Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Steven McAllister" <>]

Hi everyone,

I have been reading up on the recent discussion about Bill O’Reilly’s
potential keynote address for the It Happened to Alexa organization, and
I can’t help but notice that the discussion has missed a chance to talk
about two very important issues.  The first being how we decide who will
be the public face of our respective efforts.  The second is the place
for disagreement and dissent among members of our “movement.”

Choosing public figures to represent an organization is always tricky. 
We live in an age when every indiscretion of public people is well known
to everyone within hours, if not minutes.  While we need public figures
to reach a larger audience, and to help move our messages into the
mainstream, it is more important than ever to carefully vet potential
spokespeople.  I believe the recent events with Bill O’Reilly can serve
as an important lesson to all of us.  

 While there is some question among recent posters about Bill O’Reilly’s
legal history (O’Reilly was sued in 2004 for sexual harassment), there
are at least two instances that should give anyone in our movement pause
when considering him as a speaker.  Recent on-air comments about the
rape and murder of Jennifer Moore, and the kidnapping of 11 year-old
Shawn Hornbeck and his subsequent 4 years of captivity, cause me great
concern.  O’Reilly called Moore and her friend “moronic girls” and
commented on her miniskirt and bare midriff.  Of Hornbeck, O’Reilly
completely dismissed the dependence abducted children develop on their
kidnappers, and the imminent threat to this child’s safety by saying he
chose to stay with his captor because he was having more fun with him
than he had with his parents, and specifically because he didn’t have to
go to school.  In my opinion, his victim blaming statements are
inexcusable.  The fact that he made them on the air, influencing his
millions of listeners and viewers is, at the very least, contrary to our
efforts.  Whether O’Reilly’s public condemnations of lenient sentences
for child molesters outweigh these statements is a matter of opinion,
and should be a topic for debate when considering him as a speaker.

What’s more important than whether Bill O’Reilly was an appropriate
choice for a speaker is how we debate the choice.  There must be room
for constructive and thoughtful debates within our movement.  Those with
dissenting opinions should feel welcomed to voice their concerns in a
civil and thoughtful way.  Those of us who are being challenged should
be open to the opinions of others, and avoid becoming defensive or
interpreting criticism as attacks on our motives.  All of us do this
work because we want to help people, and our motives are nothing if not
sincere.  We must challenge ourselves to not only accept, but also seek
out critical analysis from others.  

The bottom line is, if we are unable to debate an issue like the choice
of a keynote speaker for a conference, how are we going to debate the
more controversial and consequential issues that we face?  It will be
difficult, but I have faith.  We wouldn’t be doing what we do if we
weren’t able to do difficult things.

Steve McAllister