Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Free-For-All Friday
Aired August 02, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE's free-for-all Friday. I'm Arthel Neville and I hope you are ready to beat the bell, because today we have so much to cover. We are going to have the latest information on those teen girls who were rescued in California today.
Also, what would you do if your employer sent you home and told you to change your hair style? Later this hour, you will meet a Savannah woman whose twists got her sent home from work. You can tell us if you think she was treated unfairly or not.
And then we'll find out who is offended by women who breast feed in public. You can get on the action by calling 1-800-310-4CNN, or e- mail talkback@cnn.com.
OK. Let's get ready. We are going to meet our guests right now. Curtis Ellis is an entertainment correspondent on the Peter Werby (ph) Show on the I.E. American Radio Network. Hey, Curtis.
CURTIS ELLIS, I.E. AMERICA RADIO NETWORK: Hello.
NEVILLE: All right. Nancy Skinner, a talk show host on WLS in Chicago. She's also co-host of the nationally syndicated "Good Day USA." Hey, Nancy.
NANCY SKINNER, WLS RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Arthel, girlfriend.
NEVILLE: All right now. All right. Armstrong Williams, the columnist and host of the nationally syndicated radio show "The Right Side With Armstrong Williams." Hey, Armstrong.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hello, Arthel.
NEVILLE: All right. And Ramesh, and correct me if I'm saying this properly or not -- it's Ramesh, am I right?
RAMESH PONNURU, "NATIONAL REVIEW": Yes.
NEVILLE: Ponnuru.
PONNURU: That's right.
NEVILLE: All right. Well, welcome.
PONNURU: Thanks.
NEVILLE: Let me tell people who you are. You are the senior editor of the "National Review." Welcome to you as well.
All right. First up today, two kidnapped teenagers, girls, are back in the arms of family members. Their abductor, Roy Ratliff, is dead, shot in the desert area of California, where police say he was probably only minutes from killing his captives. We are learning a lot more about Ratliff today, including the fact that he had a criminal record that goes back nearly 20 years. CNN correspondent James Hattori joins us now from Monterey Park, California.
And James, if you would, tell us the latest on this story.
JAMES HATTORI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, officials in Kern County just completed about a 45-minute press conference a few minutes ago. You may have seen some of it. And a couple of things from that stood out as updated information.
Let's talk about those first. First of all, it was striking that this gun battle occurred, this gunfire occurred, I'll put it that way, in this remote dry canyon in Kern County where the kidnapper was converged on by two Kern County sheriff's deputies. There were some words spoken. He drove off. They chased after him. They finally had him. He was stalled or high centered on his car. Couldn't go anywhere.
He apparently drew a weapon, and the deputies fired at the car without knowing that inside were these two girls. They had, in the words of the sheriff there, they didn't have a clue that these two girls were in the car at the time the gunfire occurred.
Now, the incident commander says a total of 17 shots were fired. One deputy fired nine; the other deputy fired eight. It's unclear if the suspect fired his weapon. They're still looking over the forensic evidence there.
They do say that he had two weapons, two hand guns, a .38 and a .22. Couple of points: Did point the guns at the deputies, and that's what prompted them to fire, in the words of the sheriff today, he was saying that, you know, any time you point a gun at a Kern County sheriff's deputy, you better be, you know, prepared for what is going to happen, and he totally, completely supported the actions of his deputies in doing what they did. And of course, as I say, they did not know that the girls were in the car at the time. He was saying that the suspect got exactly what he deserved when he pulled those guns.
Now, one other point, Arthel, is that the concern about releasing information that these two girls were tragically not only kidnapped but sexually assaulted. And that's been reported widely. Of course, initially that was not reported. They were strictly kidnapped victims to anyone's knowledge. It became released later from the Kern County office that -- sheriff's office -- that they were crime victims, or rather sexual assault victims, and the sheriff apologized for that, because apparently some of the family members were a little upset about that.
And of course, they are having to deal with that now, but the sheriff said that if he offended them, he was very sorry, but that he was trying to just convey that -- the frame of mind of the perpetrator, that he had already done what he was -- had set out to do with these girls, and he was at that point looking for a place to dump them, in the words of the sheriff -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: James, I was wondering, though, is it procedure for the Kern County sheriff's office to publicize that type of information?
HATTORI: Well, I think you have got to look at this as a special case. I think every jurisdiction has a separate policy. State law restricts release of information about minors generally, and a lot of certainly the media outlets have their own policies about not naming, and we certainly stopped naming them once it was disclosed that they were sexual assault victims.
