The Bill Bennett Controversy: Incivility All Around
Nearly everyone knows about Bill Bennett's comments made on his radio talkshow, so I won't repeat them, other than to reiterate that he immediately added that his theoretical suggestion would be "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do."
It is true that the chances of going to prison are much greater for black males t
han other demographic groups, as illustrated by the graph to the right from Wikipedia. But Bennett was asked a question about the impact of abortion on Social Security without the caller making any mention of race. The idea that the crime rate would decline if every black baby was aborted was an uncivil slap in the face to African Americans everywhere. It wasn't necessary for Bennett to use a race-based analogy for him to make his point. It was a blunt reference to a delicate, sensitive, and troubling issue. It is often argued that racism, poverty, lack of life opportunities, and the cultural divide are all contributing factors.
Bennett was out of line. But so are his critics.
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) issued a letter calling on the Salem Radio Network to suspend Bennett's show. It is unseemly for a member of Congress to demand that a citizen speaking on a matter of public concern have his voice silenced because the government official strongly disagrees with the free speech expressed in off-the-cuff remarks. Not surprisingly, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) swiftly called Bennett a "racist." Is it any wonder that public knowledge of Bennett's comments is far, far more widespread due to the volume of his critics, who have fanned the controversy?
The danger of the extremely heated, angry response to Bennett's comments is that public debate on issues of race will be squelched. Hearts indifferent to racial sensitivities will harden when put on the defensive, and the goal of closing the racial divide will be inhibited. The precise problem with Bennett's remarks requires some explanation. This could have been a teaching moment that could have built understanding between blacks and whites. Instead, Bennett's detractors have nearly turned him into a victim.
It is true that the chances of going to prison are much greater for black males t
han other demographic groups, as illustrated by the graph to the right from Wikipedia. But Bennett was asked a question about the impact of abortion on Social Security without the caller making any mention of race. The idea that the crime rate would decline if every black baby was aborted was an uncivil slap in the face to African Americans everywhere. It wasn't necessary for Bennett to use a race-based analogy for him to make his point. It was a blunt reference to a delicate, sensitive, and troubling issue. It is often argued that racism, poverty, lack of life opportunities, and the cultural divide are all contributing factors.Bennett was out of line. But so are his critics.
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) issued a letter calling on the Salem Radio Network to suspend Bennett's show. It is unseemly for a member of Congress to demand that a citizen speaking on a matter of public concern have his voice silenced because the government official strongly disagrees with the free speech expressed in off-the-cuff remarks. Not surprisingly, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) swiftly called Bennett a "racist." Is it any wonder that public knowledge of Bennett's comments is far, far more widespread due to the volume of his critics, who have fanned the controversy?
The danger of the extremely heated, angry response to Bennett's comments is that public debate on issues of race will be squelched. Hearts indifferent to racial sensitivities will harden when put on the defensive, and the goal of closing the racial divide will be inhibited. The precise problem with Bennett's remarks requires some explanation. This could have been a teaching moment that could have built understanding between blacks and whites. Instead, Bennett's detractors have nearly turned him into a victim.
posted by The Libertarian Republican at 1:09 AM
2 Comments:
Bennett's statement strikes me as factually correct - the crime rate would go down.
Furthermore, Bennett was also right in calling his proposal morally reprehensible.
Bennett took a big risk in saying what he said. Of course, that's befitting a man who has lost millions gambling in casinos.
I think Conyers is perfectly within his rights to call for Bennett to be taken off the air. Airwaves are public, not private, furthermore, Conyers was not calling for enshrining such censorship in law. Of course, I disagree with Conyers because I think he misunderstood Bennett's remarks.
As for Kennedy's remarks. Well Kennedy is a drunken idiot. One could not construe Bennett's remarks as racist.
Finally, Bennett inadvertently brought up a good point: the most obvious way to reduce a lot of social pathologies, including welfarism is to simply encourage women to plan their pregnancies. I really can't believe our society has not reached a consensus on this in the 21st century.
Bennett should've related his comments to socioeconomic status instead of race. Nobody would've said boo. And it's poverty that is the issue.
Anyways, he should be allowed to say whatever he wants. It's America, and we have the right to criticize it...
Post a Comment
<< Home