Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Vilsack Reviewing Sherrod Firing, But She Is Not Sure She Wants the Job

Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is reviewing his decision to fire Shirley Sherrod. Vilsack fired Sherrod after he viewed a misleading video that suggested she discriminated against white farmers.

The misleading video was posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart and subsequently aired on Fox News. Rather than investigating the facts, Vilsack demanded that Sherrod resign.

One day later, after media and blogs have aired the entire content of Sherrod's speech, Breitbart's lie has been made public and Sherrod's name has been cleared. It turns out that Sherrod was encourage the audience not to think of the world in racial terms (rather than condoning bigotry). Vilsack is reviewing the firing in light of these new developments.

Sherrod, however, seems torn about the prospect of working for the USDA again. During an interview with CNN, she describe the possibility as "bittersweet." Sherrod is upset that after such a long career assisting farmers, she was pressured to leave without any investigation into the facts surrounding the controversy. Sherrod says she is unsure how the agency will treat her if she returned.

My Take
Sherrod sounds like a highly rational individual.

See also:

This Is How Post-Racialism Looks: Another Take on the Firing of Shirley Sherrod

Lessons For the NAACP From the Shirley Sherrod Fiasco.

4 comments:

davemartin7777 said...

I hope she sues the SOB's for defamation of character.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

A defamation suit is hard to win against "journalists."

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Wrongful termination seems more appropriate. She was fired for a non-issue.

Hippi Chicki Niki said...

Even against Brietbart, who is not technically a journalist and who has publicly admitted that he purposefully edited and posted the tape in an effort to retaliate against the NAACP? A wrongful termination case is against Vilsack and the USDA. He was wrong and acted in a way that definitely led to wrongful termination, no doubt about it. However, Vilsack didn't edit the tape and cast aspersions on her character in front of a national audience. That seems like it deserves consequences even more than Vilsack's actions.

Plus, I must admit to loving the fact that a defamation or slander suit would keep Breitbart and this whole thing in the news cycle longer than if she doesn't sue. That would do more to bring down her persecutor than loss of money. To rob him of his credibility and political power would be something that would pain him more, I think.

I'm clearly not doing so well at the "hoping that all sentient beings are free from suffering" thing tonight. This guy, I want to suffer - not physically, not his health or anything like that, just the loss of the things he has been so willing to harm others in pursuit of. That's a fitting consequence. It's my gleeful enjoyment of the thought that is so wrong.

Real Time Analytics