To The Clock:
I am writing to thank you for printing Dustin Suggins’ “Right Track” editorial last week. Really, I’m not kidding! I’m ashamed to say that it sometimes takes this degree of sloppy and offensive rhetoric to really force me to articulate my beliefs; although I wish Dustin knew better, I am thankful for any opportunity to discuss such important issues as social justice, religion, and gender equity. Dustin’s column has forced me to put into words a lot of things that have been on my mind lately – I must credit him for pushing my buttons.
Perhaps my identity as a woman compels me to first address Dustin’s frustrations with what he calls “PC” and “gender and relationship terminology.” He complains that “a stewardess is not a stewardess any more; instead, she is a ‘flight attendant.’ A secretary is a secretary no longer; she is an ‘office assistant.'” [emphasis mine]. It seems that, in Dustin’s world, it is impossible to imagine that a flight attendant or office assistant could ever be a man. I wonder whether, when a woman is elected President of the United States, Dustin will argue that her husband (if, indeed, she is married) should be called First Lady. After all, according to his logic, wouldn’t it be ridiculously “PC” to change the name of the position to accurately reflect the identity of the person occupying it?
The rhetoric and tone of much of Dustin’s piece suggest that he worries that the recognition and protection of others’ identities and rights somehow lessens the recognition and protection of his own identity and rights. I don’t know that this is actually so. He suggests, for instance, that his Irish heritage should qualify him for “any government help in regards to affirmative action.” Let me suggest that, while his U.S. forebears (and Irish ancestors and contemporaries) certainly have been the victims of documented and serious discrimination and violence, he has not been significantly disadvantaged by his Irish heritage. Past acts of discrimination have not significantly impacted his present circumstances. If they have, it seems an odd omission from his editorial. It is not clear whether Dustin has been denied anything as a result of his Irish heritage. Also, Dustin may actually qualify for certain kinds of affirmative action recruiting – for instance, Cal Berkeley may, one year, seek out candidates from rural New England to diversify their campus; my point is that affirmative action can work for lots of different kinds of folks depending on a variety of factors. Further, let me go out on a limb and speculate that none of the following have happened to Dustin:
–being singled out and physically assaulted as a result of his Irish heritage–being denied employment as a result of his Irish heritage–being paid 73 cents on the dollar as a result of his Irish heritage–being denied the right to marry someone who isn’t Irish (or who is Irish)–being stopped by the police because they assumed an Irish guy would never drive such a nice car
I do not mean to suggest that any of the above is impossible. If any of these things have happened to Dustin; if he feels that he is being systematically discriminated against by his own government or school, or denied his civil rights because of his Irish heritage, I would encourage him to take advantage of the avenues afforded by our legal system and to add his voice to the many who fight for equal protection. Indeed, when one of us (be they queer or Irish or female) is denied our civil and human rights, it lessens all of us.
If Dustin would prefer that I call him “Irish-American” rather than American, I’d do it. If he wanted me to call him “beige” rather than “white,” I’d be happy to. If he wanted me to call him either “secretary” OR “administrative assistant,” I would do my best to comply. How would it injure me to call him by the name he chooses for himself, the name he feels best describes his identity? Dustin bemoans what he calls “PC,” but I would argue that what is often derided as “political correctness” is just plain being considerate. Why wouldn’t you want to let people name themselves? Why would you want to call someone a name or label that hurt them? Even if you thought it was silly to be hurt by such a name, even if you believed “names can never hurt me,” if you had an ounce of respect or caring for that person, wouldn’t you stop calling them that name? I fail to see what is so politically degrading or demeaning about taking someone’s feelings into consideration. Furthermore, as someone interested in the study of language and culture, I have come to know this: the namers have the power.
This does not, however, mean that “never being offended” or “never having to experience things that make me uncomfortable” are human or constitutional rights. I have, from time to time, been offended by photographs, neighbors, students, colleagues, editorials, relatives, political candidates, and ideas. I am certain that I have, from time to time, given offense. But feeling offended and put-off, or even feeling underappreciated, are very different experiences than, say, being shut out of an entire career field because of your gender, being denied the opportunity to even apply for a job because your skin color is something “other” than white, or being beaten to death because of your religion or sexual orientation. We don’t need to have a competition about whose sexual orientation or race trumps whose religion or nationality. Real people of all stripes are suffering every day because of real discrimination.
This is all important to us as a University, this business of naming and power and world view, because it is at the heart of living in a multicultural world. It is important to discuss the issues Dustin raises both on their own terms and in disciplinary contexts, because they are so connected to how we create and investigate knowledge. We need to treat this material respectfully and as critical thinkers. This might sound easier than it is. But it’s worthy work. In any case, as a teacher, I want students in the courses I teach to feel free (perhaps obligated) to express diverse points of view, to share responsibility for the results of such expression, to challenge the assumptions of others (myself included), and to have their own assumptions challenged. These activities often make for uncomfortable debates and awkward silences, but it has been my personal experience as a student and teacher that moments of discomfort and complexity tend to be moments of learning more frequently than those long stretches when our status quo (whatever flavor it is) isn’t challenged.
I believe we are all subjective participants in shaping our realities – we pretend at objectivity occasionally, but our pretense (“Fair and Balanced!”) tends to be much more dangerous than our bias. We all have agendas and wear blinders with respect to our experiences and worldviews. I don’t think this is a bad thing – just inevitable. Thanks, Dustin, for once again revealing your agenda and blinders so clearly. I think I’ve pretty well revealed mine, too. I defend Dustin’s right to express himself, as he would certainly defend mine. Our expressions, though, are not without consequence. I hope that one consequence of this expression is that dialogue will continue, beyond these pages. Let’s do the good work of asking the difficult questions in the spirit of critical thinking (the work of a University); of telling the truth as we know and live it; and fighting for justice for all people — Irish and flight attendants alike.
Liz AhlEnglish Department