Yesterday, the Republican Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, announced her support for the removal of the South Carolina Battle Flag from state capitol grounds in Columbia, South Carolina. It currently flies next to a Confederate war memorial seen below. Some pictures in the media have been misleading about its placement and prominence on the state grounds. Judge for yourself.

In order to remove the flag two-thirds of the state legislature, the General Assembly, must vote to take that action. The General Assembly just voted to take up the matter this summer. The votes in the House were 103-10, the Senate approved by voice vote.

Nikki Haley’s statement was prompted by the horrific murder of nine black parishioners at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The shooter is a self-proclaimed racist who posed with the Battle Flag in pictures. Had this not happened, there is little question that she would not have addressed the issue, saying the issue was settled during her last campaign.

In 2000, a hearty debate took place which resulted in moving the Battle Flag from atop the capitol dome to a location on capitol grounds next to the Confederate war memorial. The Battle Flag is separate from the state, and it is not incorporated into the state flag. The legislative action in 2000 was a compromise meant to settle the matter. Today, the matter has been breathed new life, and a vociferous debate is alive again. Because of the very emotional debate to come, it is imperative that the General Assembly be transparent and follow the process without side stepping the rules. Nikki Haley’s timing and chosen words may have already contributed to making this more contentious. Her talk of honoring legacy rings hollow because of the way she has gone about voicing her opinion.

In my opinion, here is why:

• She said the time has come to move the flag from the capitol grounds. By making this statement less than a week after the shooting, and before even one of the victims has been buried, she has inextricably linked for all time the murders to the flag.
• She said this is not a ban on the flag, and that people can feel free to fly it on their private property. That is a constructive lie and she should know it. By publicly linking the flag to a racist murder, any individual expression associated with the flag will be viewed as racist and publicly unacceptable.
• She said the flag must be removed because it is painful. This sets a bad precedent for future debates about freedom of expression. We shouldn’t forget history or try to rewrite it because it may be painful.
• She said the flag must be removed because it had been appropriated by people with evil motives. This sets a further bad precedent about property rights. This opens the door for more symbols to be misappropriated, depriving original owners of their intended use. If meaning can change over time, then in theory the desired meaning could also be revived.

To be clear, this issue should only be limited to things that the state may be seen as endorsing, but the precedent of restricting offensive items will certainly be informed by this action. In a more honest statement, Nikki Haley could have left out the hollow-sounding praise of legacy and simply said, “Today I declare the flag is racist. It contributes to perpetuating racism. By having the flag displayed on state grounds it is an endorsement of racism. This state will not promote racism.” Perhaps that is harsh, but that would be the only justified reason for removal. Removal should have nothing to do with reminders of pain or bad people using a symbol in a bad way, particularly when there is sincere and honorable disagreement about its meaning. Removal should only be about whether an action takes on the imprimatur of state endorsement, and if so whether that action is an appropriate one for the state to take.

While a popular vote is not required under the current law, it would be a good way for the result to be widely accepted by most South Carolinians. There is already some talk of a 2/3 vote not being required – that lawmakers could change the statute itself by a simple majority. Playing games like that will not serve the interests of unity. Further, real effort must be put into connecting with people, or the removal of the flag is an empty gesture as stated here by Law Professor Debra Gammons:

Finally, one thing I was most concerned about last week after the murders was the story that would be told about South Carolina. We have twice elected a minority female governor, we have elected three times to Congress one of only two black senators, we had an outpouring of love from the black victims’ families toward the white killer, we saw the community gather in droves of diversity to show support, we witnessed the white family and friends of the shooter immediately do the right thing in identifying him, and we thanked a white woman who watches Fox News bravely follow the shooter and tip off police to catch him. These things proved to me that Charleston, South Carolina, was the place that I thought it was. And all of these things occurred even with the Battle Flag flying near the Confederate memorial two hours away in Columbia. In some circles, that unfortunately seem to be growing, the actions of one horrible individual are being attributed to the people here, particularly if they don’t want to remove the flag. This is unfair because evidence shows that South Carolina is not filled with racism, much less rabid racists who act out violently for its cause.

Worse yet, is that we are talking about this before even one murdered parishioner from Emanuel AME can be put to rest. Nikki, couldn’t you have waited and allowed the attention to be on those nine amazing souls for just a few more days?