0
votes

P.C. or not P.C., Should that be the Question?

posted March 9, 2007 - 10:09am
P.C. or not P.C., Should that be the Question?

You have to wonder about people who are bending over backwards to the point of serious back injury to be Politically Correct these days. I don’t know how we arrived at this place where anyone who might say anything about anyone or any group might have to worry about legal repercussions. It makes no sense. It is like, at some point, everyone became so sensitive that no one can make a joke about anyone at any time and anyone who feels remotely insulted feels they have a right to pursue legal action.

This has created a kind of cultural terror that is really unreasonable in a supposedly free society. This is a country that, in theory, anyone should be able to say just about anything at any time. There are limits, of course, but generally speaking it is a society that is supposed to be free and, therefore, people should be allowed to poke fun at anyone. Lenny Bruce would not survive for five seconds in today’s society and he thought he had troubles during his time. I had always heard that to have true freedom you need to look at the guy saying the most loathsome thing and understand that he has the right to say those things. It is not freedom of speech, but only if you say these very nice things about everyone all the time.

In a way I feel very bad for school administrators. They are seemingly spinning around like tops out of control trying to make everyone feel good about themselves. The rules are so confusing to them that, essentially, anything that might offend someone, somewhere, anywhere, at some point is just forbidden without question. Many times it makes no sense but they are forced to do it. They have to make sure Muslims, Christians and Jews are all placated. They have to make sure atheists aren’t offended by saying a pledge. They have to make sure all ethnic groups are happy. It must truly be exhausting to try and run a school with a population that is growing ever-diverse.

I have a friend who has a sketch comedy troupe. They were invited to a school in the northern suburbs of Chicago to participate in this week-long event where artists, performers, writers, and other professionals come and spend time with the students. This is a potentially great thing as I think too many students get any creative outlets they may enjoy pounded out of them in your average school system so that they completely lose the ability to imagine by the time high school comes around.

His troupe has been invited at least three times in the past. They work with the kids and come up with several skits that the kids then perform. The comedy troupe he works with is relatively edgy but they are not outrageous. Well, this year, suddenly, they have had to jump through more hoops than any other person invited. Why? Because last year some parent somewhere had a few concerns about the material the kids did with this group and so now they have all kinds of rules and restrictions.

The one skit that really got tackled this year was called “Great Moments in Amish Pornography.” It is a 90 second skit wherein that music from 2001: A Space Odyssey is played. A player dressed like an Amish woman then lifts her skirt to show and ankle and a player dressed like an Amish man drops his suspenders from his shoulders. No actual nudity is involved and not a word is spoken throughout the skit. I, personally, think that’s pretty funny.

Well, first, it was banned because the word “Pornography” was in the title and the title was spoken aloud before the skit began. Not wanting to give up a funny premise the director suggested another name: “Amish Reproduction.” This time he was told they could not do it because it was potentially insulting to the Amish.

Let me state that phrase again. He was told that the sketch was potentially insulting to the Amish!!!! Let me explain that the northern suburbs of Chicago is NOT a hotbed of Amish activity. The nearest Amish community I am aware of is deep within Indiana. They do not have a community of Amish tucked away in this school’s district. From what I could gather after talking to my friend the school was not planning on busing in a large Amish group for the skits. At no point was it likely that anyone who was Amish would see this skit. So, one has to wonder, exactly which Amish folks this school was afraid of offending?

I am willing to bet you that you could even find an Amish person who would find it funny. More importantly, when did it suddenly become a concern for comedy troupes as to whether or not they might insult the Amish? What are the Amish going to do, march on our cities with rakes, hoes and ploughshares? I am just saying that the Amish seem to me like a closed society who prefer to just be by themselves and not spend a lot of time pursuing legal action against schools in northern suburbs of Chicago.

It seems to me that this is ridiculous. Now, as I mentioned, I feel bad for the school administration. They already have at least one parent screaming in their collective ears about skits this group has done with the kids in the past. They now have a skit that pokes fun at that all-time American taboo subject of sex. It does it in the most innocent, non-sexual way possible but nothing makes parents more squirmy than the words “pornography” or “reproduction” mentioned anywhere near kids or teenagers.

At some point, though, you just have to shrug it all off, I would think. You would just have to call your lawyers and warn them that it is likely some parent somewhere is likely to bring legal action because they feel little Billy or Jenny is too fragile to speak the words “pornography” or “reproduction” anywhere near them. I am quite sure in such a household little Billy or Jenny will grow up to be nice, normal adults without ANY sexual hang-ups at all, right? Sure, because there is nothing like making sex evil and nasty to make people grow into well-adjusted adults.

