The legal problem with Nichols’ comment

I have read with interest and dismay some of the comments both for

and against Newport Beach City Councilman Dick Nichols’ statement.

Finally, Katherine Wright’s letter on Thursday (which seemed to

attempt to make Nichols some kind of Christian conservative white

male martyr) and Reba Williams’ letter, also Thursday, drove me to

comment. I think those writers and a lot of other people have missed

the point.

I don’t believe that the issue is freedom of speech. Nor is it, as

Councilman Tod Ridgeway put it a couple of weeks ago, about

“tolerance.” And finally, I don’t think the issue revolves around

“indecent speech,” as your columnist, Steve Smith put it.

Let me explain. Nichols is free to exercise his free speech

rights, whether or not his statements are perceived as racist or

indecent. If the people of Newport Beach want to elect or retain

someone who is a racist or is perceived as one, they are free to do

so.

Nor do I think the problem is Nichols’ intolerance, either. While

I am happy Ridgeway learned “tolerance” when he was a kid, Merriam

Webster defines the word as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or

practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own” or “the act

of allowing something.” I don’t think the fact of being of Mexican

ancestry is a “belief or practice” needing our tolerance, nor do I

think that they need to be “allowed” to use public property. Ridgeway

may not have meant to use the word that way, but I can tell you that

it comes across as somewhat condescending if you are one of the

persons being “tolerated.” Perhaps in Nichols’ case, a bit of

tolerance would be a good thing, but again, I don’t think that is the

real problem.

Smith’s comment is also a problem for me because his definition of

“indecent speech” may, and probably is, different than mine. People

have different moral codes, different religions or none at all, and I

always get a little nervous when someone else decides what is or is

not acceptable speech. I don’t believe, as White House spokesman Ari

Fleischer said, that Americans should “watch what they say.”

I believe that the problem is the context in which Nichols made

the comments. Nichols on this and evidently at least one other

occasion, speaking as a public official, seemed to be suggesting that

his decision as to spending public money on a public asset would be

determined by which segment of the public used the asset. In the

1950s and ‘60s, this country went through considerable upheaval to

overturn the idea that public money could be used in a way that

discriminated against one minority group or another. Whether he meant

it or not, Nichols’ statement would lead one to believe that if only

conservative while male martyrs used the grassy area, that you would

have been fine with the expenditure. Or, if the proposed new school

only had white kids, that it would be OK. Or perhaps you meant to

have a “white only” and a “Mexicans only” area? Well, “separate but

equal” died a long time ago, too.

The Supreme Court and the Congress of this nation have long

recognized that discrimination when public money is at stake is not

only wrong, it is illegal and that is the biggest problem with

Nichols’ comments, it seems to me. I hope that Nichol will have the

good grace to resign.

ANDY ROSE

Newport Beach