Juan Williams Fired from NPR - Political Correctness or Good Reason?

[CowboyBob]

Have to admit I'd be nervous if I saw this fellow hanging around the litterbox.

 

[Kulindahr]

Amusingly, someone has dug up a 1986 New Republic piece asking for responses to a jewelry store owner not letting black men in through the security buzzer.

Juan Williams was one of them. He wrote "Common sense becomes racism when skin color becomes a formula for figuring out who is a danger to me."

Oh, what his life hanging out at FOX has taught him since.

https://www.msu.edu/course/psy/442/cialec4.htm

And what has that got to do with what he said?

Where did he propose a formula?


The theme here is basically that if someone has human feelings and you don't like them, it's okay to fire the guy.

 

[MercuryJones]

And what has that got to do with what he said?

Everything. In the first case there's a jeweler who decides certain people are a danger to him because of a superficial feature, and in the second Juan Williams feels certain people are a danger to him because of a superficial feature.

The theme here is basically that if someone has human feelings and you don't like them, it's okay to fire the guy.

Don't be silly. Everyone has human feelings. No one is entitled to be paid for them, or to a particular job.

When you pay someone to perform professionally within certain standards and they fail to do so, you're entitled to fire them. You, me, IBM, Apple, the architect down the street, and even NPR. There's freedom of association.

 

[Críostóir]

And what has that got to do with what he said?

Where did he propose a formula?


The theme here is basically that if someone has human feelings and you don't like them, it's okay to fire the guy.

No, it's that if you make a contract to behave in a certain way, and then don't behave in that way, it's OK to fire you.

His statements were in violation of the conditions of his employment at NPR. He agreed not to say anything on any airwaves that would not be acceptable on NPR's airwaves. Whether or not you view that as a reasonable agreement, he voluntarily signed onto it.

It's OK for him to have his human feelings. But he has to present a public face of objectivity, or his effectiveness as a journalist (and thus his usefulness to NPR) is reduced.

I haven't regarded Juan Williams as objective since the early days of the Bush Administration, when his softball questions and suckup behavior as White House Correspondent made it very obvious where his biases lay. I called for his firing then, but of course NPR did not listen.

Now, of course, he's gone where he doesn't even have to pretend to be either objective or a journalist: he has a sweet-deal contract with Faux News.

 

[MercuryJones]

No, it's that if you make a contract to behave in a certain way, and then don't behave in that way, it's OK to fire you.

And if NPR has violated Williams' rights in some way by paying him and then not paying him, what about all the people they never paid at all?

Are people now actually saying that your free speech is violated by people not paying you for your opinions?

 

[Kulindahr]

Everything. In the first case there's a jeweler who decides certain people are a danger to him because of a superficial feature, and in the second Juan Williams feels certain people are a danger to him because of a superficial feature.

You dodge the issue: where did he state a formula? He was asked about his feelings, he answered about his feelings. He didn't advocate any systematic characterization or profiling.

So there's no similarity at all.

Don't be silly. Everyone has human feelings. No one is entitled to be paid for them, or to a particular job.

When you pay someone to perform professionally within certain standards and they fail to do so, you're entitled to fire them. You, me, IBM, Apple, the architect down the street, and even NPR. There's freedom of association.

Where did he "fail to perform"? Was he being paid by NPR at the time? No -- he was in his own life, not under their terms of employment.

The only justification for your position is claiming that they don't just employ him, but own him.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, it's that if you make a contract to behave in a certain way, and then don't behave in that way, it's OK to fire you.

His statements were in violation of the conditions of his employment at NPR. He agreed not to say anything on any airwaves that would not be acceptable on NPR's airwaves. Whether or not you view that as a reasonable agreement, he voluntarily signed onto it.

You're saying the contract required him to be theirs 24/7?!

It's OK for him to have his human feelings. But he has to present a public face of objectivity, or his effectiveness as a journalist (and thus his usefulness to NPR) is reduced.

He has to be objective in his personal feelings? I should think he'd be more effective if he was plainly human in his personal life, but could be objective in his work.

 

[MercuryJones]

You dodge the issue: where did he state a formula? He was asked about his feelings, he answered about his feelings. He didn't advocate any systematic characterization or profiling.

He decried someone else deciding who was a danger based on superficial criteria, then did the same.

Where did he "fail to perform"? Was he being paid by NPR at the time? No -- he was in his own life, not under their terms of employment.

The only justification for your position is claiming that they don't just employ him, but own him.

He wasn't an hourly employee - he was on a contract. I don't know the specifics of his contract, nor do you in all likelihood.

