Free Speech Silenced Anonymously

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported here today that Philadelphia’s VA hospital hosted a lecture on September 28th by bioethics expert George Annas titled "Human Rights and Bioethics: Lessons From the Geneva Conventions, the Guantanamo Hunger Strikes, and the Nuremberg Code."

And in case you’re wondering, the answer is no; this, by itself, is not the reason why the paper wrote about it today.

They reported on this because someone complained about Annas’ presentation.

Someone, as in one person.

One person who didn’t sign the complaint letter, that is.

I’m sure you can guess why they complained, but I’ll note it anyway (excerpted from the letter)…

“I’m writing to you to please investigate how lectures like this are allowed to be presented in federal facilities during a time of war, in open disagreement with the current administration’s policies in Guantanamo. Does the VA medical Center fund this individual’s travel or pay speaking fees. I would think this would be prohibited by law.

I regret I cannot give my name because quite frankly freedom of speech amongst employees at this medical center does not exist. Repercussions for speaking out against the senior leaders at this site are severe. I choose to remain private.”

I don’t know about you, ladies and gentlemen, but I smell a great big, noxious freeper rat (I mean, I noted the title of Annas’ presentation above; did anyone think somehow it wouldn’t be controversial? It sounds like most of us here are acting like adults, but some of us are not).

So, as a result of this letter, here’s what happened.

Typically, (Evelyne) Shuster (director of the VA’s medical ethics program) said, she has sent bioethics event notices to about 5,000 people at the VA and the University of Pennsylvania. After the complaint, she said, the hospital's public-relations staff told her it would handle future announcements.

But the next invitation never went out. Hospital officials said the e-mail was misplaced.

So when Temple urban studies professor Allen M. Hornblum came to speak about medical experiments on prisoners last month, only five people attended. Most lectures are attended by 50 to 100 people, Shuster said.

"Was I disappointed? Sure," said Hornblum, who also attended Annas' lecture, which he described as "rather tame."

"It seems like they're trying to kill the program," Hornblum said.

And it gets even better when the facility’s PR flak Judi Cheary gets involved and says that the only person upset about the hospital’s reaction was Shuster (I presume that Shuster is employed by the national VA and not the Philadelphia facility; it’s hard for me to imagine the hospital’s vice president for external affairs, namely Cheary, “diming out” a senior person at her own place). On top of that, Cheary says:

"Why would the speakers (Annas and Hornblum) be upset? Why should they care if we have a bioethics program?"

After reading that quote, I need to digress briefly.

I don’t know how many of you have a familiarity with principles of corporate or non-profit public or media relations departments, but I had a bit of training in that area when I attended Temple University. One of our case studies was called “Peter Pepper’s Letter,” which, in essence, was a situation where someone had been passed over either for acceptance to a school or employment (not sure since it’s been awhile, and a Google search yielded nothing), and they basically decided to take out their frustrations in written form and sent the letter to the interviewer. The lesson is that someone should think carefully before they say or write something in a public forum, taking at least one and perhaps many deep breaths before they do so.

And that is what Cheary should have done here before she decided to blame Annas and Hornblum for the Philadelphia VA’s boneheaded decision (made particularly by chief of staff Martin Heyworth).

After digesting all of this a bit, I’d like to make a suggestion about this that really doesn’t have anything to do with politics.

Ostensibly, the purpose of the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Hospital (as well as that of all VA hospitals, I would hope) is to care for and treat our veterans as best as we can. Can someone out there legitimately argue that trying to kill a discussion forum on current day issues affecting veterans is part of that process?

I’m sorry that one anonymous person’s sensibilities were offended over a presentation containing disturbing photos pertaining to topical issues (photos which, as Annas noted, are burned into public consciousness already, and rightly so). But that is no justification whatsoever for silencing an important dialogue that, in addition to being part of our fundamental rights as Americans, is also part of care and treatment for those who serve and have served our country.

Further, author Geoffrey R. Stone notes here this country’s history of trying to stifle free speech in time of war (and by the way, I’m sick of people using the excuse that this is the Now And Forever You Godless Liberal And Dubya Is Upset That Both Bolton And Rummy Are Out Now But That’s Too Bleeping Bad War On Terror as an excuse for all manner of unconscionable acts); I’ll put this on my reading list since I’m sure he has plenty of current updates.

Also, this links to Annas’ presentation (click through each slide - don't see many words so far) and this links to the complaint letter; I don’t believe registration is required to view either one.