Wednesday, May 27, 2009

21st Century Breakdown

I was thinking about writing something about the recent situation involving Wal-Mart's refusal to stock Green Day's latest album, but then a fellow faculty member at my university wrote a column in the school newspaper about it and I have just completed and sent a letter to the editor in response. So, rather than rewrite something else for my blog (since I really need to get back to working on other projects), I figured I'd link to his column here and include my letter below:

Dr. Phil Schurrer’s column on Wednesday, May 27, harkens back to another column he wrote in February, in which he discussed what he considered to be polite and impolite speech, railing against things such as language usage and having to hear about sexual orientations. Among the topics these columns addressed was his distaste for “vulgar” words. Many of these words, though, are only considered “vulgar” because historically those in power, who came primarily from a white, European Christian, upper-class background, saw them as such. To this day, that they are considered objectionable reflects the power that that group continues to have. Continued treatment of them as unquestionably objectionable thus contains real potential to marginalize other groups’ perspectives.

Dr. Schurrer’s discussion of Wal-Mart and Green Day reinforces these power relations. It may be that Green Day was doing this for publicity, as Dr. Schurrer suggests. However, Wal-Mart’s actions are every bit as much publicity. Wal-Mart’s policy publicly endears them to some constituencies, as it suggests that the interests of those who do not like this language are more important than the interests of others. As this involves what are historically considered “bad” words, Wal-Mart is privileging the historical sensitivities of white Christian upper-class Europeans over others’ sensitivities. What if, as an alternate scenario, someone believes that any reference to God in a song is offensive? Should Wal-Mart accommodate this sensitivity, too? Should they do so for any number of other subjects that could also potentially offend? In another scenario, to go back to Dr. Schurrer’s mention of sexual orientation, why is it considered inappropriate for some folks to discuss sexual orientation, yet we see heterosexual couples kissing on the scoreboard at baseball games, we celebrate weddings (which express sexual orientation whether same-sex or different-sex), and our media texts are dominated by one heterosexual romantic film and song after another?

Dr. Schurrer wrote in September that “if a university is to truly be a ‘supermarket of ideas,’ then all sides of an issue need to be aired. This is not saying we agree with all points of view, or that all ideas are equal in value. But respect for others mandates that we give them the same respect that we seek.” Yet, he seems to suggest that his supermarket of ideas should not include some forms and kinds of expression when he proposes that that supermarket must occur within rules that he wants imposed so that some sensibilities, which often coincide with the sensibilities of dominant groups, are not offended. In another column last September, he referred to some of these rules as “common courtesy.” Yet, in March, he defended conservatism on the grounds that you can “depend on it to back the individual over the collective.” Given the correlation between “common” and “collective,” his positions continually seem to run counter to his praise for conservatism, as they back the collective over the individual and they do so in ways that very much involve power relations that, at a minimum, it would seem, ought to be recognized and discussed.

In his most recent column, Dr. Schurrer called Green Day “juvenile” and questioned the band’s maturity. Last fall, in his piece on diversity, Dr. Schurrer argued that “if we're going to be truly ‘diverse,’ we need to listen to those views [that differ from ours] with the same degree of respect and concentration as those who think as we do. To do so is a sign of intellectual activity and maturity.” With all due respect, couldn’t Dr. Schurrer’s own statement about maturity be applied to Wal-Mart and the many unexamined rules and “common courtesies” that his columns have mentioned over the past year? I truly respect Dr. Schurrer’s views and sensitivities, and I think there is plenty of room for discussion of what language use and actions are appropriate, what topics are important to discuss, and so on. However, Dr. Schurrer’s use of language seems to reflect something much less inviting.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Sentimental Favorite in the Indy 500

I’ve recently come to the full realization that the Indianapolis 500 is my favorite sporting event of the year. I guess I have probably realized this for a long time now, but I never sat down and acknowledged it so fully until this past year. I have literally interrupted vacations for the Indianapolis 500, including once making my wife sit in a hotel room in California for a few extra hours one Memorial Day weekend while I watched the race. I’m still mad that I missed Arie Luyendyk’s first win in the race because I was graduating from high school and my high school has for years held its graduation ceremony at the same time as the race … despite the fact that it’s only a few hours from Indianapolis in an area heavy with racing fans. Every May, I watch qualifications runs and Bump Day, I pore over statistics about the drivers, and I reread about past races. I love a lot of sports and, outside of Indy car racing, I’m not much of an auto racing fan, but for some reason the Indy 500 is my favorite sports event. I suppose when I have more time to reflect on it, I’ll try to understand why that is. For now, though, with the race happening this weekend, I want, as a fan, to offer some public declaration of support for my sentimental favorite: Sarah Fisher.

