Who Should Speak?

I've read up to page 63 in Friendswood by Rene Steinke now, and I know that some dramatic events are bound to happen, events that beg the question, “Who should speak?” Should the government be responsible to speak for those who cannot? Or perhaps an esteemed institution such as the police or the media? Or is it up to the citizens of a community? Well, it depends. Every aforementioned group has its own intentions and biases, even when trying to tell someone else’s story, so the truth can be easily muddled and forgotten.

So far in the book, I know of two major conflicts. The first is between Lee Knowles and Taft Properties over the area around Banes Field. Avery Taft owns Taft Properties, which is trying to build new homes at the Rosemont-Banes Field site. Everything is in order for the plans to get started. “We’ve got the financing all lined up … the architectural plans … the contractors” (47). According to Avery, his company is ready to start building.

But there is a small obstacle in the road that Avery can’t get around yet, and that’s Lee, an environmental activist in Friendswood. She’s motivated by the death of her daughter due to blood disease caused by the oil and chemical dumping near her old home, which happens to be the same area Avery is looking to buy. Lee chooses to speak for both the environment and her daughter, who suffered the ultimate consequence of a terrible injustice, by saying the Banes Field area is still unsafe and homes should not be built there.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also speaks on behalf of the environment. But, according to their tests on specific areas around Banes Field and Rosemont, they say the soil is clean. They said this about the Rosemont area back when Lee lived there, so this statement, by extension, also speaks for the people who suffered by saying the cause was not the oil and chemicals from the dumpings.

But who should speak? The EPA has no personal connections to anyone who died because of the contaminated soil. They ran tests for cold data and were blind to the obvious dangers the citizens of the Rosemont could see. So, Lee has more of a right to speak for the people who no longer can. She may dissent from the common belief that Banes Field is safe now, but in this case, she is probably right and it’s important to consider her ideas. It’s good for her to dissent.

In addition to the environmental controversy at the Rosemont-Banes Field area, there is another conflict between Willa Lambert and an assaulter. I haven’t reached this part of the book yet, but I know Willa will be raped, presumably by her crush Cully, but because she doesn’t remember what happened, she is blamed for what occurred and dismissed by her peers. Who should speak for her?

As I mentioned, I haven’t reached this event and its consequences yet, so I don’t know the details. But Willa’s situation is similar to the recent Stanford rape case. I read an article in my English class written by Katie J.M. Baker from Buzzfeed News in which the victim reads a letter describing how her life was impacted by her assaulter.

The defense attorney tried to take away the victim’s voice. She, too, couldn’t recall every event from that night. She only knew that she woke up in the hospital and was told that she was found half-naked behind a dumpster. In court, her memory loss was used by the defense to the assaulter’s advantage. “I was warned,” the victim explains, “because he knows you don’t remember, he is going to get to write the script. He can say whatever he wants and no one can contest it. I had no power, I had no voice, I was defenseless”.

In this case, the assaulter tried to speak for his victim. He claimed there was consent and that she liked what he was doing. But the jury spoke for the victim when they declared the assaulter guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously, the assaulter wanted to speak for the victim in a way that wouldn’t also discredit himself, so he shouldn’t be able to speak for her. The jury took a look at every angle of the case and spoke more of the truth for the victim, so here, an institution spoke for a person who couldn’t.

So, who should speak for those who can’t? Well, it depends, but often the ones who should are the ones whose morals are in the right place.