SEE ALSO: COUNTERPOINT – William Bennett’s comments: racist or logical?

Radio personality… SEE ALSO: COUNTERPOINT – William Bennett’s comments: racist or logical?

Radio personality and former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett made some rather ill-advised remarks during a Sept. 28 radio talk show.

“I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,” he said. “That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”

Bennett’s argument is certainly valid from an academic perspective. But his choice of expression was unwise.

Context must be established to understand the storm of controversy Bennett has spawned and revealed the foolishness and social incorrectness of his words.

The most heated topic of Bennett’s Morning in America radio show that morning was abortion – specifically, with relation to the unexpected nationwide decline in crime rate that occurred during the early ’90s. He cited the book “Freakonomics,” mentioning an argument that posits the following:

Abortion, made legal by the 1973 court case of Roe v. Wade, was the primary cause of the decreased crime rate two decades later. Abortions are generally carried out by poor and distressed single mothers lacking the proper support to raise children. Children raised by poor families are statistically more likely to commit crime. Hence, an entire generation of “problem children” was never born, and subsequently never had the chance to grow up to be criminals.

Other writers like Orson Scott Card continue along the “Freakonomics” line of thought to say that empirical evidence shows that this argument is true. The early ’90s was a time when children who were born in 1973 and subsequent years were just coming into adolescence.

The problem arose when Bennett extended this conclusion to race in an inflammatory way. It is regrettable but undeniable that black women are more likely to be poor, single mothers than their white counterparts. Consequently, adverse economic conditions may pressure poor black children to commit more crimes.

I have no doubt that Bennett made his remarks with good intent. He is certainly not a racist, just a radio personality unable to scope the impact of his words. Were Bennett an academic – a professor, perhaps – his rhetoric would not have caused as much outrage. His words would not be misconstrued in academia because what he has constructed is a Modest Proposal argument. Although he did not do so with as much humor as Jonathan Swift, Bennett made a completely hypothetical case and then showed how completely absurd it was.

However, irresponsibility is the best word for his choice of expression. It seems that Bennett uses words without first reflecting. Consider that Bennett is a radio talk show host and that he has a rather large voice in media. As such, he has a responsibility to carefully choose his words. Saying something that will be perceivably controversial hints at intent to rile up the emotions of a listening public.

Bennett had the right to say what he did – for this, there is no doubt. But he should realize that insensitive rhetoric like the one he used is extremely easy to misunderstand out of context. To say such things in a public arena is asking for trouble. Media outlets have a large group of readers, viewers and listeners that are quick to accuse wrongdoing without thinking about the discussion to which they have been presented.

The responsibility Bennett holds is similar to that of David Howard, a former staff member to Washington D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams. Howard, who was white, was forced to resign his position for using the word “niggardly” to describe management of funds during a staff meeting. The resignation was prompted by Mayor Williams’s constituency, who ignorantly misconstrued the word as a racial slur. Niggardly is defined as miserly or stingy.

Howard’s use of niggardly – regardless of context – was completely valid. Similarly, Bennett’s argument had benign intent. Their respective controversies arose from uninformed interpretation. But voices on the speaking end have the power and responsibility to be careful with their words so that such misunderstandings do not arise.

Reality maintains that the society we live in has been severely dumbed down. It is unfortunate that language and rhetoric must be brought down to the lowest common denominator, lest they be misunderstood by an ignorant and accusatory public. I hope the message rings clear to public voices that using powerful rhetoric is ultimately troublesome.

E-mail Karim at [email protected].