Smith’s column re-ignited the firestorm against Huffman

Sometimes the best thing a friend can do to help another firmly entrenched in a public firestorm is to stay silent. Sometimes the best thing that a friend can do to help that entrenched buddy is to understand that any attempt to provide an alternate explanation of that embarrassing gaffe will only serve to re-ignite the dying embers of that firestorm rather than quell the public’s anger and emotion.

Someone should have expressed these thoughts to local State Rep. J. Todd Smith before he wrote the Op-Ed that appeared in the Dayton Daily News on July 18.

Upon reading Rep. Smith’s attempt to explain why State Sen. Steve Huffman’s remarks in a State subcommittee should not be perceived as ignorant or racist, it became more apparent that the opposite was true. Smith’s article made clear that neither he nor Huffman understand their white privilege; neither do they recognize the impact that is given to their words as state leaders.

In effect, this column illustrates the reason why many have called for Huffman ... to resign from his Senate position; it may also show why Huffman’s medical group chose to sever its ties with him.

What the article does make clear is that, in an Ohio subcommittee meeting on health and looking at the issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, Huffman forgot the most important tenant of the medical profession which is to “first do no harm.”

If Huffman utterly understood this tenant, he would never have used the outdated term “colored” when questioning a health care professional of African American descent; neither would he have compounded that insult by suggesting that because African Americans are dying from the coronavirus at higher rates than the general public, the only conclusions that could be drawn from this factor was that

African Americans, as a race are 1) dirtier than the general public, and 2) they must lack a basic understanding of the virtues of personal hygiene, specifically the washing of hands.

Before espousing such an outrageous and audacious idea, Huffman should have considered whether voicing those thoughts would expose him to allegations of racism or whether the public would recognize his specific questions as an attempt at scapegoating. The failure to consider the consequence of his words indicates a clear lapse in leadership.

As an Ohio State Senator, Huffman and his aides have access to numerous reports that should have helped him understand that there are more complex and systemic reasons for the deadly effects of this coronavirus upon African American people. He should have been aware that many African Americans do not have access to health care or that they hold essential jobs that could not be performed at home. Thus, they might have been more likely to risk infection by interacting with people who refuse to wear masks that would lower the spread of the disease. There are certainly other more plausible reasons that could be attributed to the causality of these deaths other than the implication that the victims were dirty and ignorant.

In an attempt to prove that this firestorm of criticism is nothing more than “unhinged vitriol” or “character assassination,” Smith points to the silence that followed Huffman’s remarks as proof that his words were benign.

Rather than proving that Huffman’s statement was benign, I submit that the silence conclusively proved that both state leaders lack an understanding of the power and privilege that they each hold; and the silence exposed the barriers that the listeners would have faced if they tried to contradict Huffman at that hearing.