A Continuing Saga
Jesse Walker | June 20, 2005, 10:25am
How conservatives learned to quit worrying and love political correctness, chapter CXVII:
Two former editorial writers at The Indianapolis Star have gone to court, charging that top newsroom managers "consistently and repeatedly demonstrated ... a negative hostility toward Christianity."
James Patterson and Lisa Coffey have sued the newspaper and its owner, Gannett Co., claiming religious, racial and age discrimination in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court....
In their lawsuit, the two allege Star Editor Dennis Ryerson and Publisher Barbara Henry said editorials perceived as proselytizing or containing Christian overtones could not be printed in the paper....They also assert that Henry and Ryerson strongly disagreed "with anyone who had a biblical view of homosexuality."
[Via Virginia Postrel.]
Lisa Coffey | August 4, 2005, 12:49am | #
Greetings:
Sorry to enter the debate so late regarding the two former Indianapolis Star editorial board members who filed a federal lawsuit against the paper for religious discrimination. I just stumbled onto your Web site, or I would have entered the fun fray sooner.
I enjoyed and appreciated all the comments. I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have about the suit, which has been mischaracterized by the media and even by some folks who support us. As you've likely guessed, I'm one of the co-plaintiffs.
Thanks again for your interest. I'd just like to add two things: 1) You're right... anyone who uses the term "negative hostility" deserves to be slain (or sent back to grade school for a remedial course or two). James Patterson and I wrote most of the brief, but our attorney added some additional wording to synopsize the case. I'll tell him he's in trouble; 2) A paper has the right to print anything it wishes, but it doesn't have the right to fire or transfer a Jew, a Muslim, a Wiccan or a Christian with an outstanding work record, years of experience (16 for James, 14 for me), numerous state, national and international awards won, etc., just because his or her religious beliefs differ from management's. Employees' religious rights are protected under Title VII; that's the gut of our suit.
Thanks again for your interest in our case. Please know that we don't hate gays or non-gays or anybody else. We just really loved our jobs, and we were greatly needed in our tiny department. Incidentally, two months after the new executive editor arrived at The Star, our department head (also a Christian) went on sabbatical after nearly 20 years with the paper; she opted not to return at year's end. I was next to be transferred (a few months later), despite a critical staff shortage, and James actually was fired for poor job performance, despite the fact he had just won a "best writer in the nation" award as judged by Inland Press Association. (Adding to the humor, I believe I won this award, also... that alleged coverup is another whole story in itself.)
We have a very, very small department (department head, four writers and a copy editor who also does page design). So the game plan was clear enough ... adios, Christians... but it isn't legal. If we were Muslims and the prevailing Christian management wanted us off the paper's editorial board (with editorial and column writing privileges), it certainly would be understandable, but it would be illegal under Title VII.
Lisa Coffey | August 4, 2005, 2:11am | #
Greetings Again:
It's probably unchristian (rude, anyway) to post two comments in a row, but I just reread all the comments on the Indy Star-Religious Discrimination lawsuit. They were great... witty, hilarious ... ok, a little mean sometimes ... but they were great. I just wanted to thank you all for the funny, astute comments and just add one more thing... then I'll go away, much to the relief of many, no doubt.
When I worked at The Star, I was becoming very concerned about a lot of really nice kids at the paper who were getting into the gay lifestyle. (I know ... please don't groan yet... please keep reading.) With Russ Pulliam, I ran the Pulliam Journalism Fellowship (internship) for 13 years, and I got to know many of these kids very well. They were like my nieces and nephews. A fair number ended up getting hired by the paper, so my relationship with them continued.
As a Christian, I do believe that the gay lifestyle is against God's design. But so is hatred and judgmentalness. When you're born again, and I'm not sure many people who say they are Christians ARE born again, God makes Himself known to you. Christianity is no longer an axiomatic belief system on par with most of the other world religions; it's an encounter with the greatest Power of love and forgiveness in the universe. We're all looking for love... in sex, food, drugs, alcohol, power, the quest for fame. That's why Jesus said, "Don't judge." We take many roads, some of them to excess, to find happiness until we have that supernatural encounter.
I don't blame anyone who thinks most Christians are bigots. I agree. I couldn't stand them when I wasn't a Christian, and now that I am, I feel truly sorry for most of them. I firmly believe that most "Christians" intellectually accede to the Bible's moral doctrine, which in fact makes sense (don't steal, don't bear false witness, honor Mom and Dad) and then go about clobbering everyone who doesn't agree. But real Christianity isn't mere intellectual assent to a doctrine of so-called right behavior. Real Christianity takes you from one power source (that of the world... self-centered, excessive, harmful misuse of sex, food, drugs, etc.) to Him as a power source. That's the difference. That's why I would never judge anyone, period. If I had nothing else but dirty water to drink to stay alive, I don't need people saying, "Stop that... that's nasty... cut it out!!" I need people to point me to another water source, a clean, pure water source. Until Christians can show people that Living Water, folks have to live somehow... they have to get the energy to live somehow. They're just trying to be happy. If I can't show them the Answer in a real, practical way, I have no right to judge. In all honesty, I have no desire whatsoever to judge.
