http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gop-politicians-defend-39-duck-dynasty-39-star-184932178--abc-news-politics.html
So, Phil from "Duck Dynasty" stated his personal beliefs to a national magazine. Should the magazine have censored his comments, as they were possibly hurtful and damaging to his career? Did it benefit the magazine to ask questions that led him to make comments that were seen as crude and destructive? Who is responsible for his words? In this society, a free society, with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, Phil solely is responsible for his comments. What he says in an interview to the press is his responsibility. Once it is out of his mouth, the magazine has a duty to its own profits to print what might catch attention, regardless of the consequences to Phil and his own income source. No one would disagree with that.
Phil is entitled to his opinion. If this is how he feels, no one thinks they can truly change his heart. But, as a public figure, his words have power. When he makes a comment like what he did, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and multiple partners, his words carry more weight. If he said this in his church, a bar with his friends, or in his own home (without cameras rolling) he has every right to speak his mind. Unfortunately, when his thoughts become public, he is responsible for them. Again, no one attempted to censor him. No one has tried to block the publication of his words. What he said is inflammatory because we are in a time of change, and the nation is trying to find a way forward. The past is easy to go back to, because we know where we came from.
This issue is being framed as an attack on religion and on free speech, both protected in the Constitution. The only problem with this line of attack is that the Constitution was designed to protect individuals (through incorporation) and states (originally the purpose of the Bill of Rights) from federal intrusion in these areas. As an individual I am allowed to say what I choose without the government acting against me. I cannot, however, criticize another man without the threat of him acting against me. If I criticize my boss, he has the right to punish me. As a student, freedom of speech is limited somewhat. Students cannot cuss or disparage other students. There are numerous examples of freedom of speech carried out. But, it can only be protection from a public (government entity) punishing an individual or group. The government is not stepping in to restrict the thoughts or words of either Phil or other conservatives that may find comfort in his words. The government has remained silent on this. While private organizations (A + E is a private company) have spoken out about their disagreement with his words, GQ, A+E, GLAD, and the NAACP are all private organizations, and have as much right to publicly criticize his views, both public comments and religious views, as he does to criticize others. Ultimately the buyers money will decide who is right in this. It is not the choice of a few to misuse the Constitution to their own personal benefit.
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the controversy by comparing it to Miley Cyrus. No one has censored Miley Cyrus, he argues, but they have a religious man like Phil. Miley Cyrus does not have a long term contract with a television company. She (I assume) has a contract with a recording company. That company found her performance at the VMAs beneficial financially to themselves. There was a lot of public outcry both from the mainstream media, the left and the right about Miley Cyrus' performance. But, record sales stayed high. In the case of Phil, there was outcry from many sources for his comments. The company that holds his contract (A+E) felt they wanted to distance themselves from this controversy. They chose to suspend his contract, and they had the contractual right to do so. If Miley were still working for Disney, presumably they would do the same. Miley was just working for a company that allowed greater latitude. That is the difference. This is and never was an issue of the First Amendment, and freedoms from government intrusion. It is the freedom of companies to choose what is in their own self interest. Please don't muddy the waters.
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Friday, December 20, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
"Is BET Reverse Racism?"
This is touchy and difficult question and concept. Racism is acting on a set of beliefs that based on the concept of race. So what is race? That is hard to explain, and becoming more fluid. Scholars are not sure they want to pin down the concept of race in 2013. It is an historical concept, but seems to have outlived its usefulness. Prejudice is common, and we all live with some form of it, regardless of were we come from. Acting on prejudice is a problem, and so it is best to be aware of ones prejudice and work to negate actions that may be based on that prejudice.
When prejudice becomes mainstream and moves in to the actions of institutions (companies, governments, schools, and any organization that has authority), if prejudice becomes embedded in the practice of this institution, the effects may be devastating. For example, women not being allowed to attempt to gain a place in combat roles in the military means that women will not advance beyond a basic level. If one is judged without being given a straight chance to prove their abilities, they are limited incredibly.