Much is made of Danica Patrick as a female driver in a male-dominated enterprise. I root for Danica and certainly support her, but there is little question that her questionable use of sexuality is a major aspect of her popularity. On the other hand, Sarah Fisher’s public persona is much more rooted in her connection to driving. With this Sunday’s Indianapolis 500, she will become the woman who has made the most starts in the race, as she runs her eighth Indy 500 race, surpassing her current tie with Lyn St. James. She is also running her second consecutive race as not only a driver, but a racecar owner. She may not have a high chance to win, as the bigger teams tend to dominate the Indy Racing League races. As a smaller outfit, it’s difficult to maintain the car and speed of the larger teams. Yet, there is always a possibility and Fisher’s experience and ability only add to that chance. For her talent, her experience, and the honorable way in which she carries the mantle of female auto racers, I’m rooting for Sarah Fisher this Sunday.

Oh yeah … and her appearance on The Daily Show this past Monday doesn’t hurt either.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Race and Politics in South Bend

On Sunday, while we were discussing the topic of some folks protesting Barack Obama’s commencement speech and honorary degree at the University of Notre Dame, my wife asked me if I thought racism had something to do with it. I took her question to mean an inquiry about whether or not people who didn’t like Obama for some reason explicitly involving race were using another issue as a means of expressing their dislike for him. I responded with a no—that I didn’t think it was racism and that the same folks who have expressed these concerns about Obama have done similarly for white folks as well. Then, later that day, I got to thinking about it …

On the surface, I agree with my earlier comment. I don’t think this is explicitly an issue of race. However, upon further thought, I think it does involve racism and can be instructive about how racism is conceptualized and discussed. Here’s what occurred to me:

I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that it has been and continues to be an easier path for a black politician to have a chance to run for president as a Democrat than as a Republican. That’s based on my sense of how Democrats and Republicans are perceived and how they present themselves in terms of how they represent black constituencies and issues of significance to those constituencies. I’m not meaning to inject my own political leaning there. While personally I do believe that Democrats tend to be better than Republicans at recognizing and addressing issues of significance to black men and women, I have plenty of criticisms of how Democrats handle these issues in addition to criticisms of how Republicans handle these issues. So, my argument here is not based on who actually does represent black interests better. Rather, I’m arguing that within popular consciousnesses, Democrats tend to be aligned much more fully with black candidates. Certainly, some black candidates have run for office as Republicans (J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Lynn Swan, Ken Blackwell and Alan Keyes (who was among the protestors at Notre Dame this weekend) come to mind); however, the path to the possibility of presidential candidacy has tended to be more associated with the Democratic Party. So, then, it seems to be little surprise that Obama ran for and was elected president as a Democrat.

As the presidential candidate of the national party, he is also expected to maintain the party platform. This is as true of Democrats as it is Republicans and it tends to be especially true on the issue of abortion. It’s quite doubtful that at this moment in American history any Democrat could gain the party’s nomination for president while advocating a pro-life position and it’s just as doubtful that at this moment in American history any Republican could gain the party’s nomination for president while advocating a pro-choice position. One only needs to look at the lengths that Rudy Giuliani went to in 2007 and 2008 to distance his own pro-choice stance from what he might do as president. It’s quite conceivable, then, that Obama’s own private position on abortion could range anywhere from falling right in line with the party position to veering slightly from it to differing quite widely from it, and that, as a Democrat, he is asked to maintain adherence to the party’s position regardless of his own personal feelings.

