I knew
there was going to be some controversy when I first saw the editorial
and the cartoon that went with it. What surprised me, however, was
the amount of sheer anger directed at the cartoon printed along
with the editorial.
Published in the Sept. 12 edition of The Appalachian, the editorial
and cartoon concerned the protest held by the campus chapter of
the National Organization for Women (NOW) during the annual Walk
for Awareness, which NOW felt was not raising enough awareness by
being silent.
To their credit, the letter from NOW’s advisor addressed the
issues in the editorial, rather than raging at the cartoon. Some
of the other letters, however, got a bit more personal.
One letter accused TThe Appalachian of scaring away “many women
who might have joined organizations like NOW,” and things just
got more vicious from there.
Our very printing of the cartoon was characterized as “subtly
oppressive and blatantly homophobic and misogynistic.” Then,
my personal favorite accusation of the bunch: “You jeopardize
the personal safety of many women with your stupid prejudice.”
I can see the headline now: “The Appalachian prints cartoon,
violence against women skyrockets.”
Right.
Some sense of perspective is needed here. It was an editorial cartoon;
we didn’t beat up or hurt anyone. We didn’t print slurs
or hatred. Similar to our previous cartoons portraying fraternities,
Campus Crusade, hippies, peace protestors, and many more, it was
a caricature. No doubt there are many members of NOW and the rest
of the above groups who don’t fit the portrayals given in editorial
cartoons, but those portrayals aren’t meant to be realistic,
they’re meant to amuse, make a point, and not be taken too
seriously.
Sadly, the furor over the cartoon and the accusations in the letters
show some larger problems. For one, there’s a disturbing tendency
among all sides of the political spectrum today to characterize
their opponents in the harshest terms possible: fascist, racist,
homophobe, traitor, unpatriotic, warmonger and so on.
I’ve seen this happen both on this campus and elsewhere. The
use of such terms so frequently increases tension and takes attention
away from where it needs to be, on the issue at hand.
If someone who didn’t like the cartoon had sent in a letter
simply making their point that many NOW members don’t fit the
caricature, that would have been fine, but what is accomplished
by the venomous words that were used?
The real issues that get buried in this whole controversy—rape
and assault on campus and what’s being done (or not) to stop
it, are serious, much more so than how horrible The Appalachian
is for printing something “offensive.” NOW does have some
points, and there are questions that need to be asked about how
much impact the Walk for Awareness has as a protest if many of the
people there don’t have a choice in the matter.
Even more disturbing to me in many of the letters we received is
the implied notion that something printed or said is dangerous and
harmful because it’s offensive, a notion which can’t exist
alongside true free speech. This is the basis behind “political
correctness,” behind firing teachers for saying “niggardly,”
behind expelling students for drawing guns or writing disturbing
poetry.
Bottom line, living in a free society requires a thick skin. Anybody
who expresses their opinion in public opens themselves to a backlash,
anybody who reads it opens themselves to be offended.
Deal with it, and save that anger for something worth it. |
