By Jason Scwhalm
Brian Yates’ recent editorial “Terrorists off-limits but Christians fair game” asserts that Professor John McTighe’s comment was a genuine call for violence towards American conservatives. As unlikely as this seems, the consequences of his words are much broader than anyone could have anticipated. Mr. Yates, in his satirical attack on McTighe, exercised his political agenda in a sniping, but seemingly benign, manner. Nevertheless, due largely to response to Yates’ article, Dr. McTighe’s contract has been withdrawn for the spring, pending investigation by the Provost, and Mr. Yates’ once merely irritating partisan rhetoric is now the centerpiece of a scandal.
Following the article’s publication, it received attention from Conservative Weblogs claiming that “John McTighe promotes shooting the religious.” Additionally, the American Family Association, having read Mr. Yates’s narrow and biased recounting of the events, encouraged its members to contact the University of Louisville, and a considerable number of nasty e-mails were sent regarding the issue, subsequently prompting administrative action.
Provided that Yates’ account of the events is accurate, it should be willingly conceded that the university’s course of action is fair according to its policy on such matters. But this article was published not as a cool-headed editorial, but for the sole purpose of polemic exaggeration and venomous mockery. If Mr. Yates wants to write in the fashion of a tabloid journalist, it’s a slimy, although acceptable, thing to do. But having offered his commentary as an accurate portrayal of the events, if any of that information is elaborated, overstated, or even completely false, its being instrumental in a man’s professional censure is bad form – so egregious as to approach libel.
Yates’ article is dubious and irresponsible for a number of reasons. He is also the publisher of the newspaper in which the column appeared. How rigorous can the editorial process be when the columnist is his own boss? Mr. Yates had no first-hand knowledge of McTighe’s remarks. Yet somehow he posits one single source’s account of the events as fact. Mr. Yates directly quotes Dr. McTighe a total of five times. Given that he did not attend the class, these quotes are essentially hearsay. Second-hand quotes are not a journalism taboo, but are unquestionably flimsy evidence for publicly defaming people. There were 24 students in Dr. McTighe’s class, and the fact that Mr. Yates spoke to only one of them intimates his limited level of interest in verifying what was said and assessing how seriously the rest of the class took it.
These shady tactics only provide further evidence that Yates is not the self-styled media magnate he seems to fancy himself, but just another hack pundit with an agenda. Any conscientious columnist would never rest on such transparently polemic measures; perhaps Mr. Yates should offer Dr. McTighe such courtesy. Unless he has personally interviewed him, Mr. Yates’ understanding of Dr. McTighe’s intentions are the same as mine: gossip.
Ultimately, Mr. Yates’ attack on Dr. McTighe represents the most lamentable aspects of student journalism: naïve ignorance of the consequences of published discourse and of the correlative responsibilities implicit in the right of free speech. Unless he can point to some more solid evidence that Dr. McTighe is a actually a homocidal liberal extremist – testimony from McTighe’s other students would be a start – the public scrutiny that he has brought onto an undeserving educator is inexcusable, and his tactics should themselves be subject to public scrutiny as well.
Jason Schwalm is a sophomore of undeclared major and a columnist for The Louisville Cardinal. E-mail him at:
jschwalm@louisvillecardinal.com