But again, the sheriff said that at that point, the names had been widely reported as kidnap victims, and certainly the families probably wanted that out in order to get the publicity about this case in hopes of finding them. When it was later disclosed that they were victims of sexual assault, as the sheriff said, it wasn't to note -- to publicize that aspect of it, but simply to in the context of the crime as it was unfolding to let people know that this was his frame of mind, that this was an apparently desperate man who would go to desperate measures and was very dangerous.
NEVILLE: James, hang on for me if you will, because I'd like to bring the panel in on this particular point in the story about the fact that the Kern County sheriff's department publicized that these girls had unfortunately been raped.
And Curtis, I'm going to start with you. How do you think that should have been handled?
ELLIS: Well, I don't see what purpose that serves for the sheriff's department to release that information. I understand it may have been a misjudgment, an honest misjudgment. Maybe he was concerned of justifying why his officers killed this man. I think the fact that he pulled a gun on his officers is reason enough. And I don't know what purpose it serves to release this information. These young women are going to be traumatized enough already. And to read about it in the "New York Post," with their names and pictures doesn't serve anybody's purpose whatsoever.
NEVILLE: Ramesh, what are your thoughts?
PONNURU: I think that it was a mistake. And I think that it lent itself to the kind of lurid, sensationalistic and irresponsible coverage we that saw in some places, including "LARRY KING LIVE" last night.
NEVILLE: I'm sorry, what did you say?
PONNURU: I think it lent itself, this release of information, to the kind of irresponsible and sensationalistic coverage that we saw in some places, including "LARRY KING LIVE" last night.
NEVILLE: Well, no, let me tell you this that CNN policy is to not show faces or use the names of sexual assault victims, and some other news organizations continue to do so. But once we found out that information, we pulled the names and any video that you have seen. You just saw that the girls' faces were blocked out. Of course, no one had any idea of knowing that this had happened before it was announced.
Nancy, how do you see it?
SKINNER: Well, we didn't know what happened before it was announced. We were sort of in the dark on this. This guy, we knew he was a bad guy. I'm sure that at least some good reporters would suspect that there was a possibility that these girls were raped.
The sheriffs, it sounds like he made a mistake. He was trying to justify why they had had a shoot to kill order, and as Curtis said, I don't think you need to. The guy has got a gun.
Having said that, though, Arthel, I think it's interesting if you take a step back. We do have all these policies, the media, different organizations have these policies against reporting on it. In the case of minors, I understand. But are we stigmatizing rape? Are we saying now that we can't say their names or something? That this is a crime that somehow they participate in? I know clearly these girls did not, but does this policy sort of say this is so bad it's stigmatizes rape? I mean, they are victims of a crime like any other.
NEVILLE: Nancy, you bring an interesting point, and we were discussing that very topic up in my office, and that is that it's certainly these girls are victims. It's definitely not their fault, and unfortunately they are going to have to live with the trauma of this. And I think that somehow the public needs to be able to reach out to these girls and say look, it's OK. It is not your fault. It was not your fault at all.
SKINNER: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, it's not their fault, so why should they feel bad or everybody is hanging their heads like, oh, now everybody knows they were raped. Well, yes. That was a terrible event that happened, but nothing that they did, and so I don't see why -- you know, there's a component in there. It's just under the tone of what we are saying, and it just doesn't sit right with me.
NEVILLE: Right. I mean, Armstrong, I want to bring you in on the conversation, too. I mean, I'm personally sorry that that information was out there that they got raped. I mean, I just wish that it had not gotten out there in the first place.
WILLIAMS: I think in many ways this was sort almost unavoidable. I mean, you have to realize that the victims were 100 miles from where they were abducted. And the fact that the police were firing at the car not realizing that they were in the car -- I think they were so relieved by the fact that they were alive, and I just, I can only imagine that when they shared the information that they were violated, the police officer -- and they are human beings just like all of us -- just got carried away and mentioned the fact that these women were assaulted.
I don't think he said it in a way to cause to cause further harm to them. But I just -- I think he wanted the public to realize what these girls had undergone, and for the public to realize what they were up against, and the fact that they survived.
But I think Nancy makes a very good point. I don't think there's any shame in what has happened to them. I think we can all include them in our prayers and hope that they will recover. We need to get away from the stigma of rape and just deal with the kind of persons -- people that perpetrate these kind of crimes, because that's where the shame lies.
NEVILLE: Absolutely. They're the idiots. They're the -- well, I have a bunch of names for them that I can't say here.
Let me get James Hattori back in on this conversation.
James, before we end this particular segment I want to know if -- I know you've been out there covering this -- but have you had any information as to how the girls and the families are doing at this point?
HATTORI: No direct firsthand information. Some officials did say this morning that they had heard the girls were having -- you know, being reunited with their families last night, are obviously in a much better place and feeling a lot better and doing well, under the circumstances, considering the ordeal they've gone through.
