National Public Radio has terminated the contract of longtime news analyst Juan Williams because he said the following on Bill O’Reilly’s show: “Look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But 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.”
I can’t believe he would get fired over this comment. He was simply expressing what virtually every American thinks and feels in such a circumstance. We know not every Muslim or Arab is an extremist or terrorist, but we can’t forget that it was Muslims, not Buddhists or Hindus, that attacked us on 9/11 and want to carry out more attacks.
It’s a sad day in American when you can’t express what should be obvious to all without losing your job. I can guarantee you that if he had said something similar about Christians his contract would not have been in danger. Political correctness has caused us to lose our minds.
Thinking to Believe 
October 21, 2010 at 11:52 am
I heard the interview live. Juan even followed up the quoted comments by saying one shouldn’t blame all Muslims as extremists or blame all Christians for Timothy McVeigh.
The fact he was terminated for honestly expressing his feelings is an outrage. When budget cuts are contemplated, we should take another look at NPR.
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 11:53 am
There is one funny aspect to all this. Juan was the victim of his own liberal agenda.
You are correct about the political correctness damage to this country. It’s wonderful to know that our tax money funds the NPR (National Political-Correctness Radio).
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“He was simply expressing what virtually every American thinks and feels in such a circumstance. We know not every Muslim or Arab is an extremist or terrorist, but we can’t forget that it was Muslims, not Buddhists or Hindus, that attacked us on 9/11 and want to carry out more attacks.”
I don’t think virtually every American feels that way and even if the majority did that doesn’t mean it’s ok and it especially doesn’t mean it’s ok to express those feelings publicly. Not every deep down prejudice that we have needs to be spoken out loud and justified as if it’s ok to feel that way.
If he had said instead that every time he sees a Hispanic he gets worried and nervous that he’s an illegal alien who is part of a drug gang from Mexico and who wants to kidnap him or his child for ransom, would that be ok? What’s the difference?
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 5:06 pm
The people who committed the terrorist attacks on 911 did not just happen to be muslims. They were muslims as muslims, acting in the name of Islam. That makes it different from Timothy McVeigh being a Christian or any other comparison the left might make.
The fact is, the only people engaging in Islamic jihad are muslims.
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 6:03 pm
El Bryan Libre,
You call it prejudice, but this is unjustified name-calling. A prejudice is “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” But there is clearly a rational reason to be suspicious of Muslims on planes given 9/11 and the terrorist activity Muslims have carried out globally. So this is not a matter of prejudice. Americans have every reason to be suspicious and/or fearful.
Jason
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 6:07 pm
I should add that the context is also important. I don’t think most Americans are fearful or suspicious of Muslims they see in Walmart, but they are suspicious in airplanes given that this was the context of the terrorist attacks.
Jason
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Jason what else do you call it when you are afraid to sit next to a Muslim on an airplane because of what 19 extremist Muslims out of over a billion muslims did 9 years ago? What’s rational about that?
What’s the difference from that fear and fear of hispanics because they might be illegal Mexican’s in a drug gang who want to kidnap you or your child?
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 8:00 pm
El Bryan Libre
The difference is a hispanic, as a hispanic, does not follow a jihadist agenda. However, when we see a hispanic with MS13 markings all over their body you’d be unwise to not be suspicious of them. Likewise, a muslim who follow teachings about killing the “infidels” because it is the fundamentals of their faith; it is natural to be wary of them.
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 8:16 pm
CS:
But you don’t know what that Muslim’s beliefs are and what teaching they follow when they’re just flying on a plane, just like you don’t know what a Hispanic has tattooed on his arms when he’s wearing long sleeves.
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 5:28 am
El Bryan Libre
It’s not just tattoos on their arms. They have them on their neck and face and most times on their fingers. The point is we identify certain things as threatening when in the past they have been threatening. I’ve read, maybe you can verify this, the koran dictates the killing of any none muslim if they do not convert, is this true?
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 6:38 am
CS
I think you’re missing the point. Being Muslims and dressing like Muslims does not identify them as a threat. That’s too broad and is prejudice just the same as it would to be afraid of Hispanics because they look and dress like they’re from Mexico.
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 9:31 am
El Bryan Libre
No… I’m pretty aware of the point. You are confusing ethnicity and religion. Just because someone is Hispanic does not designate a threat unless they have identifying features that a threat would have, such as, MS 13 markings. Muslims have given us, and the Israelis, plenty of reasons to me wary of them. If we used your definition of prejudice then we’d have to ignore any kind of suspicious behavior.
Just by saying someone makes me nervous doesn’t mean we dislike or disrespect them. It means they’ve given us reason to be wary.
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 10:13 am
Still missing the point, but I’m moving on.
