There is so much that could be said about the social and cultural significance of the Don Imus incident, one hardly knows where to begin. His comment about “nappy-headed hos” could have been considered just as “sexist” as it was “racist,” but racism is the ultimate offense when it comes to prejudices. And besides, the “hos” was directed at black women. So it was, properly speaking, primarily a matter of racism.
No doubt if a daughter or granddaughter of mine were a member of the Rutgers basketball team, I would have been furious at her having been called a “ho.” Yet I hope that I would be able to view the incident objectively, and that this objectivity would be reflected in my judgments about what was Imus’s due.
There is general agreement that comedy has its place in American life, even irreverent comedy. Sometimes comedy is not only irreverent, but offensive, and this is less generally approved of; typically it is put up with, but occasionally it is the cause of strenuous objections. The Imus affair was obviously a case of the latter.
But has Imus been treated fairly? Not entirely, I’d say. The reaction was overblown, the denunciations intemperate; it was a mistake to terminate his shows on MSNBC and CBS. And it is worth considering all of this, lest we compound the error or repeat it.
Offense and Forbearance
A first observation: Imus in the Morning was a very popular show, which is indicative of its public acceptance. No marginal program, it was a mainstream show. Many Americans liked it and laughed at it, especially at the way Imus ridiculed politics. And countless high-profile individuals appeared on his show. It was refreshing, the way in which Imus would cut through the pretentious seriousness which clings to the “crucial issues of the day.” Imus’s audience expected his satirical, sarcastic, irreverent manner, and he delivered. This time he “crossed the line,” to use his own words.
So where is the handbook of lines, delineating what one can and cannot say on a talk-radio show? We expect these hosts to be spontaneous, creative, and entertaining, to push the envelope. And thus, when they screw up, we need to cut them some slack, letting them know that, while we have no tolerance for comments like “nappy-headed hos,” we realize it was more a result of boorishness than of malice. This “one strike and you’re out” policy is not fitting for a nation with our tradition of free speech. Offend the wrong group, and you will be fired — it’s not exactly the spirit of the First Amendment. Yet that is essentially what has happened to Don Imus.
To be certain, Imus has said many things offensive to many people over the years. He has always presumed, and received, a certain acceptance. His latest offense was not worse than much of what he was accustomed to getting away with. “Ho” is not a term that Imus originated; the term is accepted, never mind simply tolerated, by a not-insignificant portion of American society.
The rules were changed in the middle of the game, apparently. Imus was given no grace period to make an adjustment, and that is unfair. But the rule-change itself was unfair — who is going to be irreverent, and say something perhaps mildly offensive, if it might cost him his job?
Offense and Forgiveness
We are a nation that professes a commitment to the “better angels of our nature.” The majority of us are Christians, and our Bible teaches us to forgive. As I watched Al Sharpton drag Imus through the mud on Sharpton’s own show, repeatedly saying “I want you fi-yed,” I saw a bully, not a Christian. I saw one power-hungry entertainer beating up on another. Although I can’t think of one thing about which I agree with him, I was beginning to warm to the “new” Al Sharpton — more polished, frequently rational and logical, notwithstanding some outlandish ideas. The Imus incident represented a relapse to an earlier Sharpton — the schoolyard bully.
It is my sense that Sharpton overplayed his hand, and that, while he might have won the battle, he will lose the war. Americans don’t like bullies, and Imus, bully that he was on his show, was a helpless victim here. Sharpton, in victory, was a bully. What a justice it would be if Jackson, Sharpton, and the others who called for Imus to be “fired” were now to be judged by the same unforgiving standard. All of us should monitor every word they say, and, if they misstep in any way, do unto them as they did unto Imus — at least until they apologize. Jackson never apologized for what he had said about the Duke lacrosse team, when they were originally charged with rape, after the charges were dismissed. Being falsely branded as a “rapist” is certainly a far more serious offense than being called a “ho.”
I pray that Don Imus is able to regroup and to redeem himself from this dreadful, though instructive, incident. From all that I have read, the content of his character is good. In his private life, he has served America well. A racially “born again” Imus, given his creative mind, can do much more to call attention through a daily show to the destructiveness of rappers who brand black women as “hos” than a Don Imus forced into premature retirement.
Offense and Fairness
To Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bruce Gordon (former head of the NAACP), Barack Obama, and those network executives who professed outrage that Imus insulted those young black women on the Rutgers basketball team, I ask why you weren’t outraged when Joe Biden insulted essentially all black people except one? There has been no public discussion of why Biden’s comment was insulting to most black people, particularly those who have worked hard to succeed according to the rules of American life. It is offensive to them to know that Biden and others consider it an anomaly for a black person to be “mainstream, bright, articulate, clean and nice-looking.” Obama is not an exception among blacks in those respects. Yet the silence was deafening from those who wanted Imus’s head on a platter.
What about the Trent Lott incident? Why could we not put his words into their rightful context? Lott was trying to make a colleague feel good on his 100th birthday. He was not suggesting a return to racial segregation. He didn’t hurl a racial slur at anyone. The crowd that wanted Imus fired is essentially the same crowd that wanted Lott to apologize and to be removed from his position.
What about Michael Richards of the Seinfeld show? Calling members of the audience “niggers” was despicable. As I watched the video of his act, it was clear that for a few minutes he was insanely out of control. The reaction from Jackson and the anti-Lott/Imus mob was typical: “We demand an apology.” Jackson took it a step further. He wanted all Americans to eliminate the word “nigger” from our vocabulary. If someone asks ten years from now, “What was the word that Michael Richards said that was so offensive?” the correct answer is supposed to be, “He said the n-word.” That is taking things too far, stemming more from an eagerness to dictate conventions than a desire to mitigate offense.
I would be delighted if the Imus incident caused us all to make our public discourse less coarse and offensive. Two requests: First, media and network executives should know that it is racist to presume that black people are so monolithic that their sum and substance can be reduced into two personalities — Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It is racist to presume that black people have “representatives” or “leaders” who speak for them. We don’t.
Second, I would remind those who want to purify our airwaves and our culture by eliminating offensive language that those of us who are “black” and “conservative” ought to be included in this new “Non-offensive Language Bill of Rights.” Being called “Uncle Tom” and the litany of pejorative terms leveled at us is outrageous. I am still waiting for an apology from Jesse Jackson for calling me “strange fruit” — not a term of affection for anyone familiar with American history.
Something tells me, however, that I shouldn’t hold my breath for the apology to come.