Days of the demagogues

In the world of politics and political activism, there are few true coincidences. The Bush administration "lost" millions of emails which would probably reveal whether or not eight U.S. attorneys were improperly fired? Probably not a coincidence. The countries that most benefit from trade with Iran oppose sanctions? Again, there's probably a connection. So, when so-called "civil rights activists" — who could be better described as professional race-baiters — launch a high-profile crusade against a privileged white man's bias just as their previous high profile crusade against the same kind of bias imploded, I question the timing.

I'm talking about Don Imus and Duke lacrosse. For those who don't know, radio host Don Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" on his program. He later offered a real apology that was accepted by the team, in which he described his comments as "completely inappropriate ... thoughtless and stupid." This apology and his candor over his mistake was not enough for Al Sharpton and others, who successfully lobbied for Imus to be fired.

Last Friday on WPRB, I was the only one of four panelists on our weekly talk show who did not think the dismissal was warranted. If someone admits to making a mistake, apologizes for it and makes an apparently good faith effort to ensure that he doesn't do the same thing again, I think a suspension is more appropriate. This is especially true when the person in question is employed to be shocking; Imus has a show precisely because he makes insulting and inflammatory statements, so to fire him for doing the same thing to excess seems absurd. This is not to say that his comments are excusable or permissible, but the punishment here seems excessively draconian.

The punishment was not the only aspect of this incident that was taken too far. When looked at logically, it is difficult to imagine how a tasteless and offensive comment for which an apology was offered and accepted could become the number one news story in America for nearly a week. One explanation in particular lends itself to this odd fixation.

Look at the motivations of those who pushed this story. Chief among them is Al Sharpton, who rose to national prominence by making libelous accusations of racism and rape in the Tawana Brawley case. He is given a platform by the media because of his proven ability to incite protests and deadly violence. Based on his history, he is not a man who should be lecturing anybody about inappropriate comments and the degradation of discourse.

Sharpton's dubious history continued last spring, when he and Jesse Jackson were by far the highest profile national figures to criticize the Duke lacrosse team in the wake of rape allegations, which were later proven to be false. Sharpton granted frequent interviews about the case, in which he "commended" those who had called for the lax team's castration, described the bogus accuser as the "victim" and praised Mike ("rogue prosecutor") Nifong as a beacon of integrity. While hindsight is 20-20, Sharpton made many of these comments after serious doubts had begun to emerge about the accuser's credibility. Sharpton also insisted on hyping the racial aspects of this case, and he certainly inflamed tempers unnecessarily.

So if there were a national figure who needed to avoid the dismissal of charges last week, it was Al Sharpton . The news had to be about something other than a previous black eye, so he looked for an issue that he could turn into a headline grabber and found Imus' idiocy ripe for a publicity firestorm. What's more, Imus had actually expressed all those terrible things of which the Duke players were falsely accused, so Imus also presented an opportunity to prop up the discredited meme of out of control white male privilege preying on vulnerable black women.

Seriously, am I the only one for whom the timing of this mini-controversy is at all suspicious? Just as the Blue Devils are revealed to be angels, the professional grievance monger finds a new windmill to tilt at? Yet, if Sharpton's goal was to avoid judgment for his actions, as he has avoided apologizing in the past, then he succeeded. Other than a single barb from Imus, the news media has largely, if not entirely, avoided this double standard in which Sharpton's calculated slanders gain him airtime, while Imus' mistakes cost him his job. Double standards are, however, one the lesser injustices in these cases, but that is a story for another column. Barry Caro is a sophomore from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.