With this in mind, we come back to the question of black culture celebrated in television, magazines, and other cultural sources. Is there anything racist about BET? A television show that demonstrates black culture is seen as a threat to the hegemony of white culture. But why? Is it racist? No. By promoting only black culture, it is not committing a crime, nor is it really threatening to hold back any white actor. Is BET an entry point for white actors hoping to make it big, duly qualified, but unable to because the producers and execs at the channel don't find the actor to be dark enough? Not likely to happen. A celebration of a particular culture does not negate the pride other cultures should be allowed to feel about their own. The KKK is more than welcome to celebrate white culture and offer up scholarships for white children. There are white ethnic holidays (St. Patrick was not black, and neither were Lincoln and Washington, or Columbus, although he did speak Spanish).
So, what if we had a commercial on television dominated by white people? Would that offend anyone? What if we had a magazine full of white people? What if we went in to a store and all the pictures on the walls were white? Or just a vast majority, with a black person or Asian person tossed in to even it out, so it doesn't seem like a KKK convention? Would it surprise anyone that the KKK has a television channel? I just looked again, and although I won't post their link directly, it doesn't take a lot to google them. The following is from their television channel, a section for youth.
Andrew would like to talk to kids for a few minutes each week. He is proud to be a white Christian boy in America, but he knows that because of his minority status, the odds might be stacked against his people. Kids will enjoy hearing a few comments from Andrew as he warns them of things to watch out for because he cares!
The language attempts to mimic the voice of ethnic minorities in the American past who attempted to rally together without institutional power. Unfortunately, Andrew does have institutional power largely on his side, and the deck is not stacked against him. He just doesn't like to share.
So, no, BET is not reverse racism. Can a black person be prejudiced against whites? Yes. Also very likely is prejudice against a fellow black of a different shade, suprisingly. We are more complex in our dislikes than we are credited with being. The real question, when dealing with racism, should be who has the power to enforce their prejudice. You don't have to like me or what I write. As long as you are not in my classroom, you will never have to fear whether my prejudice is being used against you. That is truly the only realm where I have the power to use my prejudice. Lucky for those who are in my classroom, I am very aware of my prejudice, and work hard to keep it in check. We all live with prejudice. The key is learning to balance your feeling with your reality. To take a deep breath, walk up to your prejudice, put your hand out, take a risk, and pull the mask of the boogey man off. Ultimately, if we truly believe in a just God, we believe that humans by nature are good. So, don't be so afraid of them. Don't look for the worst in people. Instead, until you get burned personally, treat me as a human being. Give me a chance to disappoint you.
When prejudice becomes mainstream and moves in to the actions of institutions (companies, governments, schools, and any organization that has authority), if prejudice becomes embedded in the practice of this institution, the effects may be devastating. For example, women not being allowed to attempt to gain a place in combat roles in the military means that women will not advance beyond a basic level. If one is judged without being given a straight chance to prove their abilities, they are limited incredibly.
With this in mind, we come back to the question of black culture celebrated in television, magazines, and other cultural sources. Is there anything racist about BET? A television show that demonstrates black culture is seen as a threat to the hegemony of white culture. But why? Is it racist? No. By promoting only black culture, it is not committing a crime, nor is it really threatening to hold back any white actor. Is BET an entry point for white actors hoping to make it big, duly qualified, but unable to because the producers and execs at the channel don't find the actor to be dark enough? Not likely to happen. A celebration of a particular culture does not negate the pride other cultures should be allowed to feel about their own. The KKK is more than welcome to celebrate white culture and offer up scholarships for white children. There are white ethnic holidays (St. Patrick was not black, and neither were Lincoln and Washington, or Columbus, although he did speak Spanish).
So, what if we had a commercial on television dominated by white people? Would that offend anyone? What if we had a magazine full of white people? What if we went in to a store and all the pictures on the walls were white? Or just a vast majority, with a black person or Asian person tossed in to even it out, so it doesn't seem like a KKK convention? Would it surprise anyone that the KKK has a television channel? I just looked again, and although I won't post their link directly, it doesn't take a lot to google them. The following is from their television channel, a section for youth.
