In a classic series of Saturday Night Live sketches, Jane Curtin would provide a liberal point of view and then her counterpart Dan Aykroyd would provide a withering response, beginning, "Jane, you ignorant slut." Their point/counterpoint was an over-the-top parody of political discussion. But no longer.
Broadcaster Rush Limbaugh, as everyone knows by now, has called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute," and has suggested she post videos of herself having sex. How does he supposedly know so much about her sex life and why is he demanding to know more? She provided congressional testimony supporting women's access to contraception as part of standard health coverage.
Many have distanced themselves from Limbaugh's remarks including, eventually, Limbaugh himself in a belated apology. Sponsors have left. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, "It's not the language I would have used."
What language would he have used? In the world of comedy news, Jon Stewart suggested Romney might have preferred to call Fluke a "hussy" or a "trollop." Stephen Colbert liked "trollop" and also suggested "wanton harlot."
Meanwhile in the world of academia, University of Rochester Economics Professor Steven Landsburg took on the question of her ignorance. Acknowledging that Fluke herself "deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being," he insisted in the March 2 post on his blog that what is at issue here is "her position," which deserves no respect whatsoever. Her position "deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked, and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty."
Rush Limbaugh provided, in Professor Landsburg's view, "a spot-on analogy." And is Fluke a slut, according to Landsburg? He argued that "slut," unlike "prostitute," connotes "the sort of joyous enthusiasm that would render payment superfluous." He concluded that neither term is quite right. Fluke is an "extortionist," or more precisely an "extortionist with an overweening sense of entitlement."
On March 6, University of Rochester President Joel Seligman issued a statement declaring that he was "deeply disappointed" with Professor Landsburg's writings on this matter. He was, moreover, "outraged that any professor would demean a student in this fashion."
President Seligman acknowledged Professor Landsburg's "right to express his views" and affirmed "our University's deep commitment to academic freedom." Nevertheless, without threatening any penalty, he urged "an atmosphere of civil discourse in which the dignity of every individual is respected."
Professor Landsburg replied, "People who express actual views on this matter do not deserve to be mocked or ridiculed." Sandra Fluke, apparently, had not expressed anything he would deem an "actual view." She falls into the category of "people who think that ideas don't matter" and is thus fair game for mockery and ridicule.
On March 7, thirty University of Rochester students protested Professor Landsburg's support of Rush Limbaugh at the beginning and end of a class he was teaching. It appears there was an initial effort to disrupt the class, but Professor Landsburg continued to teach and there was no need for University Security officers to take any action.
Where does that leave us? Mass media personalities have a First Amendment right not to be censored by the government. Sponsors have a right to sponsor or not sponsor what they please. College professors have a right to agree or disagree with public figures and statements. College presidents have a right to agree or disagree with professors but should be clear that free speech and academic freedom will be protected. College students have a right to protest but should not disrupt classes.
We all have a First Amendment right to begin our arguments with some version of "Jane, you ignorant slut." We can't rely on censors to enforce civility. But we needn't say all the terrible things we're allowed to say. We can, and often should, remind each other of that.
Efforts to be civil, in academic and other contexts, generally enhance discourse, decision making, and the advancement of knowledge. But censorship is never civil. Civility must be encouraged within an atmosphere of intellectual freedom. Rush Limbaugh's show may be part of the price we pay for intellectual freedom, but academic freedom requires that students and faculty be free to agree with him.
Rush Limbaugh: They thought I was finished
Should Limbaugh be taken off air?
The Limbaugh-Maher-Fluke debate
Kony 2012: Limbaugh berated Obama for sending troops after Joseph Kony
it's called the presidential elections. There is a lot of internet
rumblings about Ms. Fluke and why she was involved in this
contraception issue. Maybe we need her to come clean too.
1.) Obama did not accept any money from Maher. Maher made his donation to a Super PAC. BY LAW, Obama has no contact with the Super PAC.
2.) Maher used ONE vile four letter word to describe Sarah Palin. Ms. Palin is a public figure who has most definitely sought the public spotligh. She is also no stranger to hurling insults herself. That doesn't excuse Maher's language, but it does put Ms. Palin in a different category than Ms. Fluke.
3.) Fairness does not reign supreme in the real world. In fact, Rush regularly rails against ever bringing back the Fairness Doctrine which used to reign supreme in the world of broadcasting.
4.) There is no censorship campaign. By definition, censorship involves the government. Boycotts are as American as the boycott against British Tea in the 1700's (perhaps you've heard of that boycott?).
Now, departing from fact into opinion:
Rush Limbaugh is NOT a comedian.
It is a cowardly defense behind which he retreats when his nasty attacks receive some blowback. He is a political commentator. His show is not a radio version of SNL. It is almost 100% political commentary - most of it nasty with an occasional attempt at what he considers humor. Limbaugh also lied about the content of Fluke's testimony. She never once referenced her own sex life. Nor was she asking taxpayers to subsidize her birth control.
Rush Limbaugh on the other hand, is on the public airwaves. He is no more a "comedic news commentator" than you are, and his rhetoric is hardly laughable.
While I consider neither to be particularly civil, one (Maher) is a comedian whose stock and trade is comedic outrage against PUBLIC figures, and the other (Limbaugh), only a comedian when he postures himself as a news commentator, bullies PRIVATE citizens for having had the temerity to express an opinion.
That kind of 'debate' can be stimulated by shouting racial slurs at people as well. I hope you wouldn't defend that.
And although it has largely been ignored, Rush's actual point makes no sense and has no relation to actual discussion that is going on.
This reminder is sorely needed at a time when our Constitutional rights are under severe attack.
The price of free speech for all is tolerance.
There is no Constitutional right to host a national radio program.
That takes financial support from private enterprise in the form of advertisements. It is precisely an exercise of free speech to declare your opposition to any national broadcaster and to inform his or her sponsors that you will not patronize their businesses if they continue to sponsor that broadcaster.
Sponsorship is a form of endorsement for without sponsorship, the broadcaster loses their platform - as many broadcasters have done over the years - although more often for simply boring their listeners than for outraging them.
far less than imprisonment (i.e. censorship) are precluded for good reason.
Secondly, a person most certainly does have a Constitutional right to host a
national radio program if they have means to fund and operate it! Just as
a person has a right to publish a national newspaper or online news like this blog.
If you don't like what you hear, your recourse is your free speech - not to deny
others from hearing, reading, or seeing whatever you may disapprove of.
As you say, any person if free to express opposing views, to patronize
a sponsor or not. The 20-30 million people in Limbaugh's audience also have
their rights - to hear him or not, whether you approve or not.
Count on it - no matter what may be spoken, there will also be someone who
claims to be "offended". Free speech cannot exist without the right to offend.
Spot on. But academic integrity also requires acknowledging all those who do not support civil discussion, whether they be from the left (Bill Mahers comes to mind) or the right.