I watched with sadness and revulsion both