It was quite telling when one of the -- the incident commander at the scene yesterday in Kern County did remark that when he first saw the girls -- this was at the scene, right after the shooting had occurred -- that in their eyes he said he could see the terror that they had gone through; but also, at the same time, glimpses of smiles and relief that this was over, and that they knew they would be back where they needed to be very shortly.
NEVILLE: That's good. James Hattori, thanks you very much for that update.
And I have a phone call coming in now from Ohio.
And John (ph), go ahead and speak out for us.
CALLER: Hi. I would just like to say that it's -- I think it's a little more important now that we concentrate that these girls are safe than they were raped because, I mean, like the other girls before, they were raped and murdered, but these girls are lucky to survive. And I think we should concentrate more now on the fact that they are alive, than that they got raped.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: OK, listen, that is all the time we have for that topic today. We're going to move on now.
And up next, according to the "Washington Post" the FBI wants to fix a leak, and has asked some members of Congress to take lie detector tests.
Find out what they say after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody.
Remember awhile back when we all found out there were Arabic references to the September 11 attacks intercepted by the National Security Agency on September 10, but not translated until after the 11th? Well, maybe we weren't supposed to know that.
According to the "Washington Post," the FBI wants to know who leaked that information. It has asked nearly all 37 members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to submit to lie detector tests. And guess what? Most of them don't want to do it.
I'm going to go to the audience first of this.
Andrea (ph), would you stand up for me please.
And how do you see this? What do you think?
ANDREA: All right, first of all, I don't think anyone should be exempt. I think, lest we forget that something like that never happens in this country anymore, because if we can find out -- I don't care who it is, who the politician is -- if we can find out the truth, let them take the test.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
(APPLAUSE)
SKINNER: Wow, that's so scary, Arthel. I'm sorry, I am scared by that.
If we -- we're going to start giving lie detector tests to the Senate Intelligence Committees? We don't even know. This could have been any member from the National Security Agency.
I -- really, this is starting to scare me. The TIPS program we have where Americans are spying on Americans. Now what are we going to have, some -- another Committee on Un-American Activities to root out all these traitors within our own Senate and House Intelligence Committees? And everyone is clapping for this?
ELLIS: Well, I think maybe where he should use truth serum. Why use lie detector tests? We know they don't work; they're not very accurate. Why don't we just give everybody truth serum, and maybe then we'll find out.
NEVILLE: These things aren't 100 percent reliable. They're not allowed in court.
Armstrong, should they have to take them, or be asked to take them?
WILLIAMS: No, I don't think a member of Congress should be asked to take a lie detector test. I think if these agencies have this top secret information and they feel that it cannot be trusted with anyone, I just think we should go back to what happened with President Bush about six months ago when he had this meeting at the White House with members of Congress and the Intelligence Committee and the information leaked out and he threatened not to include them in the briefings anymore.
And there was such a fallout from it that there was a promise made that it would not happen again. I think the best thing to do: If you don't want it repeated, then don't tell it.
SKINNER: But Armstrong, we don't know that they did this. You can't say it's them. This could be any member of the National Security Administration, in fact -- or agency.
In fact, there was just a report out that concluded that of all the intelligence failures, the FBI and the CIA, it was the NSA that was the worst performing agency of any of them.
So to say, to assume it's all of a sudden Congress and not the worst performing intelligence agency -- yes?
WILLIAMS: Nancy, you may have a point, but let me tell you, congressmen and senators on Capitol Hill, they leak information, and they leak it quite often. That's just the way business is done on the Hill.
SKINNER: So they're guilty until proven innocent?
WILLIAMS: No, no. There's nothing to prove; they leak.
ELLIS: The last I checked...
NEVILLE: Hang on for me guys. Hang on one second because someone just sent an e-mail. I want to share it with everybody if we can pop it up on the screen right now.
It's from Jerry in California. And he says: "Find out who is leaking secret information and throw them in jail. Risking our national security is no excuse for attempts at political advantage."
Curtis, you say what?
ELLIS: Well, I say that Congress has the power of the purse, and Congress is supposed to -- has oversight over the intelligence agencies, and these committees have every right to look into the performance of these agencies.
And there is no reason for the executive branch, no. 1, to be withholding information, as President Bush threatened to do; and no. 2, threatening these people with lie detector tests or gosh knows what they're going to do after this. It's clearly the executive branch overstepping their bounds.
And as for national security, if we don't have security for the Congress to exercise its proper role in the functioning government, we have no security, we have no nation anymore.
WILLIAMS: So are you advocating that they leak? Are you advocating that they continue doing this? I'm a little confused...
