So, what did Mr. Brodesky do when he considered Confederate memorials and what should be done with them? I previously wrote about his opinion piece here. He contacted this author. He interviewed me. He met with the ladies he mentions in his April 20 piece and listened and watched their slide show. The slide show recounts the history behind the Confederate memorial which formerly resided in our Travis Park. He met with Richard Brewer, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. And, we know from his piece that he also spoke with Mario Salas, a well-known civil rights icon and former City Councilperson.
(Mr. Salas has justly earned a reputation for advancing civil rights in our city. But, his opinion is not representative of the city. He used to routinely refer to former Mayor Ivy Taylor as “Uncle Tom.” Regarding two Confederate markers formerly in downtown, he castigated their supporters as “Confederate Nazis” defending “racist history.” He referred to former Councilperson Joe Krier as a “political; scumbag” when Mr. Krier appeared at a black church seeking support for Mayor Taylor. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Salas believes American history is best explained by the Foundation Myth – in which history consists of lies, distortions, omissions and half-truths. The Texas Revolution was the first war for slavery. Etc., etc. Mr. Brodesky has chosen an unrepresentative person to represent the views of persons opposed to Confederate memorials in San Antonio).
Mr. Brodesky’s piece relates details about Mr. Brewer’s Irish immigrants. The piece also mentions Ms. Schimpff’s views on the causes of the U.S. Civil War. It appears in considering this public policy debate, what to do with Confederate memorials, Mr. Brodesky strayed into more personal issues with proponents of Confederate memorials. He delved into their views on other topics.
Not so with Mario Salas. At least according to Brodesky’s piece, the journalist confined his inquiry to Mr. Salas’ prior experience with the memorial in Travis Park. He tested Schimpff and Brewer, but not Mr. Salas. There is nothing to indicate Mr. Brodesky asked Mr. Salas for his views on veteran memorials or for his prior experiences with other veteran memorials. He appears not to have asked Mr. Salas if he opposed other veteran memorials. He appears not to have asked Mr. Salas if he has opposed other women designed monuments. He appears not to have asked Mr. Salas if he has opposed other historical monuments. These sorts of questions would at least relate to veteran memorials. Discussing a person’s view on the causes of the Civil War or another person’s views on discrimination endured by Irish ancestors do not directly relate to Confederate memorials or to veteran monuments.
In the discrimination lawsuit business, we call that disparate treatment. He treated the proponents different than he treated the opponents. He scrutinized the views of the proponents, but gave a pass to the opponent.
In a discrimination lawsuit, Joe Manager might scrutinize the job performance of a Hispanic worker and watch his time sheets very closely. But, regarding the Caucasian worker, Joe Manager gives him a pass. He does not look at the Caucasian worker’s time sheets at all. That is disparate treatment. The employer treats workers differently even thought their situations are comparable. Mr. Brodesky appears to have betrayed his bias, despite his professed intent to consider fairly possible options for Confederate memorials.