Director’s mistake did not deserve extreme vilification


Last week director Brett Ratner held a Q&A session after an advance screening of his newest film, Tower Heist. It was there that he quipped that “rehearsal is for fags.”

Cue the inferno of criticism.

The backlash was intense and swift. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation got involved, and there were cries for his resignation as producer of the Oscars. And though Academy President Tom Sherak seemed to forgive him, the pressure got to Ratner. He resigned from his position Tuesday.

It’s clear why he stepped down: He offended countless people with the slur and embarrassed the academy.

But then again, it’s baffling when you consider the details. This was no extended rant, a la Mel Gibson. Nor did Ratner even mean the word in it’s literal meaning. It was an off-the-cuff slip of a slang term.

Why didn’t critics simply forgive and forget?

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” we were told as children, as if understanding that words aren’t tangible weapons is a point of pride.

But the outrage surrounding Ratner’s sophomoric, clumsy utterance proves words do hurt, and hurt a lot.

In fact, this incident — along with others, such as Tracy Morgan’s gay-joke failure in a June stand-up performance — reveals a society so frightened, so sensitive to potential gaffes, that we might as well be wearing earplugs.

Campaigns against such words have gone high-profile with stars, such as Hillary Duff and Jane Lynch, joining in to promote greater awareness of how slurs can harm. It’s all well-intended, and minimizing the use of offensive words is a valiant goal.

But just go to an average schoolyard and one thing will become clear: the use of racial, religious and homophobic slurs is pervasive and entrenched. You’ll hear slurs everywhere.

In many cases — Ratner’s included — these words aren’t meant to harm in the literal sense.

As controversial rapper and Odd Future leader Tyler the Creator pointed out, these words have lost their meaning to many who use them.

The lexicon of American slang has always been a fluid one. Today, terms like “idiot” and “imbecile” slip off our tongues without much hesitation. Yet “retard” is considered an offensive slur.

Why? In the 19th and early 20th centuries, “idiot” served as a medical term to describe severe mental retardation. How come people aren’t causing an uproar about the pervasive use of “idiot” today?

“Idiot” lost its technical connotations to mental disabilities. And it’s no stretch to assume the same will happen to slurs considered offensive today.

Here’s the bottom line: words can be weapons, and they can hurt. This is undeniable.

But trying to stem the casual use of slurs is an uphill battle even Sisyphus wouldn’t want to touch. After all, offensive language is cyclical — when one insult goes away, others will inevitably come to take its place.

Wouldn’t we rather that slurs didn’t faze us at all? Wouldn’t we rather imagine a world where such terms simply served as boring language for uncreative people?

Slurs don’t deserve their power, their edge. But the commotion caused by groups such as GLAAD over unintentional gaffes only help to add weight and significance to words that shouldn’t mean anything at all.

Sometimes, dulling a knife works better than hiding a sharp one.

 

Eddie Kim is a junior majoring in print journalism.


10 replies
  1. Steve
    Steve says:

    Political correctness runs our society. As liberalism always does, it’s an overcorrection to a problem that needed fixing. Racism and the like were pervasive years ago, now we have to make sure we don’t use the wrong word at the wrong time lest you be thrown into prison for thinking something that could be construed as offensive. I wonder how many of these lovely liberals stopped listening to Michael Jackson because he molested children. Or stopped watching football after Michael Vick killed dogs. Or renounced their support of Bill Clinton because he repeatedly cheated on his wife and sexually harassed interns. Or condemn the occupy “movement” when they become violent and take craps on people’s doorsteps. Those are things that are offensive as well, but they don’t fit into the liberal agenda therefore they’re tolerated and accepted. Liberals do an excellent job of getting riled up about things they’re passionate about and ignoring everything else. And as we all know, every college (including SC) is full of brainwashed liberals.

  2. Anon
    Anon says:

    Under the author’s premise, we should also forgive the use of n*****, w****** and c****. It is inexcusable what Ratner did.

    And to the sticks and stones line, it is much easier to heal a physical wound than an emotional wound. No matter how hard we try, words hurt, and cut much deeper.

  3. J
    J says:

    SERIOUSLY? Do you understand how hurtful these words are? Though people are FINALLY starting to cause a stir about these remarks does not in any way mean they should be accepted and not criticized. Any derogatory term used by anyone, especially people on a platform, needs to be called out. You have no argument here, and are just as bad as the person saying it in my opinion.

  4. Matt
    Matt says:

    This article is even more offensive than what Ratner said. Congratulations.

    Offensive words always hold the power to hurt, regardless of how people intend them. It doesn’t matter how people intend their words, if their words still end up deeply offending or alienating an individual. For example, in situations of verbal sexual harassment, such as an employee at work telling an offensive joke about women, it doesn’t matter whether the employee was only “being funny” and “didn’t want to hurt anyone” — the employee will still be held accountable for sexual harassment, regardless of his intent. The fact of the matter is that he offended and alienated another individual, and encouraged a hostile environment.

    Your point about the word “idiot” is completely moot and illogical. The word’s meaning has been replaced, and it is no longer an offensive term. When people use the word “faggot,” it still means a derogatory term for a gay man. Until the meaning of the word “faggot” has been replaced by a more positive meaning in our lexicon, it will still be offensive. It’s not up to homophobic directors or television stars to decide when society will assimilate a new meaning for a term, thus excusing themselves from their own hate speech.

    It’s easy to say that words aren’t offensive when you’re not the one being offended by them. As a gay man, I’m incredibly offended by both Ratner and Morgan. Their words serve as painful reminders of the alienation and loneliness that I feel every day as someone who is part of a minority that is very often not accepted by society. As persons of cultural significance, their words have a certain resonance in society. They have affected millions of people with their words, rather than just the people within earshot, as is usually the case with hate speech, and they should be held fully accountable for promulgating the idea that hate speech is acceptable.

    I hope you learned something from this comment. As a writer with a platform, your words also have resonance. Please don’t use them to spread apathy or acceptance of discrimination and homophobia.

  5. Sam Christopher
    Sam Christopher says:

    Before coming to USC, I worked in education, mostly middle school. Whenever I heard any of my students use “fag” (or “gay” or “retarded” or any other slur) to describe something they didn’t like, I used that as an immediate entry point into a discussion about how our words can be hurtful, even when we don’t intend them to be. It’s true, what Eddie Kim says, that the use of slurs is common among kids and teens, but it’s not true that it’s a sisyphean task. I saw a marked decrease in my students in their use of slurs, and I am just one of many, many educators across the country and worldwide who work with students to help them express themselves in more compassionate ways. I think that it’s noble and important work. I think the advocate work done by individuals and organizations, such as GLAAD, is also important. By not allowing use of slurs in the media to go unnoticed, such advocacy work keeps these kids using the argument that since adults use it, it must be acceptable. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. And I think Eddie Kim’s argument–that it’s hard to fight slurs, so we might as well not even try–proves that he is certainly is not part of the solution.

Comments are closed.