(CROSSTALK)
ELLIS: I have known for years that the National Security Agency is unable to process the information that it gets.
Now the rest of the country knows this. It's about time. Had we known it -- had everyone known it when I knew it back in 1995, maybe September 11 wouldn't have happened.
WILLIAMS: So they should continue leaking, that's what you're...
(CROSSTALK)
SKINNER: It's a matter of priorities. You cannot -- this information was so widely available. Why doesn't the FBI spend its time -- it took them almost a year to sort of hone in on one anthrax suspect...
WILLIAMS: That's a different issue, Nancy.
SKINNER: No, but see they've set so many resources on this leak because it's political.
NEVILLE: Hang on for me Nancy, I want to stick to the point here.
I want to let Whitney (ph) -- she's been very patient -- I want to let her get in here.
WHITNEY: I just think that if they're innocent, why are they afraid to take it, and that if (sic) the truth will set them free if they don't have anything to hide.
WILLIAMS: But they do.
ELLIS: That is not the way this country works.
SKINNER: That's the scariest thing...
WILLIAMS: We know this, but America doesn't see it that way.
You guys have been inside the beltway for too long.
ELLIS: I don't live in the beltway, Armstrong, I live in New York City. I have nothing to do with the government.
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: If you break the law, if you violent trust, you should be punished...
SKINNER: Armstrong, there's this thing called the Constitution, and we seem to have forgotten the Bill of Rights.
We don't have a policy in this country that if you have nothing to hide you should take lie detector tests, and if you have nothing to hide, the cable guy can come in your house and snoop around, because what do you have to hide?
The fact that we're accepting this is outrageous.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: ... you're probably going to get the last word, I think the bell is going to ring soon.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. I think that every politician anywhere, whoever they are should, be given a lie detector test because we need to find out who is being untrustworthy.
ELLIS: Well let's start with President Bush first, then, and find out how untrustworthy he's been.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I also think that the FBI has to stop concentrating on the past and protect us from the future, because they haven't done a good job so far.
WILLIAMS: I'll agree with that.
NEVILLE: Wait, wait, wait, how old are you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 14.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: Yes, and you live in New York? Where in New York?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Great Neck, New York.
NEVILLE: All right. Well, listen, that was a great job you did there. Hang on with me.
OK listen guys, there's the bell. We have to take a break, then find out what you think about breastfeeding in public.
You want to talk about that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.
NEVILLE: All right, stick around.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) NEVILLE: Up next on "Free-For-All Friday," a nursing mother is ordered to leave a public pool. She was told young children shouldn't be exposed to that. Are you offended?
Tell us what you think about breastfeeding in public right after this.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK welcome back everybody.
Listen to this story: A New Hampshire woman says she was asked to breastfeed her baby somewhere else outside a public pool. Lauralee David was standing in waist-deep water while she nursed her 4-month old infant. Now, she says a pool supervisor told her it was a family pool and little kids shouldn't be exposed to breastfeeding.
There was a big demonstration today. Several nursing mothers held a -- there it is -- they held a breastfeeding swim-in to protect what they say is discrimination.
And wow! Now that's girl power for you, huh? Wow, that's interesting.
Hiawatha (ph) here in the audience, I want to get your thoughts on this. Should the -- Lauralee, should she have been kicked out of the pool or not?
HIAWATHA: Well, breastfeeding is a private matter, and the pool is a public place. However, they did provide facilities for her to be able to go into a private place to do that. And I felt she should have gone to that private place to do it.
She had her other children, and rather than her inconvenience herself and take the other children out, she would rather inconvenience everyone around her and do that, and I don't feel that was right.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
I'm going to go to Michael (ph) here.
MICHAEL: Yes, the thing I feel is that breastfeeding is a natural process. Now, I don't agree that she was in the pool, but she should have got out of the pool and been on the side of the pool so she could take care of her kids.
NEVILLE: Just as long as she was onside the pool, cover-up with a little diaper, what they do, that's fine, right?
MICHAEL: That's right.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you.
Melissa (ph), how do you see it?
MELISSA: Well, I don't feel that the supervisor was out of line. I do, as Hiawatha said, feel that it is a private thing. And I think if she wanted to do it there, there is a time and a place for that.
NEVILLE: Let me ask you this: Let's say you were in a restaurant and a lady at the table next to you started breastfeeding her baby, what would you do? Would you say anything to her?
MELISSA: That's a tough question. I may or may not, depending on the circumstance. So it just depends on...
NEVILLE: Michael (ph) is back here going uh-uh, uh-uh.
Stand up. Uh-uh, uh-uh, what does that mean?