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Let us recall the topic of this thread relates not only to Williams’ comment on The O’Reilly Factor, but also to his subsequent firing by NPR. There is no rational justification for terminating his job. As I noted above (Post 1), he quickly qualified his comment by stating he was against tagging everybody within a group due to the actions of a few.
Rich Lowry adds some cogent analysis in his article, The Closing of NPR’s Mind. Here are some of his remarks:
El Bryan Libre, your concern for the rights and sensibilities of Muslims is admirable. I think we should be equally concerned about thought police disguised in liberal garb. I guess for some folks (not including you), tolerance for free speech cuts only one way. Williams has offered many, many liberal opinions on Fox News, without so much as a peep from NPR. He says one thing they don’t like, and he gets the ax. So much for liberal ideals.
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Scalia:
Good thoughts, however I have some disagreements (I won’t really comment on the quote since I don’t know how much you agree with and I don’t want to assume).
Concerning NPR firing Williams, they said it wasn’t the content of his remarks that got him fired but his working in dual roles, as an analyst on NPR and offering opinion on Fox. They don’t want their analysts offering opinion because it takes away from their appearance as neutral when giving analysis. This instance was the straw that broke the camels back as it appears Williams generated a lot of heat for NPR because of his dual role on Fox and this wasn’t the only instance (see this post on NPR from 2009 http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2009/02/juan_williams_npr_and_fox_news_1.html). This isn’t that surprising that NPR would do this considering they recently announced that none of their employees were allowed to attend Stewart or Colbert’s rallies because they didn’t want them to appear biased. So there does seem to be some rational justification for his firing, even if we don’t agree with it. It wasn’t just because he made some controversial statements about Muslims.
I don’t really see this as a free speech issue. I’m not allowed to say whatever I want at my job and if I do I can be fired. I’m not even allowed to do whatever I want outside of my job as my job can still fire me if they feel my actions reflect on them badly and bring them into disrepute. It’s been like that at jobs I’ve had in both the public and private sector. I don’t see why this is any different at a place like NPR, especially if they want their analysts to appear unbiased and it’s hard when they appear differently on another network.
Thanks,
Bryan L
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 3:54 pm
El Bryan Libre,
Regarding #7, what’s rational about that is that we know it is not just those 19 Muslims who support terrorism. There are thousands of Muslims involved in terrorism, and millions more who support them. And this wasn’t just some single historic event. Terrorist attacks continue to be carried out throughout the globe by Muslim extremists, and several plots against the U.S. have been foiled recently (which tells me they are still trying to kill us).
And I agree with cs when he says, “Just by saying someone makes me nervous doesn’t mean we dislike or disrespect them. It means they’ve given us reason to be wary.”
Jason
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Yes Jason, but how many Muslims fly in the US everyday year after year without any single instance of attempted terrorism? How many Muslims do we work with everyday year after year without any single instance of terrorism. Considering this it is irrational to be afraid of every Muslim you see on a plane even given your view that there are thousands of Muslims involved in terrorism and millions who support terrorist. Just imagine what this kind of thinking could be applied to and how we could justify any sort of prejudicial attitudes towards various groups of people just because of what a few of them (relative to the total number) have done and continue to do. Do you think it’s understandable if I said I was automatically suspicious that you might be racist just because you’re white since so many white people in the past have been racists, I’ve experience racism from white people, and there are so many white people today who are racists and support racism against non-whites? Is that completely understandable and rationale for me to think? If not what’s different?
BTW how do you know millions of Muslims support terrorism against Americans? How many millions would you say? Are we talking about 10 million? 20 million? 100 million? How about a percentage?
Lastly I was wondering if there were an easy way of testing whether something was rational to believe or feel. This is just a thought experiment but I was wondering if you could say something is rational to believe or feel only if you can’t at the same time say you shouldn’t believe or feel that thing? So given any belief or feeling that I thought was rational I can’t also say it should be believed or felt? What do you think? Is that a good test? Are there examples where this comes up short?
Also, I hope you don’t think I’m being inflammatory or that I’m upset. I find this an interesting issue worthy of some thoughtful discussion.
Thanks,
Bryan L
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 5:02 pm
El Bryan Libre,
Read the report in the New York Post about how many U.S. Muslims support terrorism: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_CvYzegFODX8vtjAB4E4HnJ;jsessionid=8F3AA4806AD914E7DD48AAE6F6FD59FB. 26% of American Muslims under the age of 30 believe suicide bombings and other means of violence against innocent civilians can be justified on rare occasions “in order to defend Islam from its enemies.” 5% of American Muslims have a favorable view of Al Queda.
60% of Muslims either deny or take no position that Arabs were involved in the September 11th attack, 75% oppose the war in Iraq, and 48% oppose the war in Afghanistan. It doesn’t take a leap to think some of these U.S. Muslims see the U.S. as an enemy. And we’re just talking about American Muslism. Can you imagine the number of Muslims in Muslim nations that support these things?
