a placeless world

As a young white man undoubtedly angered over all of the things young white men get angry about, David Williams found solace in Leonard Pitts' words.

Pitts, a Pulitzer-prize winning columnist for the Miami Herald, appropriately chided his fellow African Americans for plastering unconditional support upon famous black athletes, actors and singers whose actions should earn them jail time, not praise.

Williams used the column as a model for his own rabid ramblings in The Daily Barometer at Oregon State University. Within hours, he was labeled a racist. Within days, he was fired from his post at the nationally recognized college newspaper.

If the liberal outrage spawned by Williams' words was a fire, the conservative reaction to his ouster was a napalm attack. To nationally syndicated radio talk show host Lars Larson and those of similar ilk, the young columnist was a still-bleeding martyr to the great conservative cause of proving bias in the nations of Academia and Journalia.

They called Williams' firing an affront to the First Amendment and criticized Barometer Editor Niki Sullivan for robbing the young man of an opportunity for scholarship.

As usual, the reactionaries on both sides of the fence missed the big picture as they took small portraits of the controversy.

As a columnist who has been fired from The Barometer — by a guy who now ranks among my very best friends, by the way — I'd say getting canned can serve as a learning experience.

The longer I've been in this business, the more I have come to understand a very simple principle: Our editors and publishers do not always agree with what we write or the attitude we take with us to work. We and others are free to judge the judgement of those who run newspapers. But we would be wrong more times than not if we always assumed that their decisions are made without due thought and consideration to their community, readers and paramount obligation to the First Amendment.

To be certain, the same words next to a different colored mug shot would have produced a very different reaction from the OSU community. Were Williams' comments unrefined? Certainly. But no more so than most other college editorialists, many of whom take the opportunity to write a column as a right to spew opinions regardless of fact, experience or relevance. As such, Williams was wrongly villainized for voicing his opinion, flawed as it may have been.

But in much the same way, Sullivan was wrongly villianized for her decision to terminate David's employment with the paper. Having read over OSU adjunct professor Steve Bagwell's analysis of the situation, it seems clear that Sullivan made the decision after full consideration of both the content of the column and the content of the author's character. In short, she took care to consider what she felt was in the best interest of her community, readers and paramount obligation to the First Amendment.

The protests will subside. The pundits will move onto other controversies. But the experiences Williams and Sullivan are sharing are preparing both students for careers in this profession, should they choose to take this road.

It's a bumpy one, by the way, but the scenery is damn beautiful.