Did Mr. Imus Cross the Line?

This morning, I caught the press conference in which the President, Coach and women's basketball team from Rutger's University was interviewed. The way that the young women handled themselves in light of Mr. Imus' remarks were astounding. Through well-spoken, reasonable answers, they calmly faced the inquiries of the press as they would on the court.

There is something to be said about the dignity of people. And Mr. Imus' remarks reflected no such honor last week about the Rutgers' women's basketball team. Although he has interviewed celebrities, politicians and other dignitaries in society, he could not understand that ten young ladies deserved the same amount of respect that he has given other notable people in society. What is worse about this situation is that it highlights a pressing issue in society that goes beyond the simple privilege of having the freedom of speech.

It is having the ability to wield these words with a sense of empathy and respect.

Before my ex-communication from that forum, I discussed an issue similar to this one when dealing with the notion of "phrases in race-related talk". Weeks before Mr. Imus' comments, I was told that this was almost a "non-issue" and that there was no meaning to be had in examining what was said in race-related discussion.

I told them that I begged to differ because the phrases (for example, "Why do you people whine and cry about race all the time?" or "You're playing the race card!") are said all the time. I wondered aloud whether the people uttering these phrases ever thought about why they said them when engaging in discussions that discussed diversity and cultural awareness.

The obliviousness that I received from making this inquiry was astounding. In fact, some of the conversants would either try to attack my methodolgy. Or, they would deny that such words would have such an impact at all. The worst of it was centered around downplaying the phrases. In fact, the majority of persons within the talk were trying to talk around the obvious: that these phrases were used to dismiss not only the experiences being conveyed in race-related talk; but they were also used to dehumanize people to the point of infantilization("whining" and "screaming", etc.).

In this light, Mr. Imus' comments convey an uncomfortable aspect of today's society: when does freedom of speech cross the line?

Freedom of speech is important. I would fight for the right for all to express themselves. But this First Amendment right does not give one carte blanche to say things willy nilly without any consequences. For example, you cannot shout, "Fire" in a crowded building. After all, once one does, one could cause a riot.

It would be pretty sick for an individual (after seeing that people have been trampled upon once the shout of "Fire" was uttered) just to say that it was his or her opinion after such words have caused harm. Opinions, no matter the freedom given to them, have repercussions for good or ill. In Mr. Imus' case, his words conveyed ill will toward the achievements of the young women of Rutgers' basketball team, not only racially, but in terms of gender.

His remarks are not any different than the ones uttered by comedian Michael Richards not too long ago. What usually happens is that the speaker says what's on his mind about another group of people and says "it's a joke". Because of the "old boys club" of celebrity and the press, those comments are taken as gospel and often discounted in the name of political incorrectness. But, Mr. Imus probably received more hell than he could bargain for when the words he uttered caused an uproar across the country.

A two week suspension is not going to teach him the error of his ways no matter how much he defends his right to say his comments publicly. Mr. Imus, during that two week hiatus, has to take a crash course of empathy and identification with people outside of his race and gender. It might sensitize him to the hurt and despair one often feels when these insensitive remarks are often overlooked and erased by some of the public. Maybe he might notice when one is especially hurt, the supporters of the "said comment" often turn it around by stating something equally hurtful to dismiss the impact to nothingness.

It would take a miracle for him to realize this.

After all the times he's apologized, he repeated the same old pattern of disparagement on his show. What is one more time going to teach him--if there are not any hard lessons learned here?

I think that sometimes when people utter these phrases--whether the words reflect "nappy headed ho's" to "people whining and screaming about race"--it has to do with a lack of identification with the targeted group. Through distancing one's self from others who are different than they are, a person puts up a barrier against learning about diverse customs, histories and social norms.

For some, it is far easier to not care about these aspects at all and rather ignore them. This corresponds with the occurences of social and institutional disparities. People who don't want to connect with 'the Other' deny such actions take place. The reason why they deny that social disparities happen is because it occurs out of their sight and experience. When it does occur, people complicit with the system remain silent in such dreadful occurrences because it would betray that there is something wrong with how they live as a part of an accepted group in society. To keep such a system in place, it is far easier to deny such events wreak havoc on the social structure of a society. A far nefarious matter is when there is not an ounce of feeling by such persons as a result of the disparaging treatment. They most commonly want to "disprove" such events happen while chiding the person who describes them as being "delusional". And of course, the vicious circle repeats itself.

All of this points to a few conclusions. Race-relations is not often dealt with adequately in today's society. "Political correctness" is played up to be such a dirty term. Unfortunately, such desensitization continues against social groups outside of the dominant culture. As long as there is a no outstanding response to contradict and deconstruct such hurtful phrases, then the same patterns continue without abandon.

The sad thing about Mr. Imus' comments is that they are all too common not only in the press and public life, but also within our communities. Because a lack of empathy is so encouraged in American life, we reap what we sow. Since people do not want to think about the repercussions of their words, they lack the vision to realize what they say can hurt others.

People complain about sensitivity and 'being soft'. From siding with the principle of treating people with dignity and respect, I've learned that being empathetic and respectful of others is a very hard road to walk. It's sad, but a lot of people today do not have the capacity to care about others. And most often, those that 'don't care' often save their most vicious remarks for those who do. When they say them to the more sensitive and the caring, the vicious are often praised for their hardness and lack of vunerability.

And it is more of the same when it comes down to the problems created by Mr. Imus' words. It is even more exacerbated with his lukewarm response in terms of contriteness.

Mr. Imus is at a fork in the road now. He can truly try to relearn his attitudes and treat all people with dignity and respect. Or, he can just return to his job and continue down the same path of dehumanizing the people he chooses not to identify with.

It's all in his hands now.