It's good that she changed her attitude, but the role of a government official making decisions about people's lives is not to experience personal transformations and revelations. It was an abuse of power. It's good that she learned from it, and it's interesting that she was opening herself up and telling such a personal story now. It exposed her to criticism, and her understandably sensitive boss fired her. It's important to acknowledge that Sherrod not only admittedly discriminated against the farmer (years ago), but she saw fit today to speak as if she were proud of the story with its narrative arc of personal growth.
ADDED: The incident with the white farmer occurred when Sherrod worked for the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund, and I don't know the specifics of that work and how it might affect the extent of her duty not to discriminate based on race. I don't mean to express an opinion about whether Sherrod should have been fired. There is a lot going on in this story, and I'm interested to see how it unfolds. I'm holding a position of neutrality here, and I will make my observations as they come to me.
One thing I'm seeing that I don't think many people are talking about is that Sherrod brought religion into her work and her narrative. Her speech began with a genuinely moving story of her childhood. It brought me to tears when she spoke of the murder of her father. Because of that murder, she made a "commitment to stay in the South and devote my life to working for change." The commitment seems to have been a promise to God, as she continues:
God is good. I can tell you that. When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But you know God will show you things and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people...This ties to the line in the anecdote from the video clip: "That's when it was revealed to me that y'all, it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white -- it is about white and black, but it's not -- you know, it opened my eyes..." Toward the end, she repeats this idea: "Like I told, God helped me to see that its not just about black people, it's about poor people. And I've come a long way. I knew that I couldn't live with hate, you know. As my mother has said to so many, if we had tried to live with hate in our hearts, we'd probably be dead now."
That's a beautiful idea. It is impressive that she resisted hate, but a public servant has a duty not to discriminate based on race, whatever her personal background is and whether God revealed something to her or not.
Posts
206 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206"That stories of personal growth and epiphanies should be avoided at all costs, lest they shed light on past views and character flaws that underline the importance of personal growth?"
Do some hypos on that one and get back to me.
A child molester gets up in front of convention and tells his story, including how he found God and decided he had to stop. He's never been punished for his crimes. Do we embrace him? Does he avoid repercussions?
Etc. etc.
See how those play out in your moral scheme, and let me know if you have a coherently nonracist point of view.
I thought that in Sherrod's case, she didn't do the racist thing. She almost did, and then saw that it would be wrong, and didn't. So, no, no patronizing from me. But then, I assume I wouldn't have been included in the "ultra-sympathetic" category anyway.
My god, Ann, you are disingenuous and vile.
Ms. Sherrod has stated that she failed to help the Spooners as much as she could when they first asked for help. Ultimately, as you know, she helped them avoid foreclosure of their home and farm. Still, you maintain that it was wrong of Ms. Sherrod to not do as much as she could to help the Spooners and characterize her actions as discriminatory. The Spooners needed an attorney. Ms. Sherrod helped them to find an attorney. When that attorney failed to do his job, Ms. Sherrod helped them find another attorney. Mrs. Spooner has reported: “Ms. Sherrod ‘kept us out of bankruptcy’. [Ms. Sherrod’s] husband told her, 'You're spending more time with the Spooners than you are with me.' She took probably two or three trips with us to Albany just to help us out. [She] helped us save our farm by getting in there and doing all she could do to help us." If you are correct in your assertions that Ms. Sherrod’s actions constitute an abuse of governmental discretion or an act of discrimination, I have to say I wish more people would engage in both more often.
I am an advocate at an agency whose mission is to help poor people and I sympathize with Ms. Sherrod. There is more demand for services than there are resources to assist people in need—people like the Spooners. Every day, we decide which people asking for our help we are going to help, which people we are not going to help, which people will receive a little attention, which people will receive a lot of attention, which people will be referred elsewhere for assistance, etc. We prioritize. I believe private sector employees engage in this activity as well. I’ll tell you, Ms. Althouse, sometimes I question whether I have made the right decision regarding who to help more and who to help less and sometimes my biases undoubtedly play a role in the setting of my priorities. I do what I can to critically reflect on my decisions and to evaluate how I arrived at them. Did I rush the paranoid schizophrenic off the phone because I had other work to tend to? Is that acceptable? Did I spend sufficient time talking to the woman in the early stages of dementia to be sure I understood her wishes as well as possible? Did I put less effort than I could have into helping the unpleasant man who said unkind things about his wife? I should be making decisions based on the extent of need an individual reveals rather than my personal feelings about working with that person. And I do my best but I know I fall short now and again. And then I try again. Were you to lose your taxpayer funded job and your taxpayer funded health insurance and your taxpayer funded pension plan and your taxpayer funded home, you might need my help one day. And I would remind myself that even though I don’t like unkind, ungenerous people, you are a human being with human needs. And I would then attempt to follow in Ms. Sherrod’s impressive footsteps and set about tending to those needs.
I really don't care whether you think you are the kind of person who doesn't like helping people whom you personally dislike.
I would point out, however, your personal beliefs and feelings have entirely NOTHING to do with your job, which is to help "people," and not "people you like."
That you think you are somehow morally superior for doing your JOB (which doesn't ask you to like the people you help) tells me you think somehow you are morally superior for HELPING people as part of your job.
You are a paid agent of the government, doling out money you have done NOTHING to earn. You might feel good about yourself. But really, why? It's not your money, and it's not even your superior attitude that is important.
I would think you were hired for your ability to discern need, not to bring your moral superiority to us unenlightened needy.
lucystone: Ms. Sherrod has stated that she failed to help the Spooners as much as she could when they first asked for help
Because they were the wrong skin color
The Spooners needed an attorney. Ms. Sherrod helped them to find an attorney.
Based on the attorney's skin colour, not his competency
And I would then attempt to follow in Ms. Sherrod’s impressive footsteps
That would make you an impressive racist.
Post a Comment