Categories
ideological culture scandal

Northam Exposure?

Hear that?

It’s the faint sound made by an incredibly perfunctory effort to get to the bottom of the yearbook scandal that has cast, shall we say, a blackface shadow over Virginia Governor Ralph Northam.

Back in February, news broke that the governor’s personal page in the 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) yearbook contained a photograph of one person in blackface next to another wearing Ku Klux Klan robes and hood. 

“That photo and the racist and offensive attitudes it represents does not reflect that person I am today.…” Gov. Northam offered. “I am deeply sorry. I cannot change the decisions I made, nor can I undo the harm my behavior caused then or today.”

The next day, Northam recanted, claiming that neither the painted nor hooded head was his, and bafflement as to how the photo got onto his page.

The media hasn’t been digging into the story, but the McGuireWoods law firm was hired by EVMS to “independently” investigate.* Yesterday, the firm released a 55-​page report that couldn’t say one way or the other about the who or the how of his yearbook page photo — while acknowledging that “one witness has reported to us that he recalls reviewing the Governor’s personal yearbook page with the Governor in 1984.”

Apparently, Northam’s staff had provided various options for responding to the “chaotic” media frenzy, including a “full denial” and “full acceptance.” 

Talk about zeroing in on a plan.

“I always rely on my communications people,” Northam told investigators. “I don’t know why the statement went in the direction it did.”

There may be many courses of action, but only one truth. Which is what Gov. Northam should have chosen.

This Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* The Portsmouth NAACP’s James Boyd expressed “zero trust” in the investigation, calling the law firm “attorneys for Ralph.”

PDF for printing

Ralph Northam, blackface, kkk, yearbook,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
Accountability folly general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

Statues and Limitations

“Should they take down the Jefferson Memorial?” 

That is what PBS’s Charlie Rose asked Al Sharpton. Now, the “Reverend” is not my go-​to source for political insight, but his answer* caught my attention. 

“I think that people need to understand that, when people that were enslaved and robbed of even the right to marry and had forced sex with their slave masters, this is personal to us,” replied Rev. Sharpton. “My great-​grandfather was a slave in South Carolina … Our families were victims of this.”

Asked if this precluded “public monuments” for “everyone associated with slavery,” Sharpton argued: “When you look at the fact that public monuments are supported by public funds, you are asking me to subsidize the insult to my family.”

One can attack the messenger, Sharpton, sure. But what if we instead think of him as our neighbor? I certainly wouldn’t want to insult a neighbor, much less make him pay for the privilege. 

Notably, the Reverend embraced privatization, suggesting, “You have private museums.” Privatizing controversial monuments would certainly solve Sharpton’s stated problem.

Of course, the logic behind taking down statues or dismantling the Jefferson Memorial — or merely privatizing them — might also lead to changing the names of cities, counties and states, rivers and mountains. And it’s not just Washington and Jefferson — twelve presidents were slave owners, including Union General U.S. Grant.

Who knows how many are undeservedly memorialized?

Frankly, I’ve never liked the name of my Virginia county: Prince William. A liberty-​loving people ought not be stuck with such a monarchial brand.

Let the people decide. 

But by vote, not street brawl.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* This exchange begins at the 15:22 mark in the interview.


PDF for printing