The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has its own Philip Kurian, and her name is Jillian Bandes. Bandes was a columnist for UNC's campus newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel, until Sept. 13, when she wrote a column encouraging racial profiling at airports.
But mere description of the topic doesn't capture the cavalier tone of her column. First, there's the opening line: "I want all Arabs to be stripped naked and cavity-searched if they get within 100 yards of an airport."
Later, she says she wants "Arabs to get sexed up like nothing else"-a sarcastic nod to an earlier quote cited from Ann Coulter.
But what really got Bandes into trouble came next. On the basis of interviews with two students and a professor, all of whom had connections to either the Middle East or Islam, Bandes quoted in separate statements that the three were in basic agreement with the idea of racial profiling and letting themselves be "sexed up."
The day her article ran, her editor was obviously getting a lot of negative feedback about its general idea, but Bandes' goose was finally cooked when all three of her interviewees came forward to say that Bandes had badly misrepresented and de-contextualized their statements. Her editors saw this as an unacceptable breach of journalistic ethics and fired her.
It's impossible to know if Bandes did misrepresent her sources and, if so, how badly. There is no definitive record; the affair is basically another "he said, she said" dilemma. But for the purposes of my argument, that doesn't matter.
Free speech is only as strong as the punishment one is willing to endure on its behalf-punishment to one's reputation included. Normally, if a controversial article gets printed, the editors defend it by letting the angry e-mails and letters pour in and responding, "Yes, I know it's bad, but free speech..."
But in the Bandes incident, instead of firing their columnist, the editors' answer should have been even more resolute: "No, we won't fire her; not only are we willing to print the repugnant ideas in her column, but we refuse to fire this journalist even if she committed errors, as we'd rather let our reputation for basic fairness and accuracy be tarnished than risk sending a message that might smother the full and unhampered expression of ideas. Ethical lapses can always be discredited later, but censorship is forever!"
That's a real commitment to free speech no matter what.
Yes, Bandes probably did misrepresent certain statements to her audience. But pick your poison: a paper in which the occasional misrepresentation slips through, or one in which certain ideas suddenly appear de facto forbidden.
It's by no means a rhetorical question, but those who waver or choose the latter can't unequivocally stand behind a radical affirmation of free speech-like Bandes' column could have been.
If Bandes had stayed on as columnist, the DTH still could have printed every last refutation from the interviewees and any other party that cared to opine. All facts would still have emerged like they have. Bandes would still look as dumb or as smart as everyone already thinks she is. But by deciding to axe her, regardless of what their actual or stated reasons were, the editors have created the perception that her ideas had something to do with her firing. And on the op-ed page, where you're trading in ideas, perception is everything.
Think their decision won't affect future columns? If I'm writing an editorial for the DTH and (as is common) running short on time, am I going to write a bold, provocative column? One that I know, after this incident, might be scrutinized closely and have haste-born accidental "misrepresentations" of its own uncovered?
Or will I take the safe, bland approach that will guarantee my job? There are bound to be casualties of ideas.
On the morning of Sept. 13, Jillian Bandes became a very unpopular person. Is there anyone who would dare claim that if Bandes' topic had been, say, world peace, and she had created a similarly sweeping but ultimately favorable misrepresentation of one of her subjects, we'd still be discussing her employment status?
Since the process which led to the uncovering of her alleged misconduct was intimately-essentially-linked to the furor caused by her ideas themselves, Jillian has to get the benefit of the doubt. Instead, she-and free speech-has been left out in the cold.
Who's next?
Philip Sugg is a Trinity junior. His column appears every other Friday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.