When the Benefit of the Doubt Isn't Ours to Give

What does it mean to give someone the benefit of the doubt? I must admit that I coined my own definition long before ever looking it up. When I finally did, three different sources gave three slightly different definitions. Each definition, however, revolves around the theme of choosing to believe in someone's good intentions when there is doubt in a given situation. My own definition agrees with that theme, but it extends the theme even further, drawing upon the implications of being able to believe in someone's good intentions.

The way I see it, believing in someone's good intentions requires the knowledge or belief that those good intentions exist. Such knowledge or belief can only arise from experience with the person. In other words, if my first encounter with you is a negative one, I essentially have no basis for assuming you have good intentions.

Let's say, for example, you are talking to your friend on the phone, and this friend starts complaining to you about someone they recently met at school. According to your friend, this other person made some very insensitive comments and was quite cynical during their encounter. After listening to your friend describe this person, you start to realize that you actually know them! Not only do you know them, but you have a very high opinion of this person and are appalled that your friend would say these things about them.

So what do you do? Do you assure your friend that this person most likely did not mean those things the way your friend took it? Do you remain neutral? One thing you should not do is give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because in this case, the benefit of the doubt is not yours to give. Neither is it theirs to give, because they don't know the person beyond that negative experience.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt requires some element of setting our negative feelings aside--based on the assumption that the person wasn't trying to hurt us. But how can you assume that about someone you don't even know? That doesn't mean we should assume all strangers are out to get us, but it does mean that our feelings are still there and deserve to be addressed. That is how we set boundaries with people we've just met. (On a side note, when we choose not to give the benefit of the doubt to people we already know, it is because there is no doubt that they have crossed those boundaries.)

As such, while it is okay to share with your friend your own experiences with the person they just met, you shouldn't dismiss those feelings, assuming there was a misunderstanding. For all you know, there wasn't. I have plenty of friends who dislike each other, and in their minds, for good reason. It would be wrong for me to force my positive opinions on them. If they ever do become friends, it won't be because they gave each other the benefit of the doubt. It will be because their subsequent interactions are more positive than negative, thus enabling them to look past their first impression--without dismissing their own feelings.

So why do I bring this up? A friend of mine recently shared a link that had angered and disgusted her. It had made her feel dirty inside. While my reaction to the article wasn't quite as intense, I could very well understand hers. I won't go into detail because that may lead to tangents, but her reaction was informed by a recurring theme that this article seemed to perpetuate. For various reasons, the theme doesn't affect me as much as it does her, which is actually why it wouldn't have been right for me to suggest she was overreacting.

Someone else did, though. Apparently he was well-acquainted with the author, and was deeply offended by our mutual friend's reaction. He insisted that she had misunderstood the author's words, claiming that the author was a good man with good intentions. Fair enough. It's perfectly fine to give a stranger the benefit of the doubt when your friend vouches for them. It's not okay for the friend to insist that you do so, which is what this person did. Right after indignantly clarifying the author's words, this person condescendingly "requested" that our friend edit or remove her comments. He didn't care that she had found the article repugnant. He didn't care that reading it made her want to take a shower afterwards. All he cared about was his own experience with the author. That is wrong.

Too many of us are dismissive of other people's feelings, albeit unintentionally, when we have more knowledge than they do about a given situation. But it is precisely because of their lack of knowledge that we shouldn't be so dismissive. It is hard enough not to let our emotions overpower our intellect, but if the intellect isn't there, so to speak, our emotions are all we have. Sometimes we simply have different knowledge than the other person, based on different experiences. It is not okay to invalidate other people's experiences by suggesting that ours carry more weight. And yet, when we demand they take us at our word and give someone else the benefit of our doubt (not theirs), that is exactly what we are doing.

