Weighing in on the Imus Story

It's been over three weeks since I posted to my Blog. I wanted to do a couple of postings each week, but recently nothing has spurred my desire to write.

The whole issue of the remarks by Imus about the Rutgers women's basketball team seems contorted and overblown to me. I decided to comment briefly on it though, primarily as a springboard for a couple of generalizations about our society:

• Despite the initial gut reactions of a few, it is only one small thread in the tapestry of life--one of many that together form one of the uglier images on the tapestry.
• I have never listened to the Imus radio show. I have seen a few minutes of a television interview with him, but aside from that, all I know about him is what I have read in the papers. So, I have no reason to defend him.
• The remark by Imus is utterly disgusting, rude, demeaning, derogatory and totally tasteless. But our Constitution does guarantee us freedom of speech. As one judge put it, nothing in the constition prohibits a person from being a jerk.
• It has been totally blown out of proportion by the hypocrites, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who seldom hesitate to denigrate white people.
• I don't think Imus had any specific intent to hurt or degrade the women on the team. His statement seems thoughtless rather than vicious. His public persona appears to be an "equal opportunity offender." He has been paid for years to say things that are disgusting, rude, and tasteless. He probably just repeated language that he heard from some rude and tasteless rappers.
• NBC and CBS erred in firing Imus. The punishment far exceeds the crime. After all, they hired Imus and paid him to be disgusting, rude, and tasteless. Therefore, if Imus should go, then so should the executives who hired him. The media executives also fanned the flames of the equally tasteless Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton by continually spotlighting their equally bigoted distortions.

Having looked at this single fiber in the tapestry of our society, we should step back for a minute and look at a larger area of the tapestry. Of the many images, this fiber weaves through two of interest: First, for as long as I can remember our society has embraced a double standard with regard to remarks that are made about people's race, religion, or ethnicity--a double standard that often leads to a "lose-lose" situation. Second, in recent years society has drifted away from a rigid structure of consideration, propriety, civility, and etiquette which demands that we respect other people and have concern for their feelings and needs. The latter trend has spawned entertainers of the ilk of Don Imus; the double standard has allowed them and other public figures to fall into the same ditch that Imus did.

We have all experienced the double standard. Al Sharpton can lie about Tawana Brawley, and he gets a pass. A rapper can record songs that calls women "ho's" and he gets a pass. A woman being arrested for domestic violence can call the policeman a fascist pig, and she gets a pass. A Pole can tell a Polish joke, and his fellow Poles laugh and give him a pass. A Jewish man can call his neighbor a kike, and he gets a pass. If a Dane publishes a derogatory cartoon about Mohammed, his life is threatened. Rosie O'Donnel makes absurd and baseless statements on television, and she gets a pass. But let a Michael Richards or a Don Imus do any of the above, and he will be labelled a racist and a bigot, and be forced to apologize. The fact is that all of those lies, slurs, and jokes are disgusting, rude, tasteless and hurtful regardless of who makes the statements. But we never treat them that way across the board. Anyone who calls attention to this double standard is immediately labelled a bigot and a racist. When Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their ilk try to rationalize away the double standard, they are every bit as racist as the people they criticize. The double standard should have been abolished long ago, but it was not abolished, and I am sure that it will not be.

Many people have gradually concluded that displays of respect for others, civility, acts of respect, and the rules of etiquette are a waste of time and energy. We used to dress up when we went "downtown" to do our shopping out of respect for other shoppers; and when we went to church, out of respect for God. Now we wear t-shirts, cut-offs and sneakers to the malls and to church because we are lazy, and because we think both other people and God should accept us just as we are. Gentlemen used to stand when a lady entered the room. We used to hold the door open for the person following us through, but few people bother with the simple courtesies anymore. We used to learn and teach proper table manners and proper dinner conversation as a form of respect and consideration for those with whom we dine, but most folks can't be bothered with that. All of these formalities and constraints conditioned people to pause, to think, and to consider the feelings of the people around them before they spoke or acted. Now people do as they please; they eschew good taste and courtesy. They take pleasure in audacious art, in the brashness of the "shock jocks," and in the emphasis on violence, gore, and sex in both drama and comedy. The "line" that marks the boundary of acceptable behavior is moving farther and farther away from respectful, courteous, and ethical. But, as Imus learned, the "line" still exists. It is just so far from reasonable decency and respect that it is much easier to stumble across. And the "line" is drawn in a different place for each individual.