Andrew would like to talk to kids for a few minutes each week. He is proud to be a white Christian boy in America, but he knows that because of his minority status, the odds might be stacked against his people. Kids will enjoy hearing a few comments from Andrew as he warns them of things to watch out for because he cares!
The language attempts to mimic the voice of ethnic minorities in the American past who attempted to rally together without institutional power. Unfortunately, Andrew does have institutional power largely on his side, and the deck is not stacked against him. He just doesn't like to share.
So, no, BET is not reverse racism. Can a black person be prejudiced against whites? Yes. Also very likely is prejudice against a fellow black of a different shade, suprisingly. We are more complex in our dislikes than we are credited with being. The real question, when dealing with racism, should be who has the power to enforce their prejudice. You don't have to like me or what I write. As long as you are not in my classroom, you will never have to fear whether my prejudice is being used against you. That is truly the only realm where I have the power to use my prejudice. Lucky for those who are in my classroom, I am very aware of my prejudice, and work hard to keep it in check. We all live with prejudice. The key is learning to balance your feeling with your reality. To take a deep breath, walk up to your prejudice, put your hand out, take a risk, and pull the mask of the boogey man off. Ultimately, if we truly believe in a just God, we believe that humans by nature are good. So, don't be so afraid of them. Don't look for the worst in people. Instead, until you get burned personally, treat me as a human being. Give me a chance to disappoint you.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Obama vs. Education
Obama speech to students draws conservative ire
By LIBBY QUAID and LINDA STEWART BALL, Associated Press Writers Libby Quaid And Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press Writers 32 mins ago
DALLAS – President Barack Obama's back-to-school address next week was supposed to be a feel-good story for an administration battered over its health care agenda. Now Republican critics are calling it an effort to foist a political agenda on children, creating yet another confrontation with the White House.
Obama plans to speak directly to students Tuesday about the need to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms across the country will be able to tune in.
Schools don't have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to watch.
Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.
Some conservatives, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the boundaries of federal involvement in schools.
"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Arizona state schools superintendent Tom Horne, a Republican, said lesson plans for teachers created by Obama's Education Department "call for a worshipful rather than critical approach."
The White House plans to release the speech online Monday so parents can read it. He will deliver the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va.
"I think it's really unfortunate that politics has been brought into this," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It's simply a plea to students to really take their learning seriously. Find out what they're good at. Set goals. And take the school year seriously."
She noted that President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to schools in 1991. Like Obama, Bush drew criticism, with Democrats accusing the Republican president of making the event into a campaign commercial.
Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."
"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," Higginbottom said.
In the Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas, the 54,000-student school district is not showing the 15- to 20-minute address but will make the video available later.
PTA council president Cara Mendelsohn said Obama is "cutting out the parent" by speaking to kids during school hours.
"Why can't a parent be watching this with their kid in the evening?" Mendelsohn said. "Because that's what makes a powerful statement, when a parent is sitting there saying, 'This is what I dream for you. This is what I want you to achieve.'"
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in an interview with the AP that he's "certainly not going to advise anybody not to send their kids to school that day."
"Hearing the president speak is always a memorable moment," he said.
But he also said he understood where the criticism was coming from.
"Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about," Perry said. "Why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?"
Several other Texas districts have decided not to show the speech, although the district in Houston is leaving the decision up to individual school principals. In suburban Houston, the Cypress-Fairbanks district planned to show the address and has had its social studies teachers assemble a curriculum and activities for students.
"If someone objected, we would not force them to listen to the speech," spokeswoman Kelli Durham said.
In Wisconsin, the Green Bay school district decided not to show the speech live and to let teachers decide individually whether to show it later.
In Florida, GOP chairman Jim Greer released a statement that he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology."
Despite his rhetoric, two of the larger Florida districts, Miami-Dade and Hillsborough, plan to have classes watch the speech. Students whose parents object will not have to watch.