And given the fact that 5% of American Muslims support Al Qaeda, and 1 out of 4 young American Muslims think suicide bombings against innocent civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies, we would be stupid beyond pale to close our eyes to the possibility of being attacked at home by U.S. Muslims because we don’t want to be politically incorrect.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Muslims are our enemies. There are many good Muslims who are pro-America, and would never think of doing anything to harm us. But there is obviously a viable minority among us who think otherwise, and we can’t shut our eyes to that fact. To do so would only be to our own peril.
As for white racism, if you experienced a lot of white racism, you would be justified in thinking white people you do not know might be racist too. What you would not be justified in doing is assuming that they are. But this is a perfect parallel to what I am saying. There is a rational reason why Americans are suspicious of Muslims (in certain contexts), but it would be wrong for Americans to assume that every Muslim is a terrorist.
Jason
LikeLike
October 22, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Interesting poll. I’m going through it right now. I am a little worried on how some of the results will be interpreted and given that it’s only around 1,000 Muslims I’m a little suspicious of the result and how much we can base our beliefs on them. However, good discussion and good points. I still disagree but I enjoyed it. Take care.
LikeLike
October 23, 2010 at 6:29 am
Personally, I’d be less afraid of a person dressed in traditional Islamic garb on a plane. It’s obvious to everybody what they are. The people who seem most likely to engage in the attacks are muslims who don’t appear to be muslims. IIRC, the 911 hijackers were hanging out in strip clubs in Florida. The suicide bombers don’t need to live a strict Islamic lifestyle because killing and being killed for Allah causes them to go straight to heaven as martyrs, no matter their other sins.
LikeLike
October 23, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Arthur,
You are right. Those who would want to to others harm will try to blend in with the other people, not stand out just like the 9/11 terrorists.
Jason
LikeLike
October 23, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Hello again, Bryan! You write,
This is at odds with Williams’ account of his termination. In his article, I Was Fired for Telling the Truth, he writes,
So it appears it was Williams’ latest comment that caused his termination. However, as everybody knows, NPR took his comments out of context. He was clearly NOT accusing all (or most) Muslims of terrorism.
If NPR is really concerned about outrageous statements, why is Nina Totenberg still employed there? Recall she said if there is retributive justice in the world, Jesse Helms would get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it. Or what about ABC’s Julianne Malveaux wishing for Clarence Thomas’ early death? The obvious answer is they could care less what their reporters say, so long as it is politically correct.
NPR’s protestations that they are merely upholding journalistic ethics would have a ring of credibility to it if they had canned Williams for defending the Obama administration numerous times on Fox. Instead, they wait until he says something “bigoted” (clearly out of context) before diving behind the journalistic standards facade.
For me, I personally don’t care for Williams’ opinions. He is as liberal as I am conservative. I just hate double standards.
LikeLike
October 23, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Correction. Julianne Malveaux, although appearing on ABC, does not work for it. She, among other things, is an economist and a syndicated columnist.
LikeLike
October 23, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Since I mentioned Totenberg, she acknowledges the decision to fire Williams has caused internal friction at NPR. The article, Internal Dissension at NPR over Williams, is interesting since NPR has recently stated they are not considering a change in Totenberg’s employment status.
LikeLike
October 23, 2010 at 2:10 pm
“However, as everybody knows, NPR took his comments out of context. He was clearly NOT accusing all (or most) Muslims of terrorism. ”
I don’t think anyone said he was accusing Muslims of terrorism.
In the end if you want to believe that NPR was wrong and he was a victim of an unjustified firing then you will. I don’t really care that much that they fired him. I didn’t even know who he was ’til now. It sounds like he’s doing better now anyway with Fox giving him a 2 million dollar contract. That’s much much better than most of the other millions of people who’ve been laid off and fired during this recession.
LikeLike
October 23, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Bryan, you write:
If Williams’ account is true, Ellen Weiss certainly believed his statement was bigoted and used that as the reason to terminate his contract.
I agree it doesn’t really affect you or me; but there’s no doubt NPR is double-talking. Shame on them.
LikeLike
October 29, 2010 at 9:45 am
I’m not an American, but I know we all do have these predjudices. It’s part of our pattern-seeking mentality. We make associations, we generalise. Chances are any real Muslim terrorist would not be dressed in Muslim garb, would be distinguishable perhaps only by their nervosity, slight difference in skin-tone / facial features. And statistically speaking it is highly unlikely the muslim you are sitting next to on any given flight will be a terrorist.
So yes – we have these fears and yes – they are irrational. But I think they can be overcome by reason and logic.
As for that man’s job – I couldn’t say – apart from recommending he try to unlearn the irrational predjudice he happens to have.
LikeLike