Last week, the Lantern comic strip “Stillman” depicted women’s studies majors as being comparable to witches or hags. Some people thought it was funny, some people thought it was tasteless. Members of the Feminist Majority organized a protest on the Oval.On my radio show, I got to sit in on a conversation between the creator of “Stillman” and two of the protesters. I’d hoped for a rational exchange of ideas, but after a bit it turned into a name-calling contest. It was a pretty bad scene, and everyone involved left with some residual resentment.It started out fairly calmly. Everyone agreed to be civil and present their viewpoint. After a bit though, neither side was going to admit they were wrong or overreacting. So, both sides replaced debate with verbal attacks, much the same as when anyone’s beliefs are attacked.Initially, it seemed that the comic was totally undefensible. It played on stereotypes and could be interpreted as misogynistic. It is also fair to assume the writer would never replace women’s studies with black or Jewish studies.Then the concept of not running an offensive comic in the school newspaper came up. Granted, I’m sure that women’s studies majors feel more strongly about the comic than everyone else on campus, but to want to ban something because it’s viewpoint makes you uncomfortable is pretty close to censorship.Another facet of the issue was the question of diversity. Flyers for the protest asked whether we should support a paper that doesn’t support diversity. It is irrelevant whether the Lantern gives a wide range of beliefs a forum. What is relevant is what diversity is.And that seems to be a big problem. It appears that we accept a wide range of viewpoints, unless we find them to be somehow offensive. Once a view offends us, we want it to be removed from public view. It’s great that a group of people organized themselves and let the campus know they wouldn’t allow themselves to be mocked. The juxtaposition of people using their right to express themselves to deny someone else that right is somewhat ironic. One of the protesters, a member of the Feminist Majority, felt that the comic was a manifestation of patriarchy at its worst. To an extent, she may be right. Playing on stereotypes of women’s studies majors without fear of serious backlash is pretty safe, and that fact in itself should indicate something flawed in our society.On the other hand, all it was was a comic. The guy who wrote it didn’t write it with the intention of maliciously exploiting women, and didn’t expect to cause such a big controversy. Not the kind of bastard who’d like to see social progress stunted, just someone who made a bad joke.If the beliefs you hold, no matter how rational or well-meaning, are supposedly so sacred that they cannot be questioned or even ridiculed, those beliefs degenerate from something useful and important into dogma. All dogma does is breed fanatics.Against my better judgment, I’d like to quote the Rev. Jesse Custer: “Political correctness! Yeah, we’re a buncha east coast liberal a**holes and we are just SO concerned … except we ain’t got the balls to take on any real problems, so we’re gonna invent our own so’s we can feel like we’re doin’ something! We’re gonna save the world by making sure no one ever says ‘faggot’!”Stereotyping and mocking someone different than you is pretty stupid. But to turn a bad joke into the “cause of the week” when there are so many more pressing and relevant issues, such as the execution of someone who was quite arguably mentally incompetent, seems to indicate something wrong with our values.
John Roszkowski, a freshman sociology major from Stow, Ohio, can be heard exploiting the cause of the week to its fullest on his radio show every Wednesday at 7 p.m. on the student-run station.