As for any Amish out there who might be reading this and feel insulted, I apologize. The last thing I need is a group of bearded men all named Jacob and Isaiah standing outside of my apartment with their horse-drawn carriages taking up space on the street. I certainly am not going to clean up after all of those horses. I don’t want to take a garden hoe in the back of the head either.

Bryan W. Alaspa’s novel Dust is available in print and eBook format at his website www.bryanalaspa.com and www.amazon.com.



Comments

FOCUS on Pornography

It does rather render that whole issue moot, doesn't it? Boy, did they make me feel silly? Open mouth - insert foot - Thanks FOCUS! I'm totally baffled and speechless??? What IS their criteria then? If indeed you were eliminated for having the word "pornography" in your title, how do they justify inviting representatives from two of the most popular and best selling "pornography" magazines in the world! Playboy's Managing Photo Editor? The Editor in Chief of Maxim for Men? Will they be contributing to the program, or are they merely on a "scouting mission"? What ARE they thinking? What IS their FOCUS? Amazing... Dragonfly Xomba Moderator

Dragonfly
Xomba Moderator

Not sure if anyone is reading any more ...

But I thought I would post the final update: We were officially banned from FOCUS 2007 (see the following Chicago Tribune article for reference: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0703190038mar19,1,5408380.story?ctrack=1&cset=true) --you might have to sign up, but it's fast and free-- Also, for context ... here is a brief list of *some* of the other presenters who *will* be at FOCUS 2007: - About Face Youth Theatre, exploring the stories of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders - The Big Bas Ass Company Band (music, but I thought their name was worth noting) - Jeff Cohen, current Executive Editor and Publisher of Playboy Special Editions and former Playboy photographer and Managing Photo Editor for Playboy - Kevin Coval and Idris Goodwin, HBO Def Poets - Aaron Freeman and Sharon Rosenzweig, stand ups doing a comedic interpretation of the Torah - Jimmy Jellinek, Editor-in-Chief of Maxim Magazine for men - Danny Smith, writer and Executive Producer of The Family Guy Now I want to make it clear that I am both proud of and happy for my fellow artists (my colleagues) who will be coming to FOCUS this year. FOCUS has always been a fertile playground for all forms of creative and artistic expression and art forms of every kind. It's truly an amazing experience. I don't want to discredit or in any way, shape, or form demean ANY of the artists listed above (I'm actually a fan of many of them). But given that Comic Thread could not utter the word "pornography" in a comedy sketch (among other things), I must say I am more than a little confused at the decision to rescind our invitation. If the decision to cut TCT was spurred from a few complaints after 2005, who's to say it wasn't a competing comedy troupe that complained in order to eliminate the competition? Now, I know this wasn't the case ... but it makes you wonder. Not to mention, it really renders a lot of the issue over the word "pornography" moot, don't you think? I mean, given that all the people above passed the test of what is appropriate for FOCUS and HPHS?

The latest.

Below are two statements, seemingly completely disparate, yet coming from the same department. But before I copy those down for you to read ... let me first say that I will be posting the video of the opening scene of “Great Moments in Amish Pornography” that played at FOCUS 2005 on our website. This way you *can* see for yourself. I will let you all know when it's up and where/how to see it (it will be at www.bitterjester.com) Secondly, I think that it's worth taking a moment to explain FOCUS, what it is, why it exists, and just what it purportedly stands for. In a nutshell, ever since the late 60s, HPHS has taken every other year to expose its students to art forms of all kinds. For the better part of a week, instead of going to regular classes, students sign up for showcases and seminars taught by more than 200 professional artists who come from around the country to HPHS to showcase their crafts in TV/Film production, writing, painting, sculpture, music, dance, singing, puppetry, cartooning, comedy (both standup and sketch), theatre ... the list just goes on and on. FOCUS has always been a fertile playground for provocative thought (in both introspective and forum formats) and an experience that, like myriad other people, influenced this writer beyond belief. I cannot tell you how many times I bragged about “FOCUS on the Arts” to my college classmates. That having been said, I give you the following dissimilar statements for your consideration. Please keep in mind that 2007 would have been The Comic Thread’s fourth appearance at FOCUS, not our first. If you count the two FOCUS years I was a student presenter, I personally have ten years of participation and five FOCUS's under my belt. I'm a vet and have been invited to FOCUS for more than half of those years. And please keep in mind the fact that after our 2005 show got a handful of complaints I received a personal phone call from the superintendent of the school district assuring me that we would be invited back to participate in FOCUS 2007 … which (until they rescinded their December 2006 *invitation*) we were. 1) "In all cases, FOCUS spurs tremendous cultural and intellectual growth and encourages students to step outside their comfort zone. No doubt, the effects of FOCUS are rich and long lasting." "It is our goal to continue... creating the artists and art audiences of the future." -Quotes taken directly from the official FOCUS website 2) "Haven't been trying to ignore you... I've just been waiting for some administrative decisions to be made. As you know I need to feel confident about all our presenters and comfortable with the material that they're going to present to our students - that it's appropriate. And it's been the administrative decision pretty much... we're definitely leaning towards not having something that is questionable at FOCUS... We're going to suggest that we take this year off from having Comic Thread perform at FOCUS on the Arts." -Mary Jo Papich, Fine & Applied Arts Chairwoman for HPHS and FOCUS on the Arts (from an 03-14-07 voicemail) I suppose the notions of "questionable art" and the encouragement of students to "step outside their comfort zone" are mutually exclusive. It is my sad belief that "FOCUS on the Arts" has focused so fine a point in trying to avoid offending anyone and everyone that a lot of art is being not just missed but avoided and deserted. Which is interesting to me, since if you look up the definition of the word "art," nowhere do you see the phrase "...and what appeals to the lowest common denominator." I was always taught that you do not play down to your audience, you talk to the most intelligent person in the room. In comedy, if only one person laughs, you've succeeded. And if you choose to see it and do not like it, then don't go back again. Because what is art if not something that each, in his own time, learns to either love or hate? But in not allowing people to *hate* art - in censoring art for the "protection" of everyone, are we not doing a disservice to that one person who might love it, if even only in private? Someone once said to me: "If they want to burn our books and we burn them first, our books still get burned." And while I do not necessarily think that the symbol of a burning book of comedy is necessarily a portrayal of the current situation that I would start using, it certainly is an accurate one.

