ByWillAtkinson.com

I prepared these remarks before the racial issues forum last Thursday but didn’t have a chance to deliver them.

###

I’m going to give you a number. 2,559,466.

That is the number of soldiers who have fallen for this country since its founding. They died for American ideals. They fought for these words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps you know it, the first amendment.

The Johnsonian is protected by the first amendment and that includes Byington’s free expression. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. No matter how much you detest her opinion and viewpoint, she has the right to express herself.

I would like to commend the Roddey-McMillan Record for the restraint exercised in their coverage of this incident. I was ready for the worst and it turns out, I didn’t need to be.

However, the editorial contained within the November 9, 2005 edition contains several points to which I take great offense.

First off, the editorial asserts that the Johnsonian made a scapegoat out of Byington to veil some insidious racial plot. This is pure conjecture and disingenuous journalism.

The piece also declares my editor-in-chief Rebekah Woodson to be an outrageous person for having the audaciousness to print a controversial opinion column. I quote: “What bothers us is…she would run the same piece again. How can you say that when such literature generated this amount of tension and has seemingly created a racial divide further separating blacks and whites?”

I’m going to use Aristotle’s time tested argumentative method, reductio ad absurdum. If journalists are to follow this proposed modus operandi of avoiding tension, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward would be coming to a Burger King near you. A minor event known as Watergate created significant amounts of tension for the Nixon administration.

It must be noted that the civil rights movement was protected by the first amendment. Journalists covered freedom rides, bus boycotts, and marches with bravery and balance. The pictures of African-Americans being beaten just for sitting at a whites-only lunch counter created inestimable amounts of racial tension. Would it have been better to ignore these events and keep everyone feeling safe and tension-free?

Now some of you will make the logical fallacy that I have tried to equate Byington’s column with the valiant 1950s and 60s civil rights struggles. This is unequivocally incorrect. I am merely citing precedent to bolster an argument that I regret having to make in the first place: free speech is intrinsic to this great country. It was founded upon it.

Just because someone’s thoughts cause controversy does not mean they should be marginalized. It is a fundamental principle of the American republic that the rights of a minority, which in this case is free speech, be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Ben Franklin said that.

Admittedly, race issues are extremely tenacious and volatile, especially in this region. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are 47 active hate groups in South Carolina, more than any other state. Obvious inequalities exist among different groups. America will only be greater when every citizen can compete economically on a level playing field.

Still, it saddens me that this column prompted vitriol and anger rather than a measured discussion. If anywhere should be a safe haven for the marketplace of ideas, it should be a university. I think it’s embarrassing to the college that a reasoned debate did not occur. Rather, headlines splashed ‘uproar’ and ‘anger.’

As reprehensible as some speech might be, it must still be protected. Because you disagree with an idea does not mean it should be quelled. Such an opinion is totalitarian and tantamount to book burning.

I urge students not make assumptions about an organization’s motives. Byington’s column was not an organized attack on African-American students. Rather, Christine Byington elected to express her views in our paper. Any student is allowed to act as she did. It is her right.

I had no knowledge of the content contained within Christine’s writing prior to publication. To purport that I did is both folly and a logical fallacy. You do yourself a disservice by not weighing the issue more carefully.

The Johnsonian exists as a forum for all students. We invite all viewpoints from across the political spectrum. If you feel differently from Christine, I challenge you to prove her wrong. We are always looking for writers and would love to ideas from across the ideological board. I believe it’s healthy for a campus to discuss issues that many people hide under the blanket or shy away from.

Finally, if you have problems with our coverage, tell us. I had not received any negative letters yet after Christine’s column some students termed my hard work shoddy and lacking in journalistic integrity. Yes, that is an affront to me but I am always looking to improve myself as a person and a journalist. The Johnsonian is open to all students, all viewpoints, and all people, regardless of race, color, or creed. I invite you to transform our publication if you believe it needs to.