Truth be told, I wish a lot more people would give others the benefit of the doubt in general. All too often, when someone says or does something out of place, we rush to judgment and give them no chance to explain themselves. We might even have enough prior knowledge about the person to logically deduce that there has most likely been a misunderstanding. But that is our prerogative. The only way we can change another person's heart is to allow them the same experiences that have changed our hearts. Then and only then can the benefit of the doubt be applied. It cannot be demanded.

Phil Robertson: A Poor Case for Freedom of Speech

So after days of reading about protests for and against Phil Robertson's suspension for his recent rant against homosexuality, I finally relented and read some of the Duck Dynasty star's infamous remarks. I was initially going to stay out of it because I don't care for reality TV, neither does it interest me when celebrities get themselves into trouble with thoughtless statements such as Robertson's. But then people started bringing the First Amendment into the discussion.

Coming from a patriotic family, I am an ardent proponent of the First Amendment. And truth be told, I sometimes find it difficult to support someone's First Amendment rights when they say or do something I otherwise disagree with. But free speech is free speech, and it works both ways. The First Amendment is a true and moral principle that should not be trifled with.

At the same time, as a writer, I get quite irritated when people loosely throw around a word or phrase without quite understanding its actual meaning. Now I've come to accept that words like "literally," "irony," and "further" will always be misused by a good portion of the population. But when vital principles like the First Amendment appear to be misused, I feel inclined to speak up.

So what about Phil Robertson's case? Is the First Amendment being trivialized by one side, or is it being misused by the other? I certainly wasn't about to form my own opinion without reading his actual comments, so I finally googled it. When asked what Robertson considered sinful, this was the response that led to his suspension:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. (Paraphrasing Corinthians) Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

From my perspective, that quote does not target homosexual behavior. Neither does it compare homosexuality with bestiality, as many critics claim. They are just two of the many behaviors that Robertson lists as sinful. But I can see why people would take it that way. His use of the phrase "morph out from there" implies that homosexuality ultimately leads to those other behaviors. I have mixed feelings about such an inference. On one hand, I find the inference hypocritical because the phrase "morph out from there" is just a poor substitute for "go from there," and many of us misuse that phrase on a regular basis. We often use it not just to suggest a cause-effect relationship, but also to indicate our own thought process while expressing ourselves. We're basically thinking out loud.

But on the other hand, when we communicate with an audience, we are responsible for expressing our point effectively. If we choose our words poorly, we cannot blame our audience for misunderstanding us. This is why I value effective communication, as ineffective communication can have drastic consequences. When we think of the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," we tend to look at it only one way. But just like words can be more persuasive than violence, they can also be more deadly.

Now if A&E were a Government entity, my mixed feelings would be significant. If Robertson meant to identify homosexuality as a gateway sin, he was targeting a group in front of millions of people, and his words come dangerously close to inciting action against that group. Such behavior is not protected by the First Amendment. But if Robertson was simply expressing himself poorly--and I believe he was--then he was merely listing his religious beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment. While he has had a lot more to say about homosexuality in the past, those past comments aren't what got him suspended.

But because A&E is not a Government entity, all of that is irrelevant. As a former church leader of mine recently observed, freedom of speech "was put in place to protect us from being punished by the Government for speaking out against the Government...it doesn't protect us from the consequences of our publicly-stated opinions in regard to other private parties."

In other words, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, as this issue involves a private employer legally using its own discretion regarding the behavior of one of its employees. While there is such thing as wrongful termination, I don't think that applies here either. If an employer can show that an employee's conduct is hurting their business, that is justifiable grounds for termination. The employer does not have to tolerate such behavior just because it is guided by the employee's personal beliefs.

So no, no matter how you spin it, Robertson's suspension is not a violation of the First Amendment.

When we misuse and overuse a principle as vital as the First Amendment, we eventually weaken its integrity. That is why those who care about it as much as I do should insist upon its correct application even if its incorrect application works in their favor. When we allow the end to justify the means, we make ourselves no better than the tyranny the First Amendment was intended to prevent.