Pajiba

Quickly answering the question in your headline, then going to read the post: No. It just makes you human. Recognizing your fear, working past your fear, and then not allowing that fear to affect your life or how you deal with it is a natural mental process, and admitting it should not be demeaned or discounted. There's some level of bravery in that admission, I think. It's when we recognize that fear and choose to accept it as truth that we start on the path to bigotry. (Initial thoughts are based on other articles/stories about Juan Williams' firing from NPR. Now to read Dustin's take.)

I gotta say, I checked that my wallet was safe when I saw his picture, so I TOTALLY get where he's coming from.

I don't feel his deserves to be fired this one comment. However, if the teevees are to be believed, he has been repeatedly warned for comments that cross some sort of, uh, editorial (?) line. It would seem this wasn't his first gaffe, though I have no knowledge of anything else he has said.

As far as this comment goes, I'm not entirely certain what "Muslim garb" means, except for a burka. I'm surprised he would feel nervous by seeing people in "Muslim garb". That's a pretty juvenile reaction for an adult civilian to have, especially one who seems rather intelligent. I would think that anyone planning on pulling something on a plane in the US these days would definitely try to look "not Muslim", whatever that means.

Is Juan Williams a bigot?
Probably not.

Is that “just a reality”?
No. It is only if you make it your reality.

And did he deserve to be fired?
Not for this comment alone, but there may be other things he has also done. However, I'd really like to see NPR come out and say, "Williams messed up. He said something that can be perceived as bigoted, and may very well be. However, he's been an excellent part of our organization for many years and will continue to be despite this comment." I'm sick of people being fired for stuff like this.

“I mean, 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 gansta garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as black, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Fixed that passage for Juan. How's he like it now?

I’m exhausted from all this political talk everywhere that I have only one contribution to this debate (and my apologies in advance for not actually answering the main question).

Savage, Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and all the rest of them have said far, far worse than Williams. Yeah, what he said was stupid. But calling the President racist, saying you’d like the President to fail, enticing violence (“Tiller the Baby Killer” or the Tides Foundation) is far ahead on the list then admitting to being nervous about Muslims sitting next to you.

There is such a rush to judgement and retribution against the left to appear all "fair". ACORN and Shirley Sherrod and now Williams.

NPR -2 points.

Savage, Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and all the rest of them have said far, far worse than Williams.

None of them work for NPR though. None of them used the NPR brand name to lend credibility to their competitors hate-mongering.

The issue here is a lot more than just his statement, it's the context in which it was delivered, the fact that he was paid for that appearance and used his NPR credentials in the process of appearing.

I don't even particularly like NPR, I think they show clear editorial bias when they claim not, but regardless, I get this from a business perspective. He was biting the hand that fed him. He'd be an idiot to think anything but this would be the result.

-Frob

Okay, I guess I didn't need to rush a response before reading the post, but my initial response stays the same.

Though, I would definitely like to add that Williams himself probably needs another statement. He's got the "being honest with myself" part down, but he needs to add: "But once that nervousness goes away, I understand the plane I'm about to get on isn't going to blow up because the man/woman in 'Muslim garb' is 99% likely not to be a terrorist."

Now, contrast Juan Williams statement with Brian Kilmeade's that "All terrorists are Muslim." Which is bigotry and which is an honest assessment of one's personal feelings? I'd love to ask him what he calls Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber, and in general, I'd like to know why several Christian churches are A-OK within a few blocks of the Oklahoma City bomb site but one Islamic community center isn't allowed... who knows how far away... from Ground Zero?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/bigotry-on-air.html

On a personal note, and I've just noticed this about myself recently because I work with a very ethnically diverse group of people, but when I cross paths with those of another race, I'm always more worried what they think about me than I'm worried they're secretly trying to blow up my family. In fact, the latter never even comes into question. It really is a matter of upbringing and social reinforcement. Maybe Juan Williams just hangs with the wrong crowd. Oh, right. He's also a Fox News employee...

... and again, someone said what I thought much more succinctly and well, better.

Not a bigot, just an idiot.

Does he really think that the terrorist are going to wear their "terrorist costumes" when they are on the job?

I'll add - I think we all know that if Juan had said this on MSNBC or maybe even CNN he wouldn't have gotten fired. The contentious relationship between NPR and Williams stemmed from the fact that he was a frequent contributor for Fox News. Fair? Probably not but clearly NPR wanted to distance themselves from Williams and saw this as a perfect opportunity.

Okay, I guess I didn't need to rush a response before reading the post, but my initial response stays the same.

No, no, don't apologize. I can't tell you how often I'm browsing through comments on Pajiba thinking, "Well, that's all well and good, but what did you think before you read the post on which you're commenting?"

I'm serious, people. Please, when you are excited that Pajiba just posted a review you've been waiting for, comment about how excited you are to read the review, read the review, and then comment about what you thought of the review.

I'll go with idiot.

or tool

or the problem

his fears are rooted in baseless bigottry much like he would probably view those of say a white lady expressing the opinion that she's not a bigot but she just fears for her safety when she sees a black male like himself

but mostly he's the problem
the problem where emotion led opinion and general media whoring has become the basis of all public debate

Oh come the fuck on. There is the ideal world and then there is the real world.

How about if a woman said: "when I am walking home alone at night and a man is walking behind me, I get worried, I get nervous"

Because I think we had a lot of women come out and say exactly that just a couple months ago, and it was an excellent, honest, eye-opening discussion.

And to those of you trying to score an easy point by switching the race from Muslim to black... I don't necessarily agree with you either. Depending on the situation I might be nervous walking down a dark street in a bad part of town in that situation. I don't doubt for a second that my wife would be. Scary Mexican dudes or scary white dudes might elicit the same feelings. No, it doesn't make you a bigot, it makes you human.

This isn't racism or bigotry. You react to your environment based on the information you have. Yes, a group a black guys on a street corner downtown make me more nervous than a group of businessmen at Starbucks. Walking down a hallway in high school I would feel more threatened at a jock or burnout coming up to me than a geek or a cheerleader (well, maybe the cheerleader would have made me more nervous, but in a different way...)

