Wednesday, April 4, 2001

I would like to take an opportunity to respond to the letter in Wednesday's paper headlined, "Delta Pilots: What's fair wage for cry babies?" As a Delta pilot and former co-worker of Russ Switzer, I will not even attempt to answer the bitter and vitriolic personal attack on Russ. To stoop to the writer's level and attempt to answer the emotional charges item by item would be a complete waste of my time.

Quite honestly, it is the writer's constitutional right to compose any editorial that stops short of libel. Rather, I would like to offer two comments on "The Citizen" publishing a letter which the author lacks the courage of his or her convictions to publicly sign.

First, when a letter is written, a critical reader asks, "What is the writer's motivation?" By introducing myself as a Delta pilot and co-worker of Russ, did you, as a reader, have an immediate (and maybe very intense) reaction to this letter? Was your reaction based on who I am, and what my personal interest is in this story line?

By not publishing the writer's name and appropriate byline, you deprive of us of knowing the motivation behind the letter. Was it the former ex-wife of a pilot, who has vowed a lifetime of revenge against all pilots? Was it a middle level supervisor, hoping to give himself bragging rights at work by claiming it was his letter?

Or, more sinisterly, was it orchestrated by a member of upper management at Delta, who could hide behind anonymity and not be held accountable for twisting and distorting the facts? We, the readers, will never know.

Secondly, the writer starts by "condemning" an individual that he or she has never met. Any objective reader must admire the tremendous courage that Russ possesses to give an interview during such stressful times. Knowing that he would be the victim of vicious and cowardly personal attacks, Russ consented to an interview that he hoped would be evenly presented, to give one pilot's viewpoints.

He had to know that not only he, but also his wife and children, would be subject to certain ridicule and scorn. He did not ask to give an anonymous interview (which undoubtedly would not have been published) in order to protect his family. He bravely stood up for his opinions and convictions.

The writer of Wednesday's [letter] probably conjured up many justifications to hide his or her identity. But what weight do we give your thoughts, if you cannot stand up for them by telling us who you are?

I am willing to sign this letter. The signers of the Declaration of Independence risked loss of property, imprisonment, and even death as traitors to the Crown, yet they signed their document clearly and boldly. If you have an opinion, and you feel strongly enough to share it, publish your name. If your letter is well-reasoned, accurate, and truthful, what do your fear? On the other hand, if your letter is libelous, inaccurate, and cowardly, you do right by not wanting your name published.

I would ask the editor to please reconsider his policy of publishing letters that are signed when written, and then the name is withheld by request when published. If members in our community lack the courage to lay public claim to their ideas, we should be spared their writings.

Hiding behind a cloak of darkness impedes the truth. Decades ago, cowards hid behind masks and white sheets. Today, they hide behind anonymous letters.

Jim White

Captain, Delta Air Lines

Name published by request

[The publisher replies: Several writers objected to the decision to withhold the name of the letter writer upon request. Their letters follow on pages 5A and 6A. The decision, while uncommon, is far from unprecedented, and was made and will continue to be made at the discretion of the editor-publisher. As an aside, the great debates about adopting the U.S. Constitution featured many "anonymous" letter writers, who also happened to be some of the leading patriots of the Revolutionary era.]

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page