Putting these two together, then, the protests of Obama do involve racism. They do so in that they help perpetuate a system that continually closes off opportunities for minorities (in this case African Americans). In this specific case, saying someone does not deserve honor based on her or his stance on abortion is not explicitly excluding a person based on race. However, when we look at the structure of contemporary United States politics, there is definitely an argument, based on what I have just described, that saying someone like Obama does not deserve honor does perpetuate exclusion of African Americans. If we work with the assertion that a black candidate has a better chance to run for president as a Democrat and the assertion that a Democratic candidate for president my maintain a pro-choice position, then a position that holds the candidate’s position on abortion against that candidate—particularly when tying it to what is defined as “honorable”—does significantly contribute to the reduction of opportunities for black men and women. In the process, it does reinforce racism.

Perhaps this is too many suppositions on my part. Maybe I’m assuming too much about the ability of a black Republican to run for president or about what is asked of candidates on both sides in terms of their abortion stances or about the degree to which Obama might differ in private opinion from the party position. I’ll concede that I am working a bit from supposition, but I’ll also argue that I have not made any assertions here that I think are particularly egregious and that the suppositions that I have made do appear to have significant basis in reality. I’ll also argue that they do point to a broader point about racism that needs to be a much fuller part of the discussion of issues of race in the United States. That point is that racism is a system of advantages and disadvantages, opportunities and lacks of opportunities, rights and denials of rights. Racism is not just explicit exclusion on the basis of racial identity. It’s a much deeper structure in which differences in status and opportunity that were established long ago continue to be reinforced and perpetuated. It’s deeply embedded into the everyday lives and activities that constitute United States society. And I believe we need to be much more willing to be cognizant of how deeply everyday things that may on the surface seem to have little to do with race do involve perpetuation of racial inequities at deeper, more complex levels. Obama’s public position on abortion is at least in part a product of the complexities of American politics. Idealistic pronouncements of the character and honor of an individual based on her or his position on abortion fail to recognize the significance of the political system in affecting those positions. In the process, they fail in adequately attending to the complex political realities of the ways that racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and other forms of discrimination work and in acknowledging how structures of society that are based in these forms of discrimination must be managed and negotiated as individuals seek opportunities.

As someone who is a self-described moderate on abortion, I believe those critical of the position of Obama and the Democratic party on abortion should continue to vocalize these criticisms. I would even say that what I have argued here does not suggest that they should not protest in favor of what they believe is right. I would, though, ask these folks to consider the many different kinds of ramifications of their protests and the statements that they have made about Obama and others in their protests. Indeed, while I do not agree with Obama on everything, one of the things that I very much like about him is the interest in opening up dialogue on various issues that he appears to promote. I believe that Obama’s commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame showed this quality once again—a quality that seems to put him in stark contrast on so many levels from his predecessor, whose administration seemed time and again to paint folks who disagreed as dishonorable, unpatriotic, and many other similar terms, rather than as compatriots in dialogue with honest and important differences of opinion with which they should engage.

In the end, I believe that both sides have a point about abortion. This is an issue of life and how we define what is a life worth protecting. At the same, though, this is very much an issue of women’s rights and individual civil liberties. The problem, as Obama himself suggested in his commencement speech, is that so often the rhetoric of both sides seems unwilling to engage the other side in meaningful dialogue, unwilling to accept that the other side has an important point to address, and unwilling to work with the other side in addressing this issue. In the end, I also believe that looking at abortion from a myopic view that does not recognize the complexities that inform positions of individuals and politicians when it comes to this issue is entirely inadequate and inappropriate. This is exactly why I do not like the way in which abortion is used as the sole means of judging a candidate’s acceptability. To the many conservative Catholics out there who vote for Republicans simply on the issue of abortion and who have even at times called for excommunication of politicians who are pro-choice, I would ask how they even vote at all. After all, the Catholic Church has come out in opposition to the Iraq War, the death penalty, and any number of other things that Republicans support—many of which also involve issues of “life.” You, my conservative companions, must have some sort of complex way of justifying all of those things in order to vote on the one issue of abortion alone. Would you like me to demonize your views on abortion and other issues or would you rather I try to understand them? If you picked the first option, then how can you ever hope to change anyone’s views or at least have people listen to you with consideration for your views? That would be seem to be the antithesis of what is being advocated in that scenario. If you picked the second option, then how can you in good conscience not extend that same kind of treatment to the very politicians whom you demonize for their positions on abortion, as if they, too, don’t have to negotiate the same tricky, complex world of contemporary American thought and politics that you have to negotiate in order to come to your own positions?