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.