NPR fired this guy for being honest, for a couple of sentences that were hardly incendiary or hate-filled. Instead of sacking up and having an honest discussion themselves they pretend like we live in a world where people don't have these feelings. It's bullshit.

Muslims should do more and I mean A LOT more to take back their religion, which they say is of peace, from the supposed extremists that they say have taken it over. I don't see any outrage coming from these folks for acts of murder that have been committed, sorry but I don't.

My opinion

Quick question: how do you differentiate between an extremist and a moderate Muslim by sight alone? answer: You can't.

You're right. You can't differentiate between those Muslims that are violent and those that are peaceful. What makes him a bigot, Logar, is that instead of assuming a Muslim person is peaceful and responsible, he assumes they are dangerous.

I don't see any outrage coming from these folks for acts of murder that have been committed, sorry but I don't.

Have you searched "Muslims condemn 9/11"? I'd guess I would've shared your feelings, but then I realized that I'd never bothered to look.

Yossarian, you're talking about context, so lets look at the context surrounding the situation that prompted his comments:

He saw a Muslim person on a plane. Not in a dark alleyway. Not strapped with dynamite. Not in a spookey mosque too close to that hole in New York. An airplane. Saying he was afraid in that situation is exactly the same as assuming the black guy is going to steal your things. Or that the Jewish banker is going to take your money. Or that the Mexican is here illegally just because he's standing outside of Home Depot.

If the context matters, then we need to be addressing the context that prompted his comments. It was an airplane. Rather than having a neutral gut reaction that the person was just on their way somewhere, his gut reaction was that they were a violent, sociopathic terrorist.

You can't differentiate between those Muslims that are violent and those that are peaceful. What makes him a bigot, Logar, is that instead of assuming a Muslim person is peaceful and responsible, he assumes they are dangerous.

I agree with superasente on this.

Should Juan Williams have gotten fired over this? I don't know. But statements like the one he made aren't helping America to deal with our fear and anger.

"Muslims" didn't "do" 9/11; the 20-odd men who actually committed the hijackings, along with some unknown number of backers somewhere in the Middle East, "did" 9/11. To be afraid of any random Muslim you may see, at the airport or otherwise, helps no one. Not only does it not help, it's dangerous. It contributes to a culture of hostility and violence towards those who are different than you are.

I mean, Ted Bundy killed like 30 women. Should I be afraid of every white guy with curly brown hair?

Look, just because something is not fair or ideal does not make it morally wrong. Life is not fair. Life is messy and imperfect. Firing a guy for a comment like that is ridiculous, and so is claiming he is a bigot.

First, lets be clear on what we mean by bigot:

-having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

-obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

No, this does not apply. (In fact, I almost think it applies better to the PC types who are so quick to be intolerant of Mr. Williams for expressing a feeling that I don't for a second think he was proud of or celebrating, we aren't talking about Ann Coulter here)

Now if you want to say he demonstrated prejudice I can agree with that, but I hesitate to tar him with it as a pejorative. It is more in the way that we all exhibit prejudice (an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy) only in this specific case it was on a very sensitive issue, and he shared it in a public forum.

Would Juan Williams mind if I saw him walking down the sidewalk & you crossed the street to avoid him? Hey, I was mugged by an African-American about 20 years ago, so I'm scared. The former (mugged by an African-American) is true, but I'm not scared of every black guy I see.

And he was fired due to previous incidents. He's supposed to be a journalist, yet he repeatedly appears on Fox News and takes political sides. He's also taken a public stand against the Park 51 Islamic Center in NYC. Williams used to be a "correspondent" for NPR, but some time ago his public statements prompted them to make him an "analyst" to avoid the obvious problem of a journalist on public radio making political statements. This time, NPR finally had enough.

If he had taken liberal positions, NPR would have been crucified by the allegedly "liberal" media after his FIRST statement. He wouldn't have been allowed several other chances to avoid taking sides.

I do not believe he should have been fired for merely having an involuntary reaction and expressing that feeling honestly. As many of you express above, this instinctual fear he is admitting is a result of conditioning, fear, etc. If anything, I normally would find it admirable that someone would openly admit a bias in this manner.

The problem for me is that he is not framing this bias within the context that it deserves. He does not refer to it as irrational; he simply dismisses it as a "reality." Worse, he is essentially using it as an argument to support O'Reilly's position expressed on The View regarding the proposed Islamic community center in New York. Seventy percent of the people in this country might very well be opposed to that construction, but is that position borne primarily of gut-based, instinctual fear (and ignorance of the actual logistics of the construction, for that matter)? Would some of those seventy percent change their position if they reflected on the facts and got past those same instincts that might make them suspicious of Islamic garb at an airport?

In other words, Williams is essentially throwing up his hands and giving everyone a free pass to feel that way. As such, as far as I'm concerned, it's tantamount to tacit approval of behavior based on that fear. Everyone is allowed irrational fears; the question is: do you bother to think about them afterward and adjust your behavior accordingly? Do you make an effort to learn about that which you do not know and thus alleviate your fears? Or do you craft policy based on those fears?

but superasente the context is exactly why this does make sense. Why would he fear a Muslim in a dark alley or have a negative reaction to seeing one in his office building? The context in which we associate "being Muslim" with "more likely than a non-Muslim to do harm to me and others" is on an airplane. This isn't about objecting to them moving into your neighborhood or expressing the sentiment that they should all leave the country. It's a very easy to understand association: Muslim guys with beard and traditional dress and I don't know anything else about them and I don't know who checked them through security or how thorough they were but I am aware of several very high profile examples of terrorist actions matching the very same context.

It's not a good thing. It's not fair to the Muslim people who get strange looks. I'm a passive-looking white male and lord knows I can't even try to sympathize with anyone's experiences of animosity, fear, dirty looks, whatever- but I can tell you that although the world is clearly fucked up in a lot of ways, the world is more fucked up for being intolerant of Mr. Williams, not less.

