As we reported yesterday, Shirley Sherrod, the now former USDA State Director for Rural Development in Georgia, has created quite an odd news event involving the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the United States Department of Agriculture. Sherrod, an African-American, told a story of her own experience discriminating against a white farmer while employed with a non-profit organization 24 years ago.
The video of her relating this story to the NAACP Freedom Fund banquet last March was released by conservative documentarian Andrew Breitbart to demonstrate what he claimed to be rampant racism among NAACP members and leaders. While implicating Sherrod directly, the video depicted the crowd as quite enthusiastic about Sherrod's admission of discriminating against a white farmer.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reacted swiftly, demanding Sherrod's resignation. He denounced Sherrod's admission, referencing USDA's own history of racial issues (i.e. the Pigford settlement). This morning, however, both Vilsack and the NAACP are singing a slightly different tune. Vilsack "will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner," he said in a written statement. Likewise, the NAACP backpedaled from its original condemnation.
Sherrod, for her part, blamed FoxNews and the Tea Party for the swift reaction of the Administration, claiming that the administration is "scared" by the Conservative movement and its alleged megaphone at Fox.
Following her interview with CNN pointing out that her story was used to illustrate her own growth and acceptance that racism is wrong and that she was mistaken in discriminating against the white farmer, pressure mounted for the Administration to reconsider its sacking of the embattled Sherrod.
The challenge I observed in this situation is that Sherrod's admitted incident of discrimination occurred 24 years ago. Is it reasonable to fire someone for an indiscretion that occurred a quarter-century ago? Furthermore, why didn't either the NAACP or USDA review the entire situation before throwing Sherrod under the bus?
Perhaps the bigger, and mostly unreported issue, however, was raised yesterday by Tom Blumer at the Washington Examiner: Shirley Sherrod is a major beneficiary of the aforementioned Pigford settlement. Blumer poses the question that Sherrod's selection as Rural Development Chief and her role in Pigford case may be more than coincidental.
And, as Glenn Reynolds points out, the bigger issue with the Breitbart video is the reaction of the NAACP members and leaders in the crowd to Sherrod's discussion of actively discriminating against a white farmer. Expect that issue to be quickly forgotten by almost everyone, by the way. Glenn has a roundup of other useful and interesting links on this issue.
Comment feed for this post