"We're extending the same courtesy to the president as we do with any elected official that wants to enter our schools," said Linda Cobbe, a Hillsborough schools spokeswoman. Cobbe said the district, which includes Tampa, has gotten calls from upset parents but said officials don't think the White House is trying to force politics on kids.
The Minnesota Association of School Administrators is recommending against disrupting the first day of school to show the speech, but Minnesota's biggest teachers' union is urging schools to show it.
Quincy, Ill., schools decided Thursday not to show the speech. Superintendent Lonny Lemon said phone calls "hit like a load of bricks" on Wednesday.
One Idaho school superintendent, Murray Dalgleish of Council, urged people not to rush to judgment.
"Is the president dictating to these kids? I don't think so," Dalgleish said. "He's trying to get out the same message we're trying to get out, which is, `You are in charge of your education.'"
By LIBBY QUAID and LINDA STEWART BALL, Associated Press Writers Libby Quaid And Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press Writers 32 mins ago
DALLAS – President Barack Obama's back-to-school address next week was supposed to be a feel-good story for an administration battered over its health care agenda. Now Republican critics are calling it an effort to foist a political agenda on children, creating yet another confrontation with the White House.
Obama plans to speak directly to students Tuesday about the need to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms across the country will be able to tune in.
Schools don't have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to watch.
Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.
Some conservatives, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the boundaries of federal involvement in schools.
"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Arizona state schools superintendent Tom Horne, a Republican, said lesson plans for teachers created by Obama's Education Department "call for a worshipful rather than critical approach."
The White House plans to release the speech online Monday so parents can read it. He will deliver the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va.
"I think it's really unfortunate that politics has been brought into this," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It's simply a plea to students to really take their learning seriously. Find out what they're good at. Set goals. And take the school year seriously."
She noted that President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to schools in 1991. Like Obama, Bush drew criticism, with Democrats accusing the Republican president of making the event into a campaign commercial.
Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."
"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," Higginbottom said.
In the Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas, the 54,000-student school district is not showing the 15- to 20-minute address but will make the video available later.
PTA council president Cara Mendelsohn said Obama is "cutting out the parent" by speaking to kids during school hours.
"Why can't a parent be watching this with their kid in the evening?" Mendelsohn said. "Because that's what makes a powerful statement, when a parent is sitting there saying, 'This is what I dream for you. This is what I want you to achieve.'"
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in an interview with the AP that he's "certainly not going to advise anybody not to send their kids to school that day."
"Hearing the president speak is always a memorable moment," he said.
But he also said he understood where the criticism was coming from.
"Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about," Perry said. "Why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?"
Several other Texas districts have decided not to show the speech, although the district in Houston is leaving the decision up to individual school principals. In suburban Houston, the Cypress-Fairbanks district planned to show the address and has had its social studies teachers assemble a curriculum and activities for students.
"If someone objected, we would not force them to listen to the speech," spokeswoman Kelli Durham said.
In Wisconsin, the Green Bay school district decided not to show the speech live and to let teachers decide individually whether to show it later.
In Florida, GOP chairman Jim Greer released a statement that he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology."
Despite his rhetoric, two of the larger Florida districts, Miami-Dade and Hillsborough, plan to have classes watch the speech. Students whose parents object will not have to watch.
"We're extending the same courtesy to the president as we do with any elected official that wants to enter our schools," said Linda Cobbe, a Hillsborough schools spokeswoman. Cobbe said the district, which includes Tampa, has gotten calls from upset parents but said officials don't think the White House is trying to force politics on kids.
The Minnesota Association of School Administrators is recommending against disrupting the first day of school to show the speech, but Minnesota's biggest teachers' union is urging schools to show it.
Quincy, Ill., schools decided Thursday not to show the speech. Superintendent Lonny Lemon said phone calls "hit like a load of bricks" on Wednesday.
One Idaho school superintendent, Murray Dalgleish of Council, urged people not to rush to judgment.
"Is the president dictating to these kids? I don't think so," Dalgleish said. "He's trying to get out the same message we're trying to get out, which is, `You are in charge of your education.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)