NPR said they termed the contract because his appearance “undermined his credibility as a news analyst” and I have no reason to think that was not in keeping with a contract he agreed to. That's not ownership - that's an agreement between two parties.

Are you suggesting that NPR's decision violated their contractual agreement with Williams?

 

[Kulindahr]

He decried someone else deciding who was a danger based on superficial criteria, then did the same.

Rubbish. He didn't establish a formula or propose a policy, he answered a question about his FEELINGS.

Here's the difference: I often tense up and get nervous when airplanes fly over. But I'm not proposing that everyone should have to regard airplanes as menacing, nor am I stating that I have made it a policy in my own life to treat all airplanes as menacing.

Are you suggesting that NPR's decision violated their contractual agreement with Williams?

Yes, because any contract to sign away your rights is invalid to begin with, so even if their contract claimed ownership over his private life, it was invalid. And for a liberal outfit like NPR to not recognize that bit of individual liberty would be astounding. They were being tyrannical, and they knew it.

 

[MercuryJones]

Yes, because any contract to sign away your rights is invalid to begin with, so even if their contract claimed ownership over his private life, it was invalid.

His contract didn't violate his rights. There is no right to be paid by NPR for your opinions - or do you have some constitutional guarantee stating otherwise?

Juan Williams is effectively his own employer, and his company's product is Juan Williams the public figure. He was a vendor to NPR which no longer wished to used his product.

There was no violation of anyone's rights.

 

[MercuryJones]

By the way, even though I noted Williams' status as contractual, even as an employee the fact would remain that if someone is no longer able to effectively do their job, the employer has every right to terminate their employment.

If the PR director for the Holocaust Museum - on her own time - appeared on a tv show and said she doubted the Holocaust happened, she would no longer be able to effectively do her job.

We could come up with similar hypotheticals for a long time. But in the end, NPR felt Williams was no longer credible in the role they paid for, so they termed him.

I said earlier I think they overreacted, and I still do. But they were within their legal right to do so.

 

[Kulindahr]

His contract didn't violate his rights. There is no right to be paid by NPR for your opinions - or do you have some constitutional guarantee stating otherwise?

Once again your only possible defense is that they OWN him.

He wasn't on NPR, so he can't be limited by their contract; he has the right of free speech, regardless of what they might claim. So he wasn't being paid by NPR; their contract can't extend to his private life, which anything except when he is actively engaged in NPR activities qualifies as. No "constitutional guarantee" is needed; our private lives are OURS, not the government's...

Which shows again that your thesis is that NPR owns him -- or maybe the government, from which rights flow (NOT!).

Juan Williams is effectively his own employer, and his company's product is Juan Williams the public figure. He was a vendor to NPR which no longer wished to used his product.

There was no violation of anyone's rights.

The only reasonable word for this is bullshit. Even as a contractor they can't govern his private life, and I don't see why you keep insisting on that. Contracts granting ownership are unconstitutional anyway; it's slavery. And even if it wasn't, it's incredibly immoral.

I feel like I'm arguing with an incredibly rabid Republican here, who thinks corporations have all the rights and individuals have none. Corporations have NO rights, because they're not human beings, and people have ALL the rights, because they are. Williams had the right, when he wasn't working for NPR, to voice his opinion; they effectively said he didn't. That's a claim to ownership, and immoral.

 

[Críostóir]

Kulindahr, he agreed not to make public statements inconsistent with his objectivity as an NPR journalist. He made such public statements.

While he has a perfect right to make those statements (no one tried to stop him or punish him) they have a right to terminate his employment. He had and has a right to free speech; he doesn't have a right to continue to be paid by NPR.

This isn't a free speech issue at all. It's an at-will/contract employment issue.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, he agreed not to make public statements inconsistent with his objectivity as an NPR journalist. He made such public statements.

How is admitting you have personal reactions to people inconsistent with objectivity? I find it exactly the right thing to do; to pretend you have personal feelings different than what you do have is to be non-objective, because it is to lie. He had four choices: honestly give his opinion and thus be objective; pretend his opinion was other than what it was and thus be a liar and not objective; remain silent and look like someone incapable of giving an objective answer; or stating publicly that by his contract with NPR he is not allowed a personal life, so he can't give an honest answer.

For the last, he probably would have gotten fired; for the third, his honesty becomes suspect and he should have been fired; for the second, as a liar he should most certainly be fired; and for the first, you say he was rightfully fired -- in other words, no matter what he did, he either should have been or probably would have been fired.