Yossarian, I don't want to hang the guy, and in fact, hell, let him keep his job. I've seen worse idiots. I've rarely found a person who "fears" a certain group of people to treat them fairly. And yes, it's bloody irresponsible of someone like him to say that in a public forum. There has to be a sense of responsibility that comes with his job. People respect him and listen to him, so they'll think "oh, so it's ok to fear muslims, then!". And it's not, because that's where hate comes from, that's where violence comes from. Do I think this particular guy is KKK-levels of bigoted? No. However even idle bigotry is dangerous. And yes, we've all been there, but you check yourself, you question yourself mercilessly and you don't allow yourself to become THAT person. It's a part of being a decent human being. And as far as I can tell, he seems to think that his irrational fear is ok.

John, I think I agree with you, but you're muddying your point. Comedy Central didn't censor South Park because it was afraid of "Muslims," it did so because it was afraid of "Extremists." Same with the Seattle cartoonist who went into hiding (talk about getting the short end of the stick, she did nothing and now has to live under Witness Protection). You're comment verges on Bill O's original statements on The View, but you're right in saying that neither Comedy Central, the cartoonist, nor newspapers which failed to run Mohammed comic strips are bigots.

superasente, you're missing the crux of Williams' fear. It is the context of the airplane that he was specifically addressing. I'd imagine this is because most Americans, and Williams particularly, equate Extremist Muslim Terrorism with attacks on, or in, or caused by, airplanes. If he'd said he was afraid when he saw a "Muslim garbed" person in a dark alley, you'd absolutely be right. But he was talking about airplanes, and that exact fear does have a great deal of basis in modern history. Right or wrong.

In brief:

Yes.
Probably.
Yes. How can he be trusted to report honestly on anything to do with Muslims?

Posted by: Yossarian at October 21, 2010 3:47 PM

No, YOU pull your head out of yours. The fact is, I don't see these folks and become scared, I see these folks as the fucking enemy.

Well, BarbadoSlim is now giving us a much better example of bigotry than Mr. Williams did. Bigotry derives from ignorance, which Mr. slim is displaying in spades*

(*very subtle racism pun, please know I do this for you T.B.)

Nope, nice little PR statements and two or three moderate talking heads DO NOT a condemnation make. It seems as if Muslims can manage to pull out a couple of thousand people with AK-47s to celebrate for just about anything but yet they can't a manage a couple of hundred to march against their own extremist leaders. When are we are we gonna see that.

OK, I'm trying my damnedest to stop "Google" from catching on as a verb, I searched "Muslims condemn 9/11" using Google. The first result is a page full of links to articles, blogs, etc. featuring Muslims condemning acts of terrorism.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

I'm not entirely certain what it is you think they should be doing*, but I think it a terrible burden to place on people who've done nothing wrong to make sure the entire world understands that they aren't all like that.

* - http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=5903588, here's 2000 marching in Houston. Is that enough? Are they doing enough?

For those who say that feelings such as those expressed by Williams don't make you a bigot, they make you human: Bigotry IS human, but it's still bigotry, and Willams' comments qualify.

Not a bigot, just a man who's afraid. I check who's sitting on my plane, too. I don't really fear the people in "Muslim garb," but I do fear the guy in a polo and jeans who goes to the bathroom 5 or 6 times. I fear the guy who says that a Muslim flag (whatever that is) will fly over the White House someday. I don't want ANY religious group running their flag up over a gov't building.

But, I do love whatever incenses friggin' Joy Behar, because she's the one who needs to be go. She's an old, prune-ish hack.

@Joker

It's bloody irresponsible of someone like him to say that in a public forum.

I disagree with this more than anything. In my opinion it is never irresponsible to bring these ideas into the public forum because sunlight and education are the only things that are going to do any good. Responding with intolerance or shaming people into not talking about their honest feelings isn't going to help anyone. I don't agree with the Fox News editorial stance on this issue but it is better than the ostrich syndrome that NPR gives us.

It is a complicated, messy issue and yet we all insist that we must not acknowledge it publicly for fear of being inappropriate. (Kudos to Dustin for framing this as a debate and allowing for alternate viewpoints to be heard)

Why do we think that the answer is to pretend with all our might that there isn't an issue instead of talking about it honestly. Studies show that white parents are so committed to raising color-blind politically correct kiddies (but so fucking clueless about how to actually do it) that they *never* address race and pretend it doesn't exist... so of course the kids grow up and have a natural curiosity about differences but they see how uncomfortable it makes their parents to breach the subject so they assume their parents just don't like black people and the kids end up worse off.

Sorry for awkwardly summarized sociology research there at the end, I hope it made sense. There is a whole chapter on it in a great book called "Nurture Shock" if anyone is interested...

No, he's not a bigot, at least not because of this particular comment. I also do not think that this comment was any grounds for termination either. How can you be any sort of analyst without being able to speak the simple truth. I'm scared at night when I walk by a group of black teenagers. No, I'm not racist, I just have a slight fear of getting my ass kicked. I think Juan was basically trying to say the same thing.

Damn it, superasente, you're twisting our words around and you know it. Nobody here has said it was "okay" that Williams had these thoughts, just that it was understandable in the context he had them based solely on his explanation of why/when he had them. All of us trying to say that these comments alone don't make him a bigot have said, basically, that it's human to feel fear, but that we have to work past it. That, in itself, says it's not "okay." Damn it.

God damn, Girl With Curious Hair...I think you can take it from here.

OK folks, this is a softball:

Archie Bunker -- bigot
Juan Williams -- not a bigot

Bigot is a personality trait. Are we really to believe that in all his years as a journalist, talk show host, political thinker, that he was really, secretly harboring a fear and hatred for Muslims that he somehow never mentioned somehow? Really?

What we can learn from this and other similar situations is this: if you accidentally say what you mean in America, what you have said will become who you are and your life is over.

