I’d Rather A&E Hadn’t Ducked the Issue

So, in the last couple of days we’ve witnessed arguments from various sides after the suspension of Phil Robertson from the A&E television show Duck Dynasty following a set of remarks he made about sexuality (and, by the way, let’s not forget the deeply problematic things Robertson said in regard to race as well.)

I don’t regularly watch Duck Dynasty.  I don’t care much for most reality television, and the little bit of Duck Dynasty that I have seen reconfirmed the reasons I don’t watch reality television shows.  Additionally, what I have seen in terms of the marketing of the show and the use of the show by its fans suggests that I don’t align personally or ideologically with a significant amount of what the show represents.

As part of that, I don’t agree with Phil Robertson’s characterization of sexuality.  The more I have studied and learned about sexuality, the more complex and nuanced position I have developed of it; the more I have come to see that ideas suggesting heterosexuality is natural are socially, historically, and politically constructed; and the more I have come to see the value of a society celebrating a diversity of sexual identities and forms of expression.  Phil Robertson’s position on sexuality does not suggest that he has truly spent time learning about sexuality.  Still, he can think and say what he wants; that would seem to be part of democracy.

Yet, his views contain significantly contestable, if not downright flawed, elements to them, and if he is going to voice them publicly, then he should be prepared for public response.  Indeed, what would seem consistent with democracy is that various views enter into dialogue with one another in a deliberative fashion.  And, with that in mind, I would caution folks (particularly, though not exclusively, on the liberal political side) who are offering arguments in support of A&E’s decision to suspend Robertson.  These arguments do have a correct point in combatting other arguments that use the language of rights.  Technically, Robertson’s rights have not been violated.  The government has not sanctioned him for what he said. His right to say it has been maintained.  Rather, an organization with which he works has exercised its right to suspend its working relationship with him because of the comment.  Simply put, A&E made a decision regarding their affiliation with Robertson after he said what he did.

Yet, here is where I would caution those who not only make, but also defend that distinction (like here).  Consider the world we are creating when organizations have this kind of power.  Actually, more to the point, consider the world we are perpetuating since organizations already do have this power.  On this particular issue, perhaps one may disagree strongly with what Robertson said, and thus one may find A&E’s decision more acceptable.  Imagine, though, if this were a situation in which you said something that an organization with which you are affiliated found objectionable or controversial, and you were dismissed or suspended because of it.  Indeed, consider what’s going on in higher education in Kansas over a tenured professor posting online something deemed objectionable.  Additionally, consider that most of us do not have the amount of financial resources that Robertson has, meaning this kind of action would have a much more significant and devastating effect on our lives.  Again, we’re not talking technically about the right to express these things or not, but we are talking about how freedom of expression can be impeded by the power that organizations have and wield.  I’m thus concerned with arguments justifying A&E’s actions based on their right to act in what they perceive as their own interests.

Meanwhile, arguments defending Robertson (particularly, though not exclusively, on the conservative political side) have their own set of problems.  I’ll use Glenn Beck as an example here.  He equates what A&E has done to fascism, and indeed, the connection may have some value.  However, his articulation of the connection is sorely lacking, namely because if there is fascism here, that fascism is fueled by the same system that he himself arduously defends – a capitalist, market-based economic system.  In capitalism, organizations seek to make profit, and they make decisions based on appealing to customers, not on the basis of what necessarily promotes greater freedom of expression or democracy.  Sometimes those objectives may align, but often they do not.  The example of A&E’s decision regarding Phil Robertson is right in line with the capitalist system Beck and many other conservatives who are complaining about Robertson’s treatment vehemently defend.  In an effort to manage their public image so that they might remain profitable, A&E has made a decision about their association with Robertson.  A&E is not the root of the fascism here, and neither are GLAAD or the gay rights movements.  Both have, quite conservatively in this case, worked within the market system.  GLAAD pressured A&E with threat of losing business; A&E responded in an effort to maintain business.  If there’s fascism here, we find it in the capitalist system in which these organizations work.  If Beck is really that concerned about free speech and fascism, he ought to examine much more fully his own commitment to capitalism.

Meanwhile, let’s remember here that many of the same conservative folks arguing that the treatment of Phil Robertson is an impediment on free expression of views on sexuality are the same folks who actually do advocate a system that limits free expression of views on sexuality on the level of rights.  They oppose many efforts to provide for and protect the rights of folks who do not identify as heterosexual.  This includes opposing gay marriage but also goes much further than that to include many other political positions such as opposition to anti-discrimination efforts in areas such as housing, healthcare, and employment.  Again, if these folks are so committed to free expression, they ought to consider much more fully how their own political commitments regarding sexuality work against free expression and democracy.