Sorry for the delay in

Sorry for the delay in answering, Idlewild. But in answer to your comment: in some respects times were better and in others, worse when words like "mick", "spic", "wop", "dago" and the "n" word were thrown around so casually. I don't think I could adequately answer your question in a book, much less a comment. I can say though, that despite pervasiveness of PC, access to material goods, better health care etc. my kids experience that I didn't, I don't envy them at all for the future they face. Those ethnic slurs didn't make the times better or worse; they were a reflection of some aspects of the times in which they were so freely used. As for the title of that performance, I'm indifferent to the use of the word "pornography". It's just a word. I'm personally a little uncomfortable at what seems like a dig at the Amish (at first glance). Having said that, I'd reserve judgment because I haven't seen the performance. http://www.xomba.com/user/thewonderer

Well, that is why I said

Well, that is why I said they should focus on WHY the kids bring a gun to school...not just to punish them for it. It does need to be prevented, I agree. But in order to prevent, you need to know why they feel the need to bring it. Keeping people from watching a comedy show isn't going to keep them from bringing a gun to class. There are a lot of problems with the way we raise kids these days...but that's a whole other can of worms.

The ills of society

In response to Publius' last comment -- bringing handguns to school and the like -- in the hope that it will generate more discussion. Isn't it interesting that we are so preoccupied in quick fixes to those problems. The punishment of those involved as a means of preventing future action. Would it not be better to address those underlying issues that precipitate such events? In healthcare, the public is best served when, for example, a first heart attack is prevented, rather waiting to intervene and promote prevention of future heart attacks (when the risk is seven times that of what it was before)? As one patient was once quoted, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Would sociological ills not benefit from the same approach to solving the underlying issues? A case in point was mentioned in Malcolm Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point, wherein he summarizes the (relative) reversal of the crime that pervaded New York City in the '80s and early '90s by employing a radical line of thinking that, at first glance, you might not expect to produce any significant effect. Food for thought ...

No, thank YOU. It's good to

No, thank YOU. It's good to know that there are some people who enjoy reading opinions that don't necessarily reflect their own on a particular subject. I don't mind that sometimes you disagree with me. It's healthy. In fact, you know what they say? If two people completely agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. Anyway...I think this article does bring awareness to what is happening in our society. We need to keep things in perspective. There was a comment earlier about saying "damn" and "hell" back in the day. Our words will continue to evolve and we will encounter new "slang" that will eventually make its way into our everyday life. Do you think that back in the Dark Ages or Roman times that there was no language that was frowned upon? It will always happen, no matter what time or what language. Our schools are supposed to be a place to learn. Although I may disagree with our current system of education, I think it's important that parents and school faculty don't deprive the kids from experiences like this comedy troupe in an effort to shelter them from potentially "offensive" humor. Instead, they should focus on why their kid decided to bring a gun to school or smoke cigarettes in the bathroom. Those are the problems I would like to see addressed by parents and school boards.

Thank you!

