Imus Lynched

Don Imus was fired this afternoon. His offense? Honesty. Call it a lynching in the name of political sensitivity.

The record is by now clear. Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as a bunch of "nappy headed hos," a remark that branded him as a racist in the eyes of millions. Folks on both sides of the color line pounced on Imus, calling for his resignation. A mere apology was not enough. He had to be strung up and killed, an example made of his aging white flesh.

CBS's decision to fire him is a sign of moral cowardice. And all the convivial back slapping among the politically correct at water-coolers from coast to coast is but chatter signifying nothing.

Imus is raw and uncensored. He'd never cut it at National Public Radio, where the goal seems to be to make everyone sound alike. When I refer to his offense as honesty, I am not, obviously, referring to the content of his remark about members of the basketball team. All are good athletes; some may even be good students. His racial insensitivity is what is honest. He has issues on the topic of race. No surprise there; so does our society.

So Imus has been lynched in the name of sensitivity. He'll probably re-emerge on Sirius radio, where political correctness is not required. I'll listen.

But what I won't listen to is the supercillious jive that speaks of Imus' firing as good for race relations or good for anything else I value. Race relations didn't improve because of his firing. I suspect that plenty of black folk are happy to see this cracker fall because he is a cracker, and many whites will fume that -- dare I even utter this unlicensed as I am to use term by mere accident of birth? -- niggers like Al Sharpton are movin' on up the food chain of influence. These harsh words are real; why do we flinch when we use them? Do we expect racial tensions to disappear by banishing the words that reflect them?

What Imus teaches is that we cannot talk about the things that divide us. Too much truth, too much honesty is dangerous. It is better to engage in symbollic chatter. Let Oprah and Al Roker have prime time slots and let them speak politely about things. But don't let them provoke. Keep it all clean, mild, and compressed toward a center that does not hold. Avoid real issues in the name of getting along while the lights are on.

Race matters. A lot. There is disparity in drug sentencing for crimes involving people of color. Housing opportunities are not equal. Educational opportunities aren't equal. Gangs tear urban areas apart. Real issues tear away at our society's health. But rather than focus on these, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion of race, we lynch Imus.

It is just plain dumb. And it dumbs down public discourse by declaring that some sentiments and  attitudes are off limits. Perhaps that is why so little changes over time in our society. Truth is too provocative. Ask Don Imus.

Comments

[Ivan]

Personally, I think Imus deserves to be fired for irredeemable stupidity and hosting a crappy show, but obviously many people disagree.

On a wider point, Norm, you keep addressing the racial issue, but there are other aspects to this. Calling women with no public voice "hos" is sexist and cowardly. These students (and I've heard that women student-athletes, unlike their male counterparts, are usually, y'know, students, since they can't major in underwater basket-weaving), absent the public uproar, would have no national voice to respond to Imus. They're college students, likely to have regular jobs, and lead regular lives. Yet Imus chooses to pick on them. I'm happy to see people biting back. And what's the justification? Why "hos," a word loaded with sexual meaning? Where on earth did that come from? How does calling women that help advance any kind of gender relations?

And I remain unconvinced by your argument on the racial dimension. You want to talk about race in a frank and honest way. Imus wants to toss around racially charged terms without consequences. I'd have a big problem with the government telling Imus to shut up, but I'm glad to see the public doing so.

Imus's comments were racist, sexist, and cowardly. Even if he doesn't deserve what he got for the first two, I'm glad to see him go for that last one.

[AntonK]

"Truth is too provocative. Ask Don Imus"?

Are you saying that the Rutgers players ARE nappy headed ho's?

Imus spoke no truth, he just flung racial invective and insult.

[aeschylus]

I follow this blawg. I'm not surprised by your opinion. More often than not I find subtle references that are prejudiced, bigoted and disturbingly closed-minded ... particularly for self-professed "civil rights" attorneys.

Maybe time to change the mirror you look in every morning? Or read your own posts a bit more critically? to see the messages that are coming across?

[Aaron (no, not that one)]

Wow. So wrong, so offensive, so...pointless.

To equate a millionaire media personality's self-inflicted career suicide with the barbaric practice of murder by mob rule is patently offensive. It demeans and belittles the plight of the victims of actual lynchings. Furthermore, the fact that "he'll probably re-emerge at Sirius" at a healthy salary means that we need not waste any more time wailing about his courageous stand of his freedom to mock and bully young women who had done nothing wrong but to be insufficiently pale, coiffed, and attractive to his eyes.

More importantly, you wasted a chance to start that meaningful conversation on race that you feel is so desperately needed. Instead, you drop a nigger in the middle of your (barely literate) screed, and then have the effrontery to bleat "These harsh words are real; why do we flinch when we use them?" We flinch, you oaf, because most people have some semblance of decency, in debate and in relating to other people in the world. You may have felt clever; "hey, I get to call Al Sharpton a nigger; and oh, BTW, I'm just saying what other people are thinking. It's just a word, and if we're being honest, why can't we use it?"
We can't, and you shouldn't have, because if your true purpose is to get into a serious conversation about race, throwing up invective is an immediate barrier to any actual discussion. You've spoiled what could have been a great entree into the conversation by a petty, pseudo-Carlinesque foray into race-baiting (for the record his take was far more elegantly stated than your slapdash attempt). Felt good didn't it? Well, you, and people like you are the reason that we can't have serious conversation about race. If you feel so little sympathy, so little empathy for the people that you wish to engage that you have no compunction about tossing loaded terms (and you know very well that nigger is a loaded term, particularly coming from someone who looks like you) and would prefer to whine about the fact that you are barred from legitimate use of the word because you're not black, then we can't have a conversation. You're not ready yet.

Ask yourself this; if you were sitting in a room with a prosecutor trying to have a meaningful discussion about the merits of his case against your client, would you start talking about how the government is fascist, and the pigs who arrested your client aren't to be trusted? No, because you know that you've already alienated your audience. No meaningful discussion is going to follow.

So, nice job here. Thanks for lowering the tone of the debate. Clown.

[S.cotus]

aeschylus, So what? Does he really need to pass your litmus test of being a perfect person before he can represent clients in court?

And, really, are you any more pure of heart? Would you be just as pure of heart after going to law school and practicing for a decade? Two decades?

[Greg]

It was indeed a lynching. No one disputes that he said something terribly crass and offensive, but too many are celebrating a very real chilling effect on free speech by panicky media companies. Are we really that worried that these Rutgers athletes are so delicate that they can't take a bafflingly dumb comment from a shock jock? It's patronizing plain and simple.

[carlos s]

Are you saying that Imus was "honest" in calling the entire basketball team "nappy headed hos"?

I get it; you are supporting racism.

[127001]

carlos s...

ditto

[Aaron (no, not that one)]

Greg:

"Chilling effect on free speech"??? Imus's employers, private companies all, decided that it was not in their economic interest to continue broadcasting Imus. Surely, they have the right to make tht decision?

Furthermore, you want to talk entitlement culture; how about the mistaken belief that because one is lucky enough to score a job blathering on for a living, he is entitled to keep that job regardless of the desires of his audience or his employers? Think a little bit before you post.

[mimi]

I think imus had every right to say what he wanted. Its easy niggers do it all the time. If niggers dont like shit talked about them then they should keep their mouthes shut about others.