What we should take away from this is not that we learned something about Juan Williams that is a deep dark secret that he has somehow

Sorry about that last post. Left my first draft in there.

I think Kballs wins this comment thread.

To answer the question, yes, his (Williams') comments make him kind of a bigot, but I don't think they were fireable comments. However, I don't run NPR, so it's not really up to me.

I think the lesson here is, no good can come of appearing on TV with Bill O'Reilly. People should treat him as if he has ebola and stay far away from him.

Wait, didn't we all decide Admin was a bigot about a month ago?

Yes he's a bigot and yes, he deserves to be fired. Judging someone's intentions by the clothes they wear? All Muslims who dress according to their heritage are to be feared? Dressing a certain way "identifies" someone as something, "first and foremost"? People are individuals, period.

superasente:

If the mustachioed bomber/hijackers committed their terroristic act because their mustaches told them to, then yes, I would probably be a little leery of a mustachioed dude on a plane.

Last I checked, this guy didn't say he thinks all Muslims are terrorists, so please leave absolutes out of this debate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2271931/?from=rss

The above link from Slate has a more detailed accounting of what was actually said, and a link to the video. Looking past the right v. left posturing, I mostly agree with the article.

Well, of course, his fears aren't rational. When "fear" is "rational" it becomes "prudent." If I choose not to leave my house because I'm afraid someone, anyone, will get me, that's fear. If I choose not to leave my house because there's a noxious gas outside that turns everyone inside-out, that's prudent. Williams' initial reaction was fear, and though irrational, was based on something that could actually happen. The chances are extremely low, but there is historical context to those thoughts.

I still stand that I think he needs one more statement before he could be totally absolved. He's elicited his fears twice, and while understandable, does not excuse the fact that he hasn't admitted to their irrationality. Yes, my above example/diatribe/whatever suggests that being irrational should be implied, but I do think it actually needs to be said, by him, as that's part of the moving on, growing, educating process. But I don't think he needs to apologize for having an emotional reaction and then communicating that emotion honestly.

superasente:
"It's okay to assume that Muslims are capable of violence on airplanes because recent terrorist attacks using airplanes were perpetrated by Muslims.

Following this train of thought, is it also okay to assume that men with mustaches are capable of commiting genocide because of (relatively) recent global conflicts in which genocide was perpetrated by men with mustaches?

I believe that it hasn't been proven that the motivation of the hijackers was anything other than religious. They were well educated, wealthy, didn't really have a chip on their shoulder other than their religion. They didn't ask for ransom, they flew the planes into buildings to maximize the number of victims. Now tell me, what other motive could they possibly have had,other than religious extremism? And if indeed it was religious extremism, then your silogism with mustaches is absurd (unless you can prove a logical connection between having a mustache and being a homicidal maniac?). Not all Muslims are people are terrorists, but the terrorists of 09/11 were Muslim.

Does this discussion have to keep going on?

About half way down the page, I grew weary especially of the repetitious bigot/not bigot arguments. Can we say that anyone who reacts to his or her identification of others as members of a feared, disrespected, or different group is displaying a form of bigotry? And can we also agree that a person such as Juan Williams, author of books on civil rights, ought to have been more sensitive to blurting out his bigoted fears on national (albeit cable) television? Finally, as an opinion leader working for a national medium, Juan Williams has a responsibility to respect the position of his employers or risk losing his job.

Being scared of Muslims in itself is not bigotry, it is a fear of what a Muslim extremist is capable of doing is what causes people to lump all Muslims with the extremist tag.

I have no idea if Mr. Williams is a bigot or not, but I am surprised that Mr. Williams would go on NPR and let it be known that he can’t separate extremist Muslims from non extremist Muslims. I have no sympathy for Mr. Williams, for far to long he has chosen to align himself with FOX news, an organization that has proudly trumpeted bigotry and fear. But don’t worry about Mr. Williams being unemployed for long, he only has to reach out to one of his corporatist, job shipping, tax evading, bondage club going, impotent, tea party funding, ultra conservative ass-wipe friends of his for a job.

And yes you tea party fuck, you moron, you idiot, you shit for brains you. Do you have any idea who funded your sojourn into oblivion you asshole you? You are being bankrolled by billionaires you dumb fucks, but you are too stupid to realize that a vote for a tea party candidate is a vote against your own best interest. I hope President Obama decides to leave office after his first term, then you dumb fucks will soon realize that you have unknowingly pulled down your underwear in preparation for the greatest ass-fucking of your entire U.S.A! chanting lives.

The positive outcome of all of this is that, minus his affiliation with NPR, Juan Williams can no longer be paraded around as a token librul on Faux News.

So now they are officially the network of blonde bimbos and cranky 40+ men who wear undergarments designed by the Marquis de Sade to keep their dander up. Oh, and Michelle Malkin.

Nobody wants to stop being self-righteous for a minute and admit to sympathizing with this line of reasoning?

Even though traveling by car is statistically more dangerous than traveling by plane, we do it hundreds of times every year so we are tricked into thinking it is safe. I don't get behind the wheel every day and think "well, I might die doing this but let's give it shot anyway". But put us on a plane and we think "uh, it could crash, or terrorists could blow it up." It is something we do rarely, and something we don't feel like we have control over, and when it does happen it gets a disproportionate amount of attention relative to auto fatalities so our minds naturally have a warped sense of the risks.

And we see white people and black people and business people and tourist and all kinds of things at the airport. Maybe we see an Orthdox Jew with the curly sideburns and black suit... we don't say "oh, look, there's a person." We say: "Hey, that's a Jew". That's a frat boy, that's a businessman, we make assumptions about that girl in the Ugg boots and leggings, or that nerdy asian with the laptop or that abnoxious guy on his cell phone. Then we see some middle eastern guys with dark skin and unkempt facial hair in Muslim dress and we don't just think "oh, they look like individuals". No: they look like Muslims. They do. First, foremost, that is the schema. It doesn't mean you are a racist, it doesn't mean you are afraid, it's fucking ridiculous to suggest that human beings don't classify things they see.

