodwill with their firing of him. The liberal left is supposed to be a trumpet for free speech, regardless of what that speech is. They failed to blow the horn here.

The ACLU defends all forms of lower life all in the name of free speech. They don't do this because they agree with the sentiment of the purveyor of offensive speech, but rather because they see as ideal the protection of the right to free speech, regardless of what the speech is. NPR ought to have shamed Williams, but kept him in their employ. By firing him, they shame themselves.

whynot_31

I am confident the execs at NPR are aware the organization enjoys freedom of speech.

....I suspect they may have feared other consquences. We discussed above that they may have perceived him in breach of his contract, or as affecting their reputation as a news source.

They likely weighed how many people felt they "shamed themselves" against such factors before firing him.

Whatever factors they weighed, it is clear they felt he had to go.

boygabriel

MHA wrote: From what I can tell, folks here blathered on and on about the virtue of his termination for his PREJUDICE, but few have spoken about the real error of his ways: the second prong I referred to earlier.

There's an entire section of the conversation devoted to this, and how Williams doesn't really explain how prejudices, while perhaps natural, are hurtful and must be acknowledged and overcome.

booklaw

MHA, you don't seem to understand: the right of freedom of speech is guaranteed to the network, not to its employees. NPR has the right to determine who will speak on its air, and what they will say. Individual employees of NPR do not have that right.

mha

I do understand. I'm not debating NPR's right to fire Mr. Williams. I am disappointed that they did. Freedom of Speech is a right afforded to all persons, corporal and incorporated, but as an employee of a corporate structure, he does not have that right.

eggcream

krowonhill wrote: Like MHA, I was amazed at how many posters here supported Williams' firing. When I surfed on over to the NPR site, it was a very different story. The majority of comments there were extremely critical of NPR's decision.

They agree with his firing, like any liberal, when it's an attack on muslims. They'd be high-fiving each other if his comments were about Catholics. Just look at NPR's hypocrisy with Totenberg. She can wish aids on a man and his grandchildren and still have a job and Williams said it on OReilly's show.

Ya'll also are leaving out when Williams said right after his opinion "that all Muslims should not be viewed as extremists and that “we don’t want, in America, people to have their rights violated.” Still wasn't good enough for liberal elitists who didn't have the decency to fire the man face to face. Cowards fired him over the phone and continued their idiocy by saying he should talk it over with his psychiatrist.

Basically, NPR fired a black guy for going on Fox and for saying what millions Americans also believe. Good for FOX for hiring someone who has their own opinion.
Freedom of speech for me but not for thee.

Defund NPR.

How Public Is NPR's Funding?


So far, we find that NPR member stations count on direct or indirect taxpayer money for some 25% of their funds -- and that's before we consider some of the largest portions of their budgets.

Given that only 89% of the NPR income pie comes from external sources (the rest coming from investment returns), it is not unreasonable to assert that more than 25% of NPR funds from outside sources actually comes from taxpayers. That's not an overwhelming portion of the budget, but it's a long way from two to three percent.

As annoying as I find the bias at MSNBC or the New York Times, I will respect to the end their right to be as biased as they'd like. What they do with their money and whatever funds they can convince advertisers to kick in is their own business. The same does not apply to the likes of NPR. That's your money and my money going into their coffers and funding that unbalanced message. We need to demand that NPR either be pushed away from the public trough or be required to present a modicum of evenhandedness.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding.html

carnivore