What hurt was the fact that so many gay young men I knew were physically sick. I wanted to know why... and I found out after a great deal of research. I wrote a series on sodomy... its public health and economic consequences... making it clear that this sexual practice is dangerous no matter who practices it (men-men, women-men). The information I uncovered was mind-boggling. Even the AIDS pandemic in Africa is now linked to sodomy after an extensive study by German researchers. But the series never made it to press. The first column was on the page, ready to run, but our executive editor (whose twin brother is gay) killed it and the series outright, saying he'd never run anything that cast gay men's behavior in a negative light.
The Star's publisher is gay; so is its managing editor and the editor of its youth publication, Intake. A friend from The Star just called me today to tell me how many people have "come out" at work over the last two years and how many are so terribly sick. This information about my "spiked" series (as Bill O'Reilly called it) is part of our case file, but you're right... it's not my paper, and I can't dictate what the paper prints and doesn't print. But it grieves me to see political correctness dictate editorial policy (and I speak not just of editorials but all news material) when people's lives are at stake.
Moreover, future generations of lives are at stake as we continue to normalize anal intercourse; we tell a child that she must wash her hands after she uses the restroom but then tell her that it's fine when she's 16 or so to lick another person's anus or have anal intercourse. You can't believe how incredibly dangerous these practices are... and how condoms actually increase the risk of disease transmission when used during anal intercourse. The information I uncovered about HIV, hepatitis, anal cancer and diseases only found among people who regularly practice sodomy is just the tip of the iceberg. Moreover, there are growing numbers (millions of people each year) who are contracting HIV in this country alone and don't even know they have it. Your dentist or barber (male or female) could nick your child or you and not even know that he or she has infected anyone.
Anyone who is ill deserves and needs help, but we need to concurrently look at prevention. Right now, HIV drugs can run as high as $10,000/month, and Medicaid (taxpayers) and private insurance companies (who pass along those costs to their insureds) are covering these costs. Have you noticed your health insurance premiums going up in the last five years and your benefits going down? Soaring health costs affect all of us, and you'd be amazed at the costs of HIV treatment.
Please let me repeat: Those men, women and children who already are sick need and deserve compassion and treatment, regardless of how they contracted HIV, hepatitis or whatever. But we have to get the word out regarding a sexual practice that for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures has been considered dangerous from a medical perspective... but now is considered normal and merely a personal choice/privacy issue thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas on June 26, 2003.
People who regularly practice sodomy are impacting society at large. At The Star, my friend said that her gay friends let her know they're HIV positive... it's no big deal to them because they're on retroviral drugs... but in fact they still can transmit HIV through accidentally scratching someone. This is not the stuff of hysteria; it's the truth. The data I uncovered (county, state, national, international) was so mind-boggling and so important to the public... yet, it was censored because it addressed a practice that gay and bisexual men often practice regularly (according to statistics compiled by gays themselves) and thus cast their lifestyle in a negative light. My department editor said she would have resigned over the censorship had she not already given notice of her plans to go on sabbatical.
The series would have been bylined... I wrote both unsigned editorials that reflected the paper's view as a whole and also opinion pieces under my own byline. So the series would have been
my "opinion," not the paper's stance on sodomy. But even under those circumstances, the series was killed. (One E&P story said the series already had run... have no idea where it got that idea.)
Forgive the long posting. My concern is that political correctness has become more important than concern for the public. People are intelligent. If you show them objective data and let them make up their minds about whether society should normalize this sexual practice, then the debate can intelligently proceed. But the debate was squelched from the onset.
It's not a fun topic, believe me. That's all I needed to be: the Sodomy Poster-Child/Writer. Not a pretty prospect. But I was and am so convinced that lives are at stake and that a whole new generation is growing up ignorant of those dangers. This behavior practiced by a growing segment of the population does have a direct impact on all of our taxes (skyrocketing Medicaid costs) and insurance costs. There will come a time when more and more people will become HIV-infected, and these patent-protected HIV drugs (no generics yet) will become too costly for "just anyone." I've already seen it.
I believe we will win the Christian discrimination lawsuit. My own coworkers have testified in my behalf. But this issue of communications monopolies quietly buying up TV, radio and newspaper venues (Gannett owns 100+ papers in the U.S. alone, including USA Today, as you may know, not to mention numerous radio and TV stations) and then censoring the news to the detriment of the public good ... this issue is far more important.
Again, this long posting (and I apologize for it) is just the tip of the iceberg. Thank you for your patience in reading.
Lisa
