The firing of Juan Williams for comments made on Bill O’Reilly’s show, The O’Reilly Factor, resurrects once again the power of culture to shape perspectives, behavior and events.
For the record, Williams said, “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.”
So what’s cultural about this?
In an earlier blog Ethnicity and the Supreme Court , I wrote about the social and cultural influence of Thurgood Marshall on Supreme Court deliberations as an African American. The case I focused on was McPherson vs. Rankin.
On March 30, 1981, McPherson and some fellow employees heard on an office radio that there had been an attempt to assassinate the President of the United States. Upon hearing that report, McPherson engaged a co-worker, Lawrence Jackson, who was apparently her boyfriend, in a brief conversation, which according to McPherson’s uncontroverted testimony went as follows:
“Q: What did you say?
“A: I said I felt that that would happen sooner or later.
“Q: Okay. And what did Lawrence say?
“A: Lawrence said, yeah, agreeing with me.
“Q: Okay. Now, when you — after Lawrence spoke, then what was your next comment?
“A: Well, we were talking — it’s a wonder why they did that. I felt like it would be a black person that did that, because I feel like most of my kind is on welfare and CETA, and they use Medicaid, and at the time, I was thinking that’s what it was. . . But then after I said that, and then Lawrence said, yeah, he’s cutting back Medicaid and food stamps. And I said, yeah, welfare and CETA. I said, shoot, if they go for him again, I hope they get him.”
McPherson’s last remark was overheard by another Deputy Constable, who, unbeknownst to McPherson, was in the room at the time. The remark was reported to Constable Rankin, who summoned McPherson. McPherson readily admitted that she had made the statement, but testified that she told Rankin, upon being asked if she made the statement, ”Yes, but I didn’t mean anything by it.” After their discussion, Rankin fired McPherson.
Rankin testified that, when he asked McPherson whether she meant the remark, she replied, “I sure do.” In neither of its opinions in this case did the District Court make an explicit finding regarding which version of this conflicting testimony it found credible. We note that the question whether McPherson “meant” the statement is ambiguous. Assuming that McPherson told Rankin she “meant it,” McPherson might think she had said that she “meant” that she disliked the President and would not mind if he were dead, while Rankin might believe that McPherson “meant” to indicate approval of, or in any event hope for, political assassination.
What’s interesting here is that members of the court themselves could not unequivocally decide among themselves what was meant by McPherson saying “she meant it” when asked that question by Constable Rankin. It was, as they noted, “ambiguous.” What is culturally relevant is that the ambiguity shown in the above transcript generally corresponds to differences in African American and U.S. mainstream discourse style as I discussed in my chapter “Fighting Words” in Black and White Styles in Conflict.
Briefly put: U.S. mainstream discourse style interprets ominous statements like McPherson saying she meant what she said to be on an action continuum, as suggesting that McPherson would or might act in some way, either directly or indirectly, in support of her feelings toward the President. This was the position that Constable Rankin took citing the role that the Sheriff’s office had in protecting the President were he to come to Houston and McPherson, by working in the office, having access to schedules and other information relevant to the President’s whereabouts.
The African American cultural position –which McPherson also corroborated in conversations I had with her at the time –saw those statements as expressions of how she felt but without any action-oriented implication.
So how is all of this relevant to Juan William’s comments and different takes –culturally speaking– on what they “meant”?
Did Juan Williams statement of how he felt when someone boards the plane in Muslim garb, reflect a bias that would carry over into his professional role and responsibility as NPR news analyst?
That’s the mainstream U.S. “action-oriented” cultural take.
Another would be that, expressions of feeling exist within their own domain, like the act of talking, and not on any action continuum, per se, which is more the African American cultural position.
Another would be that Juan William’s is being faulted for being honest and vocalizing how he felt whereas other news reporters who may have similar feelings slide by unnoticed.
So what are the real issues here?
Is it that Williams has those feelings or might act on them in some way or that he made them public?
Maybe it’s time to have an honest and public discussion on how reporters, or for that matter Supreme Court Justices, manage their feelings, while doing their job.
Let’s call it the spill-over effect.
That might be well worth listening to, as well as personally and culturally illuminating.