MICHAEL: Well, if she's not showing, you know, everything, then that's fine. But yes, if it's been brought out for everybody to see -- everything I've seen, all breastfeeding that I have ever seen has been very private, you don't know; the baby is just up on her chest.
NEVILLE: OK, I've got a call coming in from New York now.
Phillis (ph), what are your thoughts on this?
CALLER: Well, I think it's horrendous that people would be offended by a breastfeeding mother, especially in a public place because it's the most natural process. It's a way to keep families together.
And just because there's other little children in the pool, it shouldn't be looked at as anything sexual at all. It's a beautiful, natural process.
And so she was standing in the water nursing. What's the big deal? I am a nursing mother. And what am I supposed to do, never go out because I can't nurse my baby in public?
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Hang on because Hiawatha (ph) wants to jump in. This is a whole little audience thing going on here now.
HIAWATHA: Thanks Arthel.
I think that when the lady uses "natural," so is using the bathroom. So is, you know -- that's a natural process as well. Should we pull out our things or just sit down in public and...
NEVILLE: But come on, going to the bathroom and breastfeeding, you can't compare that, now can you?
HIAWATHA: It's natural. It's natural; a natural thing to do. And that is natural as well.
NEVILLE: Hang on guys because you -- I know, panelists, you can't see the audience, but they're going nuts for this one so I've got to let them get in here.
MELISSA: OK, changing a diaper is natural. Now, would you do that out in the middle of a huge crowd? In a restaurant?
NEVILLE: Yes, but diapers are smelly. That's a different story.
Renee (ph), what do you think?
RENEE: Well, my question is, how would -- if there was a child that jumped in the pool and would have hit her or the child while she was breastfeeding, how -- I mean, what good is that for the 4-month- old child to be struck by another jumping child?
NEVILLE: OK, but now we're dealing with hypotheticals, and we have to deal with the issue at hand.
And that is: I want to know what you think -- whether or not the lady should have been kicked out of the pool for breastfeeding in the pool or not.
RENEE: I don't think so.
NEVILLE: All right. I know my panel were jumping to get in on this.
I think -- let's see who wants to really get in. Is it Armstrong?
WILLIAMS: Well, you know, I will say this: I have seen women breastfeed in public, and it's interesting for me. I see it as something so wonderful and so precious. And I would rather see kids exposed to that than the rump-shaking and the half-naked people on TV that they tune in late at night and everywhere else.
I think there's more value in a woman breastfeeding her child. I think it's natural.
And when a child is crying, and if the child is hungry, you don't know when that child is going to go through those antics and want to be fed. And I think any mother naturally will respond to feeding their child.
So I don't think anyone really plans that. I think it's...
ELLIS: I never thought I'd agree with Armstrong. I never thought I'd agree with Armstrong, but I do.
I wonder what the authorities at the pool thought, these kids were going to be scarred for life by seeing a mother breastfeeding her child? Most of those kids were probably breastfed at one time.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: OK, listen, there's the bell. Now, and normally we're supposed to switch topics, but this is really good. I have a lot of e-mails coming across now, so I want to stick with this. Lisa (ph), hang on for me, OK.
All right, listen, don't go anywhere. Give us a call to get in on this action. This is quite an interesting story. I love to hear all these different perspectives.
TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
We're talking about breastfeeding in public. A lady was kicked out of a pool -- a public pool in New Hampshire because she was in waist-deep water breastfeeding her 4-month old child.
And Lisa (ph), you're from New Hampshire, where this all went down.
What do you say about this?
LISA: I'm a nurse and a breastfeeding proponent, and I am in favor of discretion, there's no question. But nobody should have to eat in the bathroom.
NEVILLE: Isn't that a point. Wow, that's a point.
Listen, you're taking a look now at these mothers who are holding a breastfeeding sit in, I guess, for lack of a better word here in New Hampshire to prove a point that breastfeeding is beautiful, it's natural and these women should not be discriminated against.
In the meantime, I've got some e-mails. But for a second here I want to get to -- OK, great. Let me take the e-mail now then. Pop it up for me.
It's from Rita in Seattle, Washington. She says: "I believe that breastfeeding in public is inappropriate. There are many things that are natural, but we don't want to see them performed in public."
NEVILLE: OK, Amanda (ph), what do you think?
AMANDA: Breastfeeding is very natural, but it is not something that I feel should be -- young children should be exposed to. And if you have an opportunity to go somewhere and turn your chair around and put a towel around you so that those children aren't exposed...
NEVILLE: OK, now if it's natural, why isn't that -- is it that young children should not be exposed to it? What's the problem?
AMANDA: Well, it's adult body parts, and you don't...