And now, come on, is it that much of a stretch at the airport to see some guys who are clearly Muslim and make a simple psychological association, with all of the media attention it gets, with the concept of Muslim Terrorists? I'm not saying dash across the terminal and make a citizen's arrest, I'm not saying grab a stewardess and demand they be searched or you are switching your flight, and I'm not saying stare holes in them for the next two hours in case they make any sudden threatening moves, but you are all lying if you don't at least make that association for a second. I'm sure you dismiss it like the enlightened folk you are. I do to. I just had an international flight and there were plenty of brown people on board and I felt completely safe. But along with "did I pack enough socks?" and "I wonder what movies will be available on board?" and "I wonder if Ohio State is going to get beat" I also thought "hey, I really hope nobody hijacks the plane... I'm not sure my life insurance is high enough to provide for the next 16 years of my daughter's life".

But to get to my point: either you are lying, or you can admit to yourself that the thought could cross your mind. And if the thought could cross your mind, then why is it such a heinous and unpardonable crime that it crossed someone's mind and stayed there for a little while? I know a lot of people who experience irrational fear about stupid shit from Swine Flu to healthcare reform. I shake my head and role my eyes but I usually don't call for them to be fired. This guy has a little bit of trouble shaking an irrational fear out of his mind and he mentioned it on TV with Bill.

He's not saying they shouldn't be able to build a place of worship in Manhattan. He's not saying they should be forced to wear armbands or carry papers with them or swear an oath on a Mohammad comic book, he's just admitting to being a little scared and nervous in that situation.

Put the pitchforks down and take a god damn look in the mirror, you self righteous asses.

Juan Williams just announced a three-year $2million contract with Fox. Does no-one think he carefully scripted what he said knowing it would force NPR to break his contract?

@CINDY. You don't get it. Williams didn't say that he judges all Muslims as people out to get him. He very simply said that he does a double take and gets nervous when he sees a bunch of Muslims in traditional dress on the same airplane. I get nervous when I walk by a large group of teenagers at night. That does not mean that I think that all teenagers who are out at night are out to beat people up. It simply means people tend to get nervous and be on a heightened sense of awareness when they are in a situation that, in their mind, could end badly. That is not bigotry. Look up the term in the dictionary if you need to.

...then your silogism with mustaches is absurd.

Deliberately so.

I think the best, most reasonable point that has been presented in this entire thread is that if the man had acknowledge the wrongness in his own thoughts, he could have quickly absolved himself. If he'd just said, "I had this fear, and then I realized how wrong it was," he'd still have his job. Because he has completely failed to do this (at least in the preceding quotes) he has opened himself up to this criticism.

Is it bigoted to say we're all bigots?

Okay, I read the whole transcript (thanks, logar), and I unequivocally stand by my opinion that Juan Williams is not a bigot. I really hate how the media latches on to one thing and ignores everything else. It is kind of like Shirley Sherrod all over again. If you read the entire transcript, Williams states, repeatedly, that Muslims are not a problem, or the problem, that it's extremists. He even tries, granted not very well, to get Bill O to make this distinction. Bill O agrees that extremists are the problem, but doesn't relent on his exaggeration of their numbers. Williams even brings up Timothy McVeigh, which gives him more points in my book.

Reading the conversation, it's clear his initial statement (the one Dustin first quotes above) was cut off and his clarifications came later. Again, I'll grant that he never admits to the irrationality of his fear, but the entire debate is him trying to convince Bill O that it is irrational. So, I'll take that and his comment that it was momentary (in DR's second quote) to say: Juan Williams is not a bigot. He's not the greatest debater, either.

Now, having said all that, the rapidity of his new contract with Fox is whole other can of worms. But I don't think his ouster from NPR was scripted -- at least not based on the transcript.

NO GODDAMNIT IT IS NOT "COMPLICATED."

1) It is bigotry, plain and simple; but what is much, much worse,

2) It is ignorance of the world so profoundly deep that people who think this way should not be legally qualified to STEP OVER THE THRESHOLD OF THEIR OWN FRONT FUCKING DOOR.

Personally I think he got fired for being an idiot. The hijackers on 9/11 were dressed in slacks and button up shirts, not frickin' headscarves, turbans, burkhas, or whatever else this idiot thinks muslims look like. He'd have sounded like less of an idiot if he'd said that he gets nervous when anyone in business casual boards a plane.

Not to mention you're more likely to die in a damned car accident than in a terrorist hijacking. Unless he also wets himself profusely when faced with his own damn car, he's an idiot and a coward.

Maybe with his new Fox contract he can buy an education and some therapy.

I wouldn't take his being hired by Fox News as anything but:
1. He agreed because: it's a shit-ton of money. Far more that he used to make, guaranteed.
2. Fox proposed because: they are striking while the iron is hot, and he is in the public eye. His race and credibility would also be a significant factor.

Was this planned? I doubt it. Opportunity, meet action.

This does not absolve NPR for reacting how they did (IMO), and wasting an opportunity for legit discussion on the subject.

I also just finished reading the entire transcript (my thanks to logar) and I'll have to conceed that within the confines of the longer conversation he does not come off as bigoted at all.

That being said, I stand by my earlier points. Being fearful of Muslims in any context because of the radical actions of men from the same faith (and I don't believe they share the same faith given their utter abandonment of core principals) is indeed bigotry. This man may not fall into the category, but the category remains unchanged.

superasente, enlighten us. Which "core principals [sic]" of Islam have radical Muslims "utterly abandoned?"

OMG, people. I just realized something. I am Muslim. I have worn 'Muslim garb' (whatever the hell that means) and identify myself as Muslim...

FEAR ME!

That all people of "The Book" (meaning The Bible) are to be respected. One of the core principles is that we all worship the same God; that we're not enemies.

People forget that Muhammad admired Christianity and Judaism and wanted to bring something similar to his people. He didn't view his religious awakening as superior or special; he saw it as Gods way of inviting Muhammad's people into his kingdom.

