Bill Maxwell, in his Sunday April 15th column, confuses situational ethics when he says that "Sharpton and other black critics of Imus are hypocrites. I will bet that Chris Rock could have said "nappy-headed hos" without making much of a wave, and I bet that he would have gotten big laughs from many of the same blacks who demanded Imus' unruly mop on a platter." He preceeds this remark with a qualifying gesture for some kind of professional demeanor, an astuteness that misses the mark : "Because I am a journalist, who is dedicated to freedom of speech, and because I am a former college professor, who is dedicated to academic freedom, I have no serious problem with Imus' epithet. "
Academic freedom has it's limits. You won't find any college professionals calling their students nasty insulting names, nor will academia allow for a dehumanising process between staff, faculty, and students. Spontanaity also has its limits and place.
He does not pursue this case against Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, instead, stating his offense at what black pop culture produces. This is why I am saying that Bill Maxwell is confusing situational ethics. None of these venues occupies a central media time slot with national political and media figures. If only Imus "had the rare ability to get Beltway movers and shakers and media insiders to open their veins and spill their guts, as it were," then I would be impressed, but he is not the only media talent available, and I am happy to see this abusive Iman persona non grata go his unhappy way. I want to be a part of something better.
© Copyright 2006 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.
probably, better said as ...he should have called Sharpton a hypocrit. Lets look at what's on the end of a racial fork. 