NEVILLE: Oh, come on. But it's -- you're watching -- but she's not flashing her boobs, she's feeding a baby.
AMANDA: Not if children can see that. You don't go around letting your children...
NEVILLE: Do you have children?
AMANDA: No.
NEVILLE: I mean, I'm not bagging on you, because I don't either. So -- but I'm just saying, I mean, I just feel like -- I don't see -- you're a teacher? What grade?
AMANDA: Kindergarten.
NEVILLE: And so do you really think the kids would be affected if they saw a woman's -- they wouldn't even see it. It's usually covered up.
AMANDA: No, I don't think they would be affected. But I think out of respect for their innocence, I think that that's something that should be done in private.
NEVILLE: OK, well listen, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Thank you.
I want to get some guys' opinions in here now.
Let's stand up and talk to Tyrone (ph).
TYRONE: Yes, I think there's a time and a place for that. I used to work at a juvenile detention center. And I took some kids to the beach, a lady breastfed and the guys just went crazy, so I had to calm them down and try to explain to them.
So, you know, I think there's a time and a place for that.
NEVILLE: Yes, but those guys are a little rowdy to begin with; you know that, right?
TYRONE: Yes, but it don't take much, you know, to set them off. And people that are not in that type of environment may react the same way.
NEVILLE: Yes, I understand.
Listen, I have a phone call coming in now.
I think it's from right here in Georgia.
Who's on the line?
Annie (ph). Go ahead Annie (ph).
CALLER: Hi. I just wanted to make a brief comment. As far as breastfeeding, I do not have a problem with women breastfeeding.
And like one of your gentlemen in the audience had indicated, that whenever he's seen it, they've been very discrete. But I also feel that there are some women who are more of an exhibitionist type, and just anywhere flopping out their breast, or making it so that people are attracted or looking at them. That's what I have a problem with.
SKINNER: Arthel, that's where I am on this. I mean, we -- you've got to have some common sense. Discretion is the better part of valor in this case.
But the thing that really bothers me is: I don't want anyone's body fluids in the pool. I don't care what's going on. She's standing in a pool, there's body fluids.
I mean, at least go lay down on a chase (ph) and get a towel, or just a little bit of discretion. Otherwise it's very natural, and we shouldn't be worried about seeing adult body parts when it comes to breastfeeding.
NEVILLE: OK, Chris (ph) from Mississippi.
CHRIS: I would just like to say that, I mean, you know, maybe everybody doesn't have a problem with it, but -- I'm sure there were people in the pool that didn't. I mean, you have to respect what they think. I mean, you may not change their mind, but they had a problem with it, and you have to respect that.
NEVILLE: OK.
I think one of you should -- both of you, or -- OK, Steve (ph), what do you think.
STEVE: We have become the United States of the Offended. Where does it stop being offended? I mean, if I'm offended by that I'm going to turn around and leave. You've got to draw the line somewhere. Too many bleeding heart liberals. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
SKINNER: How can you blame this on liberals? This would be -- yes, you've got the wrong target on this one.
STEVE: Oh, you are liberal. Oh, you are liberal.
NEVILLE: Nancy, I'm going to let him slide on that particular comment. It has nothing to do with liberals. Hold on.
Mr. Bill (ph) here, who wants to take had my mic; I'm going to go ahead and give to it him.
What do you have to say Mr. Bill (ph).
BILL: I think we need to encourage mothers to breastfeed the babies because I think the medical profession has proven that they are much better off if they are breastfed. So I think we need to encourage it rather than...
NEVILLE: I agree. Thank you sir.
Listen, we have a great e-mail that just came over I want to share with you.
It is from Rod in Colorado. He says: "Why in the world would nursing offend someone? If it's a moral thing, I suggest counseling, as it's not the mother with the problem."
ELLIS: Yes, that's right. That's 100 percent right.
I'm afraid that one of these kids that's so offended and so shocked and so scarred for life by seeing this breastfeeding is going to grow up to be attorney general and then spend taxpayer dollars on a curtain to cover up an exposed statue.
WILLIAMS: Here we go again.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, I've got one last audience member here -- Yani (ph).
YANI: Hi. My first comment is that breastfeeding is natural. Breastfeeding in public in a pool may be something that we could debate about. But breastfeed in front of children, there's so much other things that children see that make it so bad, you know, make them worse off than breastfeeding, when they probably were breastfed themselves.
NEVILLE: All right, thank you. Ricky was back there cheering for her. Thank you very much.
Any final thoughts from Ramesh on this one?
PONNURU: Well, I'm with Chris (ph) from Mississippi.
I think that whether or not people are right to be offended, it's impolite to do that knowing that there are going to be people who will be offended when there are alternatives that you can do, where you can show some discretion.