Personally, I would have been delighted if he'd said, "NPR insists I be objective, but objectively I have a reaction they wouldn't approve, so I either displease them or stop being objective. What's the solution? I conclude I'd better not answer the question."

That would have exposed NPR's hypocrisy very nicely, and made this a much plainer discussion.

While he has a perfect right to make those statements (no one tried to stop him or punish him) they have a right to terminate his employment. He had and has a right to free speech; he doesn't have a right to continue to be paid by NPR.

Of course they have a right to terminate his employment. But terminating it as they did shows them as hypocrites, because it demonstrates that their definition of "objective" means "dishonest" when being honest means expressing an opinion displeasing to the employer.

This isn't a free speech issue at all. It's an at-will/contract employment issue.

It's the issue of a contract that requires surrendering one's free speech. He wouldn't have anyplace significant he could express his opinion or feelings honestly; if the press might be present, he'd have to mind his mouth anyplace in public, lest some reporter hear him and decide to write about it.

They could have just said they decided he wasn't fulfilling their expectations, and left it at that.

 

[Críostóir]

He could have said "I know for a fact that some people do feel uncomfortable when people in traditional Muslim garb get on the plane with them." You don't HAVE to say everything you're thinking, and for journalists there's an obligation to keep their own opinions out of it.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I'm so fucking glad I'm leaving back for Singapore.

America is so fucked.

FUCKED!

 

[MercuryJones]

Once again your only possible defense is that they OWN him.

He wasn't on NPR, so he can't be limited by their contract; he has the right of free speech, regardless of what they might claim.

Bullshit Kuli, and you know it. The first amendment guarantees that government will not infringe on free speech. There is no right to be hired and kept in employment, and you know it.

NPR didn't own him. They simply decided to not employ him any more, as is their right.

The only reasonable word for this is bullshit. Even as a contractor they can't govern his private life, and I don't see why you keep insisting on that. Contracts granting ownership are unconstitutional anyway; it's slavery. And even if it wasn't, it's incredibly immoral.

They didn't own him and don't control his private life. They control whether they pay him or not.

Corporations have NO rights, because they're not human beings, and people have ALL the rights, because they are. Williams had the right, when he wasn't working for NPR, to voice his opinion; they effectively said he didn't. That's a claim to ownership, and immoral.

Again, bullshit. He has the right to say what he wants, and they have the right to terminate their contract with him. His rights are intact.

 

[MercuryJones]

Corporations have NO rights, because they're not human beings, and people have ALL the rights, because they are.

Of course they have a right to terminate his employment.

Emphasis added.

They had the right to terminate his employment, and they did.

Williams' rights have not been violated.

 

[Kulindahr]

He could have said "I know for a fact that some people do feel uncomfortable when people in traditional Muslim garb get on the plane with them." You don't HAVE to say everything you're thinking, and for journalists there's an obligation to keep their own opinions out of it.

Hm. But that would have been evasion, and would almost certainly -- given his interlocutor -- have been followed with, "And are you one of those people?"

Back to square one.


But since we're trying to find ways out by making use of the general or hypothetical -- how about "If I were, I'd have some work to do to get more rational on the matter, wouldn't I?" Obviously the response would have to be agreement, at which point there really wouldn't have been a way to press the question.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bullshit Kuli, and you know it. The first amendment guarantees that government will not infringe on free speech. There is no right to be hired and kept in employment, and you know it.

NPR didn't own him. They simply decided to not employ him any more, as is their right.



They didn't own him and don't control his private life. They control whether they pay him or not.



Again, bullshit. He has the right to say what he wants, and they have the right to terminate their contract with him. His rights are intact.

You're ignoring the facts: they said they terminated him for what are hypocritical reasons which boil down to them saying that although he has the right to free speech, so long as he works for them he isn't allowed to exercise it. They didn't violate his right to free speech by firing him, they violated it by the terms of the contract -- which means the contract and those writing and those enforcing it were immoral (the question whether he was immoral in accepting it is interesting).

The problem is not with their right to terminate the contract, it;s that they linked the issues. Your assertion here that "he has the right to say what he wants" is exactly like the Mormon assertion that gays can get married, they just have to find women. And your assertion that they didn't control his private life is laughable; that was plainly part of the contract: you want to get paid, then we control your private life. Such a contract is disgustingly immoral.

All they had to do was say they'd decided they would let him seek a different career path, or something. But they linked the issues and showed themselves hypocrites. And the truly ironic thing is that with that action, they did the very thing they fired him for: expressing their own opinion.

Heck, they could have even said they didn't consider FOX a real news organization and no longer had any use for someone who'd treated it as such -- that would at least have had the merit of really being related to his job.