The religion is as perverted by it's own radicals as Christianity has been by people wielding "God Hates Fags" posters.

If he said the same exact thing about black people we wouldn't even be having this conversation. No one would question his racism.

Being afraid of an entire group of people based on their skin color, religion, or whatever, is bigoted.

This is only a question rather than a statement because it has become scarily acceptable to be prejudiced against Muslims in America.

Yossarian, the point of labeling people "bigots" is not to extinguish bigotry; it's to call attention to the non-bigotry, and thus moral superiority, of the person doing the labeling.

BarbadoSlim, I realize you are playing a character and acting out for attention, but it's time to go in the other room and watch a movie. The adults are talking here.

The great thing about made-up words like "amuricans" is that they function as an indicator that nothing the author has to say is likely to be anything but sloganeering and posturing.

Yossarian, as usual I thank you for your well reasoned, rational argument.

Listen, I undertand what you're saying and to a certain extent I even agree with you. People respond to stimuli and then process it based on their experiences. If a dog bites you, you might become averse to dogs. It is human nature. Furthermore, the way we control our reactions to different stimuli is what defines our character. People are not responsible for their immediate reaction (which come unconsciously), but rather for how they engage those reactions. Do they embrace their petty fears and judgements, or do they conquer them? Are they afraid of dogs for the rest of their lives, or do they venture forth to give it a pat? I get it. I truely do.

However, what makes this man's reaction bigoted rather than reasonable, is that it is irrationally negative. Why wouldn't a reasonable, rational person who is well aware that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, responsible people react more positively? Why wouldn't a person's immediate, gut reaction be one of contentment and/or neautrality rather than one of hostility and fear? Say what you want about me being on my high horse, but I simply don't look at people and assume the worst. The first thing I think of when I see someone who is clearly and obviously dressed in garments from another culture (one that maybe dictates dress based on religious ideals) is whether or not they're comfortable, not whether or not they're dangerous. It's not that I have the worried thought and then suppress it, it's that I don't have the worried thought. I am not worried about Muslims.

Along the same lines, I'm not worried that black guys are going to mug me. I'm not worried that Jews are controlling my money. I'm a little worried that my Irish friends are going to get too drunk and get me into fights, but that's only because my Irish friends ususally get too drunk and get me into fights.

So listen, judge me for this if you have to. Rest easy knowing you don't have to listen to the smug prick on the internet who thinks he's better than you. I'd rather that weren't the case, but I can't control your reactions anymore than Juan Williams can control his.

Some Guy >> It makes a substantial difference. There is such thing as too much political correctness, but if you're going to dismiss any rational evaluation of impulses that we should deem as wrong as the "PC conscious," then we might as well head back to the caves.

The way I see it, he's only a bigot if he acts on it. If it's his gut instinct is fine, it's only when you don't realize that your gut instinct is wrong and use it as a basis for your actions that you're a bigot.

1. Williams was an independent contractor with NPR and had a contract that had various rules among them:
9. NPR journalists must get permission from the Vice President for their Division or their designee to appear on TV or other media. It is not necessary to get permission in each instance when the employee is a regular participant on an approved show. Permission for such appearances may be revoked if NPR determines such appearances are harmful to the reputation of NPR or the NPR participant.

2. This is something Williams spewed earlier this year while chatting with Bill O:
And let me just -- let me just tell you this: If you think about liabilities for President Obama that are close to him -- Joe Biden's up there -- but Michelle Obama's right there. Michelle Obama, you know -- she's got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going. If she starts talking, as Mary Katharine suggested, her instinct is to start with this "blame America," you know, "I'm the victim." If that stuff starts to come out --

Stay Classy Juan.

3. His first mistake was beginning a sentence with "Bill, now I'm not a bigot but..." which of course means what he was going to say next sounded pretty bigoted.

4. He has been on his way out the door at NPR and damn I am so glad he is gone I made an extra donation to my local station.

5. If President Palin Tweets support for you then you know you have done something wrong.

and his firing had nothing, I repeat nothing, no matter what the TeaTards say, to do with the First Amendment or Free Speech.

Ok, that is all....

This actually jives with what you said in your first post: "Bigotry is intolerance for people of different creeds, religions, races, tastes, etc. Pajibans are bigoted towards filthy dirty hipsters for example.

Is it different if we call it good taste?

And it's hipster douchebags. Get the slur right or we'll throw you out of the club. (

Jesse made my point waaayy up thread -- this is more than an isolated incident from Williams on Fox. NPR just finally had enough.

if you have to preface something with, "i am not a bigot, but..." then you are a bigot by your own admission.

I think it just makes you human, regardless of the ethnicity or any other bias. I was flying back from Paris last year, and a gentleman of obvious Middle Eastern extraction sat next to me. I'll admit to being a bit nervous. But you know what? He started talking about his wife and children. Who were sitting a few seats ahead of him. And later (VERY long flight) he introduced me to his wife and children. He was just a person, and I certainly felt a bit like an a$$hole for having the soupcon of unease. But I got over it because he, and his family, were (gasp) human and likable and charming. We all have built in concerns. I think the NPR guy was just being honest. Unfortunately, we are SOOOOO afraid of being un-PC, he gets canned for it. Should have thought, before admitting to being human, and having human concerns that may be biased, and based on presumptions, but still human.

I feel someone ought to give Jules a point by point refutation of her arguments. No offense, they just point to a pattern some of the commenters are making and it's easier to use this as a template.

1. "Williams was an independent contractor with NPR and had a contract that had various rules among them"

That's great. No one's arguing NPR couldn't fire Juan Williams, people were only lamenting the fact that in doing so it cut off an opportunity for them, the supposed leaders in independent thought, to have an honest discussion.

2. Not going to re-post the whole quote, but nothing that Juan Williams said there was bigoted or showed that he has said bigoted things in the past. All you did was post further evidence that he's a fairly conservative liberal. They have a few of those in the senate, they're called Blue Dogs. But it has nothing to do with bigotry or the discussion, so why bother bringing it up?

