Race, Public Trust, and Hannity's Angels

It seems impossible to skip addressing this week's faux outrage from the conservatives over the latest private citizen to call President Trump a white supremacist.  Yes, ESPN's Jemele Hill is a public figure but she's a sports TV personality. She's has no responsibility to an electorate, purview over public safety, and did not make the statement as part of a journalistic expose. She made the comments on Twitter, the same platform where other TV personalities have also assailed the President as racist - like this TV reality host did:

Obama's '07 speech which @DailyCaller just released not only shows that Obama is a racist but also how the press always covers for him.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 3, 2012

Conservative backlash over the comment was an exercise in surreal humor.  Fox's Sean Hannity had a  this diverse panel on to discuss the issue:

White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders called Hill's comments a "fireable offense" during Wednesday's press briefing. That's rich when measured against the Mooch Scale Of Statements It Takes To Get Fired from the Trump administration itself.

Questioning whether or not Hill exercised good judgement considering her public persona is fair game. Facts matter and so do words. Checking the former and being selective about the latter are important. For instance, this blog entry was going to originally be entitled Michigan Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Thanks Bigot for Endorsement. Yet, there were some facts to check around the following post before that story could move forward:

Thank you @realDonaldTrump for your strong support. Working together, Michigan will start winning again with more jobs, growth & paychecks. https://t.co/c2XdyVZi6C

— A.G. Bill Schuette (@SchuetteOnDuty) September 17, 2017

There is certainly some "very fine" evidence to support Hill's opinion about Trump. That said, organizations like ESPN are entitled to set rules around employee public conduct particularly when that conduct can negatively impact the organization or impugn the ability for the employee to effectively do their job. Hill's comments are not going devastate the public confidence in her reporting on week 3 in the NFL but it's understandable ESPN likely doesn't want to get involved in politics. In a perfect world, it probably shouldn't.

However, the world today is far from perfect and there are certainly social media comments that can undermine public confidence in a way Hill's did not. Take those of Ohio firefighter Tyler Roysdon who, on Facebook, lamented he'd rather save the life of a single dog in a fire over that of that of a million black people.

The difference between Hill's comments and those of Roysdon are clear. The former is an expression of opinion citing behavior in another that is discriminatory. The latter is an expression of intent to do harm to others based on opinion rooted in discrimination. Given Roysdon is charged with upholding public safety that truly is a fireable offense. Both Hill and Roysdon are equally protected in their right to state an opinion. Neither are protected from the consequences of their words.

ESPN and Hill will come to terms on the matter as employer to employee. Whether or not those terms are perceived fair by Hannity's Angels or the public at large is also a matter of opinion but since watching ESPN isn't mandatory there are options for expressing sentiment on any given outcome.

With Roysdon there are no options. This deplorable has violated the public trust and lost the right to make a living off that trust. He's stated race as a basis he may use to choose who to save from a burning building. Any decision short of permanently removing his cancer from the Franklin Township Ohio Fire Department endangers the public.

There can be no difference of opinion on that one.