NEVILLE: OK, I've another audience member here.
Adina (ph), stand up for me.
(BELL RINGING)
ADINA: People just don't want to be swimming while someone's breastfeeding in the middle of the pool. It's just not something you want to do.
NEVILLE: All right, listen, you get the final word on that one because the bell has rung.
Nancy Skinner, nice to see you again. Curtis Ellis, nice to see you. Ramesh Ponnuru, thank you all for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
And Armstrong, if you would, would you stay right there, because I want to hear what you have to say about the way a woman is treated because of the way she wears her hair. There she is right there, waiting to tell her story.
Don't go anywhere, TALKBACK LIVE is going to get real live after this break.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Still ahead on "Free-For-All Friday, a hair- raising story out of Savannah, Georgia.
INGER BOSTICK, CHATHAM CO. COURT EMPLOYEE: I was told this past Monday that I had to leave work and that I could return once I changed my hairstyle.
NEVILLE: Meet Inger Bostick, and find out why she was told to leave work and fix her twists.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I must ask the question: Does her hairstyle affect had her job performance?
NEVILLE: Does your employer have the right to tell you how to wear your hair?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back everybody. This is TALKBACK LIVE's "Free-For-All Friday."
We're going to talk about hair in a minute here, but I just want to do this because Tara (ph) and Media (ph) did a great job on my hair today, all right.
Thanks guys.
All right, listen, I want you all to meet court clerk Inger Bostick. She's a 13-year employee of the Chatham County Superior Court in Savannah, Georgia. And at issue is the way Inger wears her hair. Inger wears twists, a style that was recently was included as inappropriate and unprofessional by the court's new dress code.
The code bans dreadlocks as well as any hair worn in a gaudy, bizarre or eccentric style -- whatever that means is all left to everybody's judgment, right? OK.
Ms. Bostick, thank you so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.
BOSTICK: Thank you.
NEVILLE: OK, listen, tell us how this all came about.
BOSTICK: Basically a couple months ago I just came into work and I was told that my hairstyle was no longer professional, that I needed to change it. NEVILLE: And when were you told this, did someone come to your desk and tell you this? And how did you react?
BOSTICK: I had had a meeting with a couple of my supervisors, and I was just floored. I couldn't believe it.
NEVILLE: Right, right. Now...
BOSTICK: I'd worn this style for four months prior to that, and the clerk herself indicated that she really liked the hairstyle, and then all of a sudden it was no longer professional.
NEVILLE: Well I actually like the way your hair looks, if that means anything.
Listen...
BOSTICK: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Sure, yes, I mean that.
Listen, the clerk of superior court Susan Prouse says that your hair "was not continuously neat and maintained."
What do you say to that?
BOSTICK: I saw that; I totally disagree. It's always remained neatly styled.
NEVILLE: Now, what happens now? You were sent home and you were forced to take vacation pay, is that correct?
BOSTICK: That's correct.
NEVILLE: OK, so how long have you been out -- yes, go ahead and clarify everything.
BOSTICK: Initially it started out where I was suspended for a week without pay. I ended up being out of the office for about a month. And during that time the clerk and the human resources director, they were coming together trying to resolve it.
So in June I was told that, by the human resources director, that I could return to work, my hair just needed to remain neatly styled.
I went back to work, I met with the clerk herself and she said Inger, you know, there are just so many other things out there that we can be dealing with, and this is just extremely petty, I'm glad you're back to work. I had no idea...
NEVILLE: so you stayed out for a total of how long?
BOSTICK: ... that they were going to be coming out with this policy.
NEVILLE: How many days did you stay out of work total? BOSTICK: It was about a month.
NEVILLE: About a month. Did you get paid for that entire time?
BOSTICK: All except for the week.
NEVILLE: So you got paid three weeks out of the four weeks you were forced to stay home?
BOSTICK: That's correct.
NEVILLE: And you're back at work, and you still have your hair in the same style?
BOSTICK: No, I'm not working right now. As of July 22 I was told that I could no longer wear this hairstyle because of the new policy that went into effect, but I can come back to work once I've changed the style.
NEVILLE: All right, listen. You know what, standby for me Inger, because what I want I want to do is get some expert opinion on this.
I want you to meet right now Vanessa Bush. She is the fashion and beauty features editor for "Essence" magazine. And, of course, Armstrong Williams is still with us.
Welcome, Vanessa, to you.
And I want to say that I had the pleasure of visiting the "Essence" offices in New York last week, and I was pleased to see all of the beautiful women wearing braids and twists and cornrows. They looked beautiful and professional.
Vanessa, what is your reaction to Inger Bostick's story?