Stay Classy Jules.

3. "His first mistake was beginning a sentence with "Bill, now I'm not a bigot but..." which of course means what he was going to say next sounded pretty bigoted."

How should he have begun his sentence? Should he have started with, "When I get on a plane and see someone in 'Muslim garb' I get a little scared?" Would that have made it more or less a bigoted statement? Saying we can't use a phrase (i.e., "I'm not a big, but...") is just another way of shutting down conversation. Should every thought that sounds disagreeable to us, or doesn't feed into our preconceived notions, be immediately disregarded? It shouldn't at least have it's day in court? Fine, if someone says, "the Earth is flat," I can toss that in the trashcan lickity-split. But trying to discuss something that involves complicated and rather new emotions (this type of irrational fear has only been so prevalent since 9/11) shouldn't be.

4. "He has been on his way out the door at NPR and damn I am so glad he is gone I made an extra donation to my local station."

Eh, I have no opinion on this, since I only know him in a limited capacity as a straight reporter on the station. But his prior issues with NPR aren't what is pertinent to this discussion.

5. "If President Palin Tweets support for you then you know you have done something wrong."

God, I know, right? It's just so easy to side against her, isn't it? I had no idea she said anything in favor of Juan Williams, and now that I do, I still stand by the fact I don't think he was bigoted on the show in question, so I have to assume he isn't a bigot. Palin happens to be on the right side this time, whether she really even understands why or not, and so I'm not proud to stand with her, but it doesn't change anything. That you think it should, for any argument ever, simply shows your own intolerance.

"and his firing had nothing, I repeat nothing, no matter what the TeaTards say, to do with the First Amendment or Free Speech."

Okay, unless that's actually what Palin said. I still don't know because I don't seek out news on her. But, if she did equate this to a free speech issue, like I know Mike Huckabee did, then she's wrong and doesn't know what the first amendment really means. Which isn't surprising, she's done this in the past. For a party that's supposed to be pro-business, they sure do get upset when companies exercise their rights. Having said that, my position doesn't change, nor should it. Nobody here was arguing that Juan Williams freedoms were violated. So, once again, you've brought up a point that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Stay classy, indeed.

Well, at least over at FOX, Williams will be able to have a personal opinion without getting fired. Journalists are required to be truthful, not to have no opinion on a subject. If he was asked his personal opinion, and it was not in relation to reporting the facts of a specific event, the man is entitled to say what he thinks. Now, whether or not he SHOULD have is another story, particularly if he violated his contract with NPR. Clearly having an opinion contrary to the PC-to-the-point-of-uselessness NPR organization is VERBOTEN. I hope he rides the tidal wave of smear publicity right on over to FOX and blows NPR's ratings out of the water. I don't listen to either network anyway.

it could be worse. here is an honest, if heated debat aboout racism and emotion.

it has been mostly well thought out.

meanwhile i was also in a debate on my university;s website for courses. the thread, like all university threads was born dead, until i attacked the integrity of the students. all of a sudden we were cooking with gas.

i would shake my head or face palm, but whats the use. i will probably get kicked out of university for causing a fuss.

Here is a clip to remind you how seriously NPR takes its standards about political opinion and statements that might embarrass the company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY&feature=player_embedded

Now that Soros is running the show, how long do you think Mara Liasson has before she gets the axe?

It looks like we're pretty much done here, but I saw something this morning that made me a little sick to my stomach. Sarah Plain and Ignorant is now calling for NPR to lose public funding for violating speech rights, and senator Jim DeMint is even talking about bringing forth a bill to do just that.

That is patently absurd. No matter what happens/happened, Juan Williams ought to have the balls to say that NPR has a right to its own business practices and shouldn't lose public funding because it exercises its rights. I understand if he's bitter about the whole thing, but his rights haven't been violated, and our public media shouldn't be used as a political tool, regardless of what you think their "real" politics are or not. But that's what they want, isn't it? Nothing public, everything privately owned. Damn it, damn it, damn it.

Still, he's not a bigot. I may start to think he's an asshole and an idiot, though.

"Censoring your own instant reactions and thought processes to meet some p.c. standard must take a hell of a lot of energy! "

This isn't brilliant. It's just an excuse for people to react however they want regardless of how it effects other people. It's not aP.C. standard; it's a standard of respect and decency.

When the world trade center and pentagon were attacked, and everyone learned who was responsible, I didn't think, "Wow, Muslims really have it out for us." I thought, "Wow, those assholes really have it out for us."

We shouldn't be defending this man's thoughts because they're reasonable -- or because they're normal and sane -- or because we can relate or empathize. Because they're not reasonable. They're not rational. Because anyone with a brain should know that "Muslims" were not responsible for those terrorist actions. Insane, radical individuals were. Not an entire religion. And anyone who had even taken one half of a second to think about this beforehand would have eradicated any bigoted thoughts from the get-go. Out of the gate, they wouldn't have those fears, that apprehention or parinoia. Because it's unfounded. They would have taken the time to say, "Wow, those assholes are really out to get us, but they are not representative of their entire religion, so I have nothing to fear from others of that culture."

His statement about being fearful of Muslims on airplanes is reinforcing the worst kind of stereotypes. It has nothing to do with being prudently aware, like we all should be in lower-class crime-ridden areas of inner-city neighborhoods. It has nothing to do with responding responsibly to your inner-demons (which should never have been given the room to grow in the first place). It has everything to do with being intolerant of others and irrationally paranoid. It has everything to do with reinforcing negative stereotypes. Like a group of black guys being gang-bangers. Like an Italian having mafia ties. Like a Chinese man knowing Kung-fu. Every member of the Muslim faith isn't a terrorist, and any thought to the contrary is a bigoted thought.

Sorry to return to this, but I thought about it all day yesterday. No-one will see this. Bah!

