It appears to me that we live in a society of hyper-sensitivity and political correctness. But what baffles me is the inherent contradiction of it all. Nowadays, you can’t dress up as Mulan, Pocahantas, or Princess Jasmine without offending someone, but somehow Snow White and Cinderella are acceptable costume choices for Halloween. Isn’t this all about dressing up as Disney characters? Davies can’t parody themselves without offending who knows…slaves…but students call Davies lawyers “slavies” on a daily basis without comment. You can’t throw a fundraising feast without offending a law student, but fundraising gala’s are acceptable. If it is rude to feast when you are raising money for the hungry, shouldn’t it be equally rude to wear extravagant clothes and drink champagne to raise money for the poor. For that matter, shouldn’t it be offensive to throw a fundraising walk for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) when many afflicted by MS lose motor function?
As a woman and a visible minority, I consider myself hyper sensitive to issues of discrimination, prejudice, and general bad taste. But there are simply some things I just cannot wrap my head around. It seems to me we live in a society (or at least a law school community) that jumps at the potential offensiveness of everything. But we also irrationally let other things go. There seems to be no consistency in the outrage; perhaps because the outrage is misplaced in the first place.
I’d like to suggest that we give our peers and those around us the benefit of the doubt (when possible). The white girl who dressed up as Mulan probably adored that movie as a kid and wants to celebrate Japanese culture. The feast organizer just wanted to raise money for a good cause. Davies probably just wanted to take ownership of a nickname that has plagued them for years. In all of these potentially offensive cases, it is clear that there is evidence of good intentions. I appreciate that good intentions cannot in and of themselves absolve you from being ignorant, rude, and offensive. However, I think we’ve reached a point where everything can be framed as offensive and we need to stop attacking everyone for everything.
Over-hyper-sensitivity can have a chilling effect on good deeds and creativity. For example, the last issue of the UV featured only generic hand holding type law firm ads (*cough* Blakes and Norton Rose). The only creative ad in the issue was Cassels Brock’s ad which featured a dog wearing a suit and the tagline “go off leash”. I could easily prevent any future creative ad attempts if I framed this seemingly harmless ad as offensive. I could argue that Cassels offended me because they likened law students to dogs and suggested that other firms treated their students like kept animals. Not only would that be wholly unfair to Cassels, but Cassels would probably apologize for being insensitive and change their ad for the next issue to feature some generic hand holding.
I am not advocating that we let everything go. For instance, I don’t think for a second that Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak should escape scrutiny for his offensive remarks and actions. Tim Hudak called Canadian citizens not born in Canada “foreigners” and used rhetoric that suggested “foreigners” were not worthy of any affirmative policy. Hudak also published ads that played into homophobic stereotypes. While Hudak’s comments have been denounced by liberals and conservatives alike, he has for the most part escaped scrutiny and he remains the PC leader. All of this leads me to believe that the outrage targeted at charity organizers and costume wearers would be better spent in a case such as this.
So the question remains, when do we scrutinize and when do we walk away? I think the difference is one of intention and blatant offensiveness. While these two criteria for drawing the line may not be helpful in every case, I think they provide a starting point. Davies, Mulan-girl, and the charity organizers didn’t have any malicious or divisive intent. Moreover, their actions are not blatantly offensive. In all three of these cases I needed someone to explain to me what was so egregious about the action. On the other hand, Hudak’s remarks strongly suggest bigoted sentiments and are inappropriate for an elected MPP and aspiring provincial leader. While he may not have intended to offend, he explicitly offended vulnerable segments of our society and this is simply unacceptable.
We need to stop actively looking for the offensiveness in everything because everything can be framed as offensive. We also need to start giving good people the benefit of the doubt. Equally importantly, we need to stop letting truly offensive things go. For every breath, article, or rant wasted on a light-hearted gesture, a Tim Hudak is able to escape well deserved scrutiny. And if you’re not going to listen to anything I say, at least start being consistent in your outrage.