VANESSA BUSH, "ESSENCE" MAGAZINE: Well quite frankly, I am really shocked and surprised that at this day and age that this is an issue.
It seems to me that our hair is a very personal choice. It's something that is an extension of our self-expression. And I don't understand what any of this has to do with someone's ability to perform their job.
NEVILLE: Armstrong, how do you see this?
WILLIAMS: You know, I'm an employer. I have employees. And there's a certain value, as the owner of a company that I have, and there are certain standards that reflect me and the kind of image I want for the company.
I must admit that we've had employees that have come to the office and were wearing dreadlocks and kinky hair, and I made it clear that if they wanted to work at Graham Williams Group that that hairstyle and that appearance was not appropriate for Graham Williams Group.
It may be appropriate for some other place, because you always have the right to seek employment somewhere else. But in my environment, it does not work.
So if you cannot meet the standard and a certain image that a corporation wants for their environment, if you don't like their standards, then you should go somewhere else because they have a right, if they're paying your salary and signing your paycheck, to set standards for the office. And that's their value system.
NEVILLE: Armstrong, you said kinky hair? What do you mean by kinky hair?
WILLIAMS: You know, I don't understand it. The expressions, the different expressions that people bring with them to the workplace. But it doesn't work for certain people in this country. It may work at "Essence."
NEVILLE: Did you hear my question, Armstrong? I asked you: What do you mean by kinky hair?
WILLIAMS: The twisted hair, it's all out of sorts, it looks like a work of art that's all over the place, which I don't really understand.
NEVILLE: Listen, let me -- Vanessa, feel free to jump in at any time here. That's the way it works here.
BUSH: Sure, well, I would like to speak to Armstrong's point.
And that is that had this policy been in place -- apparently Ms. Bostick has been working there for 13 years, and this is a policy that just came about in the last month or so, I think it's unfair to ask her to make this kind of a change when they haven't had any issue with her at any other time.
She's been wearing her hair natural for quite some time. And it seems that there's -- the issue is -- maybe not necessarily has to do with her, the way that the style is presented, the way -- the neatness of the style, the hygiene of the style. It sounds like it's something on a very personal level, which I think they could have worked out beforehand. They could have sat down and talked about it.
NEVILLE: What do you think by that, Inger?
BOSTICK: I totally -- I mean, I totally agree.
I don't understand what's going on, because initially when I came into the office with my hair styled this way, she clearly stated, Inger, you know, I really like that hairstyle on you. I had never gotten anything from her to where she really felt as though she didn't like it anymore.
(BELL RINGING)
BOSTICK: It was all of a sudden it was all about, Inger, now that hairstyle is unprofessional.
NEVILLE: Inger, listen, actually the bell just rang, so I need to go ahead and take a break.
I've got a lot of audience comments here that I'd love to hear myself, and want to share with you.
Hey listen, don't go anywhere because TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, welcome back everybody.
We're talking about Inger Bostick, who got kicked off her job because she has twists.
Inger, I have a little bit of time here. But I want to ask you quickly: Will you change your hair, and if you don't, can you go back to your job?
BOSTICK: Not at this time, I'm not planning on changing my hairstyle. And the last time I met with the human resources director, he indicated that she would not allow me back in the office with my hairstyle this way.
NEVILLE: OK Armstrong, quick comment from you, please.
WILLIAMS: You know, I want to go back to what the lady from "Essence" had to say. The problem here is not so much with Inger's hair, it's the fact that the policy was not consistent from the beginning.
You have one supervisor saying one thing to her and someone saying something else.
The policy has to be consistent and it has to be firm. And because it wasn't, she should not be punished.
NEVILLE: OK, hang on for me.
John (ph), quickly.
JOHN: My point is this is much deeper than hair, it's personal. There's no doubt about it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hairstyle is a personal thing. And as in the '60s and the '70s when we wore braids, it was uncouth until Bo Derrick put them in, and they became the Bo Derrick look.
So when mainstream America embraces that hairstyle, then it's going to be become acceptable. It's discrimination.
WILLIAMS: It's not discrimination. It is not about mainstream America.
(BELL RINGING)
NEVILLE: Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Come here. I'm running out of time, but Danielle (ph), what do you think about this?
DANIELLE: Why should other people judge other people's hair by the way they look?
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Stand here with me.
Listen, Inger Bostick, Vanessa Bush and Armstrong Williams, thank you so much for joining me today here on TALKBACK LIVE.
We're out of time, unfortunately.
I'm Arthel Neville, and I'll be back with more TALKBACK LIVE -- can we see her? -- on Monday. Have a great weekend.
John King is next with a look at what's head on "INSIDE POLITICS."
Say bye.
DANIELLE: Bye.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