Indeed, superasente, I think you're being particularly obtuse here. Again, no one is saying that bigoted or racist thoughts should be cradled and cooed over like a precious little baby. In fact, everyone's said we should sacrifice that nasty little baby on the altar of rationality. Admitting to having those thoughts is not immoral, either. It's admitting to being human, and being human is never "wrong" (but it's not "right," either -- it just is).

And I think you're completely discounting the entirety of the original Bill O show appearance. It's like you've latched on to only what Dustin quoted and refuse to see any other evidence. The full text of the conversation is just as important, if not moreso, than the soundbite. I just don't see where you're coming from, because you say we shouldn't tolerate intolerance. A) No one is doing that, and B) As far as I'm concerned, real liberalism is tolerating everything up to a point, because how can we move forward if we don't acknowledge our faults?

Also, you're patently wrong when you say that "'Muslims' weren't responsible" for 9/11. The extremists who terrorized us on that day were, in fact, Muslim. So, yes, Muslims were responsible. Not every Muslim, those Muslims. I think you mean that Islam wasn't.

Fred Phelps says the shit he does is in the name of Jesus. That doesn't mean it's true. It means that an insane person is using his Scripture of choice to justify hateful actions. The 9/11 terrorists used their Scriptire to justify violence against something they hate. That doesn't equate to "Islam is responsible for 9/11."

Williams' words were bigoted. His choice of venue was stupid. His employer had every right to fire him because he was choosing to represent NPR in a public forum and his words as an NPR representative represented NPR badly. No First Amendment violation here - even taking into account the paltry funding NPR receives from tax dollars (is a public University considered a government entity? Nope).

Williams' choice to preface his words with "I'm not a bigot, BUT" shows he took the time to consider if his words were appropriate, understood that they weren't (or he wouldn't need to qualify them), and said them anyway, in full knowledge that he was doing so as a representative of NPR.

Our objection isn't because he wasn't being "PC." It's not "politically correct" to be a responsible journalist; it's doing your fucking job. If you want to discuss America's strained relationship with Muslims (both American and foreign), great! If you want to say "I have this complicated feeling that I'd like to bring to the table to discuss in a responsible manner," GREAT! But by prefacing it with "I'm not a bigot, BUT" he negates that because he's becoming an apologist for a bigoted thought. If he had said "I have this problematic thought when I board a plane, and I bet I'm not the only one" then even that would open up an interesting discussion. He didn't do that. He said "I want you to make me feel better about my bigoted feelings," while representing his employer, and got shitcanned.

Of course, I'm with PaddyDog, because someone who works for NPR for 10 years cannot have missed what the fallout would be. I think it was an intentional play to get on Fox payroll, which not only makes him a bigot, it makes him a sellout.

@superasente: Point taken. I too was sad to hear he was fired, and in truth felt a bit of a gut-shot. He seemed totally reasonable whenever he was on NPR. Evidently he'll be (guest?) hosting some O'Riley Factor episodes with his new Fox News contract, so we'll be able to find out where his true feelings actually lie soon enough.

superasente, you're argument about using "Christian" in those scenarios does not apply to this conversation. The U.S. military dropped the atomic bombs, it was sanctioned by the U.S. government, both of which contained more than Christians (especially when you consider that Catholics and Protestants still had residual hate, even then). The same goes for the Dresden firebombing, so, no, you can't say "Christians" did that, either. They don't work as analogies. And, actually, I would argue that the Nazis used their Christianity in much the same way that the terrorists on 9/11 used their Muslim faith, as supposed moral reasoning for their actions. So, no, one could say "Christians" committed the Holocaust, but that still isn't the same as "all Christians" or "Christianity."

Again, you're not really using our arguments against us. Some Muslims perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, that is a fact. So, grammatically and factually, it is not incorrect to say, Muslims attacked the United States on 9/11. I absolutely agree that it's important to specify "extremists" and "terrorists" and to point out that Islam didn't attack us, all Muslims didn't attack us. But you ignore reality if you can't use the word "Muslim" when speaking about 9/11. Couching it is absolutely important, but we have to come at this whole issue from the perspective that the Muslim faith is an important element, perhaps the most important element. Islam, and Muslims, aren't the enemy, and the religion is being attacked from within, yes. But if we can't talk about these terrorists' religion, the one thing they use to justify their attacks (well, their religion and Israeli/U.S. foreign policy), then we're missing the point. For them, the terrorists, right or wrong, it is all about their faith. At least, that's the message they've been sending.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make the problem go away. Again, no one is saying Islam is the problem. The problem is ignorance, and the only way to combat that is to meet it head on with facts. Shutting down an avenue of communication because it's based on irrational fear solves nothing. We have to be able to discuss these things openly and honestly without being immediately judged for doing so, because as soon as the judgments and accusations of bigotry start getting thrown around, people get defensive and close off their brains to your point of view. Bill O'reilly does this on every installment of his show; Juan Williams seems to be doing it now. As a culture and a society, we all lose because we can't talk about it.

RobP, I don't think you sound like a pedantic asshole at all. I appreciate both sides of the argument, I just happen to fall squarely on the opposite side as you.

Looking forward to the next debate.

He said what a lot of people think. He isn't right in what he said but he said what a lot of people feel. And like a lot of people he doesn't act on it, he buries it down deep because he knows it's not fair to tar people with the same brush. But he does get that feeling. A lot of people do. He was brave enough to be that honest about his prejudices. A lot of people on here are not.

I think people made to much of this and went way south on this one,first off you may want to see the "whole" interveiw,they were in fact debating what happen to Bill O one the veiw ,had you seen the whole thing you would have known Mr Williams spoke out agianst muslim fear but did admit to having a second of fear while in an airport,think another reader here said he should have just left that out ,but by not doing so he put it under the microscope,and maybe did us all a favor ,you cannot make people like one another but you can maybe get them to at least be respectful.I don,t think he deserved to be fired they made a mess of it his contract was out in april they could have just let him go then.and for the record I,m just asking but Does NPR not encourage free thinking and speech or is it you think like us or get out?is this what Progressives think? and why the crack on his sanity,yeah she said sorry,but its already out there getting played over and over.