Hi Publius! I actually read your article before I wrote mine and appreciate your thoughts about it, so I am VERY glad you commented here. I also am greatly appreciative of the director of the skit in question for taking the time to comment and make some clarifications as well. I didn't quite expect this to generate as much response as it did. I thought it might start some conversation but the degree at which the debate seemed to erupt was slightly surprising to me. I do highly recommend Publius' article as well on this topic. In fact, even though I disagreed with some of his other postings, his postings are extremly well-written and will make you think, so check out all of his stuff. Here's another link to his article: http://www.xomba.com/you_just_cant_say_that_george

These are excellent

These are excellent comments, especially the last two. After hearing them, I know I'm convinced that you guys should be allowed to perform as originally planned. I wrote an article (right before this one was posted actually) about how the American public and, many times the government, is constantly changing the type of language we are allowed to use. Both of you made great points about the wording of your skit and the content/characters within it. It is a shame that we have come to this in our schools, but because of all the recent outcries from parents and politicians, it seems that eliminating activities such as your comedy troupe is never decided by the people who are actually going to see it. Anyway, that's my two cents. If you're interested in my article about restricting language go to... http://www.xomba.com/you_just_cant_say_that_george Sorry about the shameless plug, balaspa.

For your consideration

Hello. I feel that I can go no further here, at least not if I want to sleep at night with a clean conscience, without adding that I'm an actor in the production in question for the purpose of full disclosure. It seems to me that the discussion has lost view of a couple of key points that are worth revisiting. Remember that the medium is theatre, the genre is comedy, and the audience is comprised of human beings ages 14-18. Those are the objective facts -- the rest is open for discussion. A little bit more about me before you judge me and the production that I am in. I work at a hospital, and my job consists of responding to questions from physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and respiratory therapists about any drug therapy so that we may, as a collective team, ensure the best outcomes for all patients in our care. Bear in mind that I do not take this responsibility lightly, nor do I hang my conscience up on a rack with my lab coat as I exit the building at the end of the day. I apply it to all that I do, and that includes my extracurricular activities in theatre. Our material is racy and, at times, thought-provoking, although the aim is arguably to enjoy the human experience together by means of laughter. It is meant to provide an escape and a catharsis, nothing more or less. Theatre is not television or film. One of the primary differences is that there is no benefit of the technology associated with the latter two -- technology that includes effects and editing. Theatre itself is focused more on human interaction and/or experience, even if only because it does not incorporate that which the other media are capable to the same extent. Accordingly, we aim to showcase the human condition, and yes, our content is and should be controlled by us as directors and performers and our consciences. In our medium and forum, we are not propagandizing or glorifying either the innocuous or prurient. We are taking experiences, thoughts, and observations and hopefully getting our audience to examine them in a way it had not before. I argue that people in our society, when they have reached high school, are able to tell the difference. High schoolers are able to appreciate satire and are challenged with some of the best aggregations of complex thought that inhabit our literary canon. Are these individuals less capable of appreciating art for art's sake than a thirty-five-year-old without a high school education? If the purpose is not to challenge and expose our students (safely), then what is the point of wasting our tax money shipping them around on field trips to the Art Institute, Health Centers, and any other place for that matter? Or inside school, for that matter. Why would we expose students to the harsh realities depicted in The Invisible Man, Uncle Tom's Cabin, or the autobiography of Frederick Douglass? Or the fate of Socrates, as catalogued by Plato? Or the struggle of protagonist Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment? Is there a difference in development between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old? Yes there is. And are we exposing each and everyone in between to the same material? Yes. However, these individuals all inhabit the same world -- that of high school -- and daily experience the same culture, so I do not think we should parse hairs when it comes to lumping them together as a class. Are high schoolers and grade schoolers different? Yes they are. I would not consider some of our material suitable for grade schoolers and hence would not want to perform any of our shows for them. Although some of them would likely be able to appreciate it, the concerns of parents would be well placed in wondering whether some of our material exposes them to certain ideas that are best experienced in another forum if for the first time. High schoolers in America, by contrast, have seen much of what society has to offer. Divorce, violence, sex -- all of what we might consider the evils of society -- either first-hand, in the sensational brand of media to which we are commonly subjected, or in communicating the aforementioned to one another, given that they inhabit a common community. Perhaps the single greatest irony in this whole debate is that the voices of the high schoolers in question have gone unheard and uninvited... I suppose I might add that the middlemen demanding that we alter our content are the same people who have been around in years past during our other shows. Some of these people have applauded our efforts and found nothing offensive in years past. The reason for heightened scrutiny, more so than any complaint lodged in the past, is that there are a pair of new principals on board. More so than from below or without, the pressure is coming from above. When we ask if we could perform the same material as we did in the past, which was applauded by one person in particular, he responded that we could not because the climate and context has changed. And again, what has changed is not the debate over our material -- simply the presence of different people on top who subscribe to a different brand of politics. That is why we are asked to revisit our material. The talk of complaints and appropriateness, like so much in politics, is simply subterfuge.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member