In the end, I don’t find A&E’s decision regarding Robertson to be too consistent with a society that seeks democracy.  I think a much more effective way of handling this would be to place Robertson into a position in which he has to confront folks who hold opposing opinions and who identify differently from him in terms of sexually.  (This is the kind of thing that caused me to see greater value in what Russell Brand represents, because it’s exactly what he did with members of the Westboro Baptist Church.)  If Robertson wishes to voice his views publicly, then democracy would have him confront opposing views.  A&E could facilitate that by making that confrontation happen – and by confrontation, I mean not in a violent and uncivil way, but in a nonviolent, empathetic way that makes Robertson have to come into contact, dialogue, and work with individuals whose views oppose his and whose sexualities differ from his.  Perhaps we could all learn something, and I think various sides of the political aisle appear to have much to learn.  Heck, for that matter, I’m sure I do too, and the opportunity to learn that would be the kind of thing that might get me interested enough to watch Duck Dynasty.

Losing College Football

As I write this blog post, the football team of my employer and first alma mater, Bowling Green State University, is beginning its Mid-American Conference championship contest against Northern Illinois University.  Meanwhile, tomorrow, the football teams of my other two alma maters – Michigan State University and Arizona State University – will play in the Big Ten and Pac-12 Championship games, respectively.  In previous years – before the 2012 college football season – this would have been a really exciting weekend for me, as I would have been able to see all three of my alma maters – and by virtue of that, the three teams I most rooted for in college football – play for conference championships.  I’m pretty sure that’s never been the case before, and it’s certainly never been the case with them playing at such high levels, particularly Michigan State, which is 11-1 heading into its contest against Ohio State.

Of course, if you’ve read this blog in the past, you know that this isn’t like years before 2012 because in 2012 I gave up college football.  So, I will be watching none of these games, and I will be rooting for none of these teams.  Subconsciously, I can still feel some internal rooting, and I can still feel the urge to watch, which is telling.  It means that I would like to watch these games and root for my teams.  Indeed, that I even know the situations in which these teams find themselves demonstrates that even though I’m not watching college football, I’m still following news of it enough to be aware of what’s generally happening.  And that’s true.  I do occasionally read news about it or look at standings or rankings.  It’s still hard not to watch sometimes.  And that’s unfortunate because I think there can be a place for football at college – though I am leaving aside important questions about the violence of the game in saying that – and if football had what I felt was an appropriate place in the organizational structure, I probably would still watch and pay more attention.  But right now, I can’t, and interestingly enough, a significant juxtaposition today demonstrates exactly why I have and maintain that commitment.

Today, several hours before BGSU’s football game kicked off, the Board of Trustees of the university held one of their regular meetings.  Over 100 faculty members attended the meeting holding signs and silently protesting the cutting of more than 30 faculty (on top of cuts of more than 70 faculty positions last May) on which the university has recently acted, effective this coming May.  More faculty members would have filled the room, but reports indicate that police officers had been stationed at the entrance and denied further admission of peacefully demonstrating faculty to the open-to-the-public meeting.

The juxtaposition here is that, amid budgetary concerns, while the university continues to pour money into a football program that costs university stakeholders money every year, the university’s administration cuts faculty to save money.  While administrators have claimed that this will not affect education at BGSU, I’m not alone in having a very hard time trying to figure out how the loss of more than 100 faculty lines (and even if we accept the university’s counterclaim about the addition of around 36 new tenure-track positions between last year and this year, we’re still at around 70 faculty lines lost) won’t affect education at the university. That just seems mathematically and logistically impossible. 

The university continues to prioritize football over faculty (and the education of the students whom those faculty teach), and that, to me, is not consistent with the mission of an educational institution.  If the situation differed, if football wasn’t outweighing faculty as it is, and if we didn’t have to choose one over the other, I would be much more willing to support the football team like I did before 2012.  But the university is making choices, and they’re putting me and other stakeholders into the position of having to making choices as well.  I’m simply not going to choose football over my colleagues and the education of the students who attend the place that I work and that I went to school.  So, as much as I find myself wanting to watch and follow football again, I can’t.  Whether they win or lose tonight’s football game, BGSU has already lost too much this football season.  And they’re not alone among colleges and universities.