July 16
As many of you are aware, there have been two high-profile cases in the news recently about celebrities allegedly going “off they deep-end” mentally and expressing, what I can only describe as “hate-speech.”
The media has made a huge deal about it and one would hope that it would spark a dialogue in our community about what is considered acceptable and what is considered flagrant displays of complete vitriol. I have always considered “hate-speech” in any form to be vile and base – the lowest form of expression one human being can communicate to another.
But have we over-reacted in our society? Are we a culture of victims or one of tolerance?
Let me share with you another example…
I was saddened today at the news that a long-time colleague of mine was fired from her job for something unfathomable: she used the “N” word.
Let me try to put this in the correct context.
To protect her identity, I will call her “Julie” (obviously not her real name). Julie is from Germany.
She is a lovely woman, a star flight attendant and she has had nothing but accolades and compliment letters written to the company over the span of her long career. Everyone who works with her says she is great, and has a real good time when she is on their crew. She is a model citizen and a kind individual. So to hear that she was accused of “hate-speech” was just unimaginable.
As it turns out, a few months ago, she was relaying to another co-worker an incident onboard a flight she had worked several years earlier where someone had called her a “Nazi.”
According to her, in Germany, one can actually be arrested for calling or accusing someone of being a Nazi. During the telling of her story, she told her co-worker that calling someone a Nazi in Germany is as offensive to them as it would be to a black person being called a ni**er.
Unfortunately for her, on the bus that day was another co-worker, a black man, who apparently was offended that she even used the word, no matter the context in which she had said it. It was obvious to those who had heard Julie say it that she was not directing it at anyone, was not using the word in a derogatory fashion nor was she referring to anyone specifically. It was simply an analogy that she had chosen to make the comparison with.
The offended individual reported it to company management, and immediately, she was released from duty and summarily terminated, due to the company’s “zero-tolerance” policy.
What strikes me (and many others) is that this is not an isolated incident. How many times have people called others epithets that are nothing short of repugnant? I have heard flight attendants called “b*tch” “c*nt” “f*g” “b*stard” – all manner of repulsive words – by passengers on planes.
And yet, where is the company’s “zero-tolerance” policy in these situations? Usually, the passenger either gets away with it, or else they get the proverbial “slap on the hand” and are sent on their way.
When Michael Richards spews the “N”-word to hecklers in his audience, and then makes a feeble, insincere apology as “damage-control,” or when Mel Gibson takes weeks to try and “reverse” the derogatory comments he made about Jews, saying it was “alcohol-induced” should we consider these acceptable?
When Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered, there were so-called Christians at his funeral holding signs and shouting such slurs as “God hates fags” and “Homos burn in hell.” Why are these expressions acceptable?
As Americans, our rights to freedom of speech and expression are protected by our Constitution, but why has the interpretation of this right become so twisted?
Why are there no repercussions for popular celebrities or religious fanatics who openly and blatantly express foul and disgusting name-calling, and yet a first-rate, top-notch individual simply uses a term in the context of a comparison loses her career, her pension, and all her benefits simply because one other person was “offended?”
By no means am I subscribing to the idea that all expression is acceptable. On the contrary, I believe that there should be limits on some expression, but who can judge?
What measuring stick can we use to say “this” is alright but “that” is not? It is a quandary that seems to have surfaced and become more and more divisive among the races, among sects, and even among various cultures within our own country. We have become a society of victims and everything and anything can be construed as “offensive.”
When I was growing up, the majority of my friends were black. I learned much from them regarding their culture, their oppression of the past and the current social climate that seemed to always be working against them. I became sensitive to these issues and became intolerant of those who would mock or express any amount of racism. But there was another aspect that I became exposed to.
My family immigrated to this country in the late 1800′s and settled in the Northeast and in Canada. They did not arrive here until many years after slavery was abolished.
Some of my ancestors, being from Ireland and, experienced much discrimination by those who would take advantage of them, and expressed their hatred of those cultural and religious traditions they were bringing with them when they arrived on our shores. They were never slaves owners nor had any inclinations to have any adverse feelings towards blacks.
Yet, as I grew up, there were many times when black people would express to me how I was racist towards them, simply because I was white. Nothing could be further from the truth. And yet, simply because I was white, I could not “understand their pain,” their suffering or their culture.
I know what is offensive and what is intolerable and have always fought alongside them all when they were feeling oppressed. But in so doing, why were my black friends called “Uncle Toms” while other black folks who perceived me being racist simply because I was white? And in the spirit of intolerance, why is it acceptable for a black person to call another black person “ni**er” and it not be considered “racist?”
Recently, talk show host Glenn Beck had the Reverend Al Sharpton on his program and the entire hour with him was devoted to trying to build an understanding about this. Beck asked Sharpton why some black leaders refused to decry racism of any sort, even if it was directed at whites from blacks. Sharpton simply changed the subject.
When asked by Beck whether he felt the Black Community Leaders had a responsibility to educate their followers about changing the dialogue to be INCLUSIVE rather than EXCLUSIVE, Sharpton refused to respond but made a statement that sounded more like “we will when you white folks do it.”
I shall never be given an answer that will truly satisfy my need to deeply understand this dilemma, but it certainly seems that no matter the appearance of fairness, we are all paying the cost of this insidious problem, while those who can afford it most, suffer few, if any, ill effects.
It is time to reconsider this notion that the privileged elite can get away with a shrug and a slap on the wrist, while the common citizen is exposed to the full brunt of the protest.
“Julie,” my heart goes out to you and my prayers are with you…
