Live Q&As

Glad you wouldn't want to join the KKK!  Perhaps it's judgmental of me, but I assume that to be true for anyone reading this.  Actually, I would love to hear from someone who WOULD like to join, or even better, is already a member.

That said, you have identified a key issue in this debate i.e. what we want to see -- that, more than what these kkk'ers want/believe or what the Constitution requires is driving most of this, and I think that is not so good.  One of the things that makes this nation great, and what KKK cannot stand, is the presence of that with which we do not agree.

They would have gotten the same PR benefit that any organization would have gotten -- no more and no less.  That either makes it especially grotesque, given the group's history, or a fair application of the law, and one which rewarded them for doing something positive.  Imagine, they would be cleaning up roads that served white and black together -- sometimes even riding in the same cars!  For the KKK, that's real growth.

I tend to agree, but there are limits.  For example, were their members to stand at the side of the road with arms raised in a "sieg heil" salute, as they are in a number of photos connected to their bid to adopt the road, or wearing uniforms directly linked to inspiring lynchings and worse (though I am not sure what's actually worse), then it would be appropriate to challenge their presence.  The purpose for which they are granted the priviledge of adopting a highway, is cleaning it, not propagandizing alongside it.

For starters, what you want to be reminded of, is really of no consequence.  And before you get to bent out of shape, the same rule applies to me and everybody else.  That's what freedom of speach is all about, as you already recognize.

And the fact that our tax dollars support roads which convey and facilitate the behavior of all sorts of odious behavior, is nothing new.  That's how it is with freedom.

Finally, where "the line" is, is actually not a matter of the views of the sponsoring organization, as SCOTUS ruled some years back, in a simillar case from Missouri.

Your question about NAMBLA however may be a good one because they are organized exclusively to champion something that is not only grotesque and dangerous, but entirely illegal.  One could aregue that as odious as the KKK is, that is not the case, and so they should actually have the opportunity to sponsor a road.  Of course, they would also have to behave in ways that they seem unprepared to do.  And for that reason, they should be excluded.  It's about behavior, not ideas.

They certainly were a terrorist group.  Are they still?  Not so sure.  They are small-minded, fear-driven racists to be sure, but terrorists? 

And the Muslim group question is a great follow up precisely because so many Muslim groups are branded as terrorists simply because they are Muslim or because they don't deal with issues in ways that most of us see as reasonable and wise.  That means they should be called to task for sure, but branded as terrorists?  Having dealt with terrorists myself, I can tell you, we should be very careful with how we use that word.

LOVE IT!  You are sop honest, and I SOOOO share your view -- both that it would be wrong and yet so very tempting.  BTW, the only reason that it would be wrong is because when a group signs up for this, they expect that the garbage they clean is not a penance for the garbage they have spread elsewhere. 

That however raises the possibility -- never explored because nobody is full honest about what they really want (except you), the KKK does want a platform to spread it's ideas, and the state wants to silence those ideas -- would have been to invite them to take charge of cleaning a park in a truly integrated neighborhood.  If they did that, they could "graduate" to the adopt-a-highway program.  Just a thought.

You remember well.  It was 2005, and teh case was ouot of Missouri.  The state actually fought the KKK all the way to the US Supreme Court, and lost. 

The renaming was a brilliant move, and should be a part of any response to the Klan.  If they want to clean a road, let it be one which reminds passersby of both their right to think what they choose, and America's obligation to celebrate those who offer a better alternative.

THAT is a great point -- one I never thought have and haven't seen anywhere else. Kudos!

I know, some will say that the volunteer road crews are only their ocassionally, but you are still correct.  Can you imagine the anxiety if your car broke down when they were around, especially if you are a person of color, or a bearded, skullcap-wearing rabbi like me, for that matter.

No, I don't assume that all KKK sympathizers pose an immendiate threat to people's safety, but it's not entirely unreasonable to feel some genuine discomfort given their 150 year history either.

You are right that easy analogies meant to tug at heart strings are a poor substitute for reasoned argument.  You are also correct that people should not be barred from civic engagement and community volunteerism, simply because they hold views that most people find odious.

You are also dead wrong to simply equate all organizations based on their willingness to contribute time and money.  When an organization has a century and a half history of intimidation, thuggery and murder, they don't simply get to be thought of as "everybody else".

They need to go a few extra miles (sorry) to demonstrate how they would behave if allowed to adopt a highway -- and to this point they have done everything wrong on that front.  And to be fair, the gov't needs to give them a fair chance to prove that they could actually behave responsibly if they ever did get to adopt.  That doesn't seem to have happened here, and you are correct about that being a problem.

Agreed.  Of course, that begs the question: is the KKK of 2012 a terrorist group or simply a group brought together by a set of foolish to ugly political and social theories?

Again, even if it's "only" the latter, they do not get a free pass, but neither should they get an automatic denial.

if they plan to do more than simply clean up, as it appears they do, then we can say "no".  in fact, that is the state's job.

This quote by local kkk member, Harley Hanson, indicates that in fact, they were there to do much more and much worse than simply clean up: 

“It was not just to warn people, ‘Hey, the KKK lives next door,’ but to do some good for the community.”

That's very funny, but the image of Klansmen trying to pick themselves up is especially intriguing -- like one of those old m.c. escher prints...

No, they -- the kkk -- would have gotten a differnt kind of PR, the kind that comes from having the roadside sign announcing their having adopted the highway.

Also, I think that ignoring these things in hopes that they will just go away is dangerously naive.  History demonstrates that over and over again.

You are certainly correct that the state could have handled this better.  Simply denying them the opportunity, rather than figuring ground rules that would test their committment to real civic service and their willingness not to exploit the opportunity, and then combinig it with renaming of the road, etc.  was a lost opportunity to smoke out a potentially still-dangerous group and do some good public education regarding the ongoing challenges of racism and hatred.

You probably meant that as joke, and it did make me smile, but that is exactly what the Klan wants, and exactly why this was so problematic.  If this was just about hauling trash, then I would actually say, "go for it!"  "Do some good for a change".

But as their comments and promotional pictures indicated, this was about balkanizing the community, which is their desire and is both ugly and illegal.  Noboy should have to stay away from any part of this country simply because of their race, ethnicity or relgion.  I know, it happens all the time already, but that leaves us with two choices:

1.  accept this as a part of life and move on.

2. respond carefully and intelligently to each challenge to a healthier society in which human dignity and safety are not based on the color of one's skin, or the beliefs in their heart.

I think the right choice is clear.  Ironically, it will lead to a bit more voice for the Klan, at least sometimes, and a lot more voice for those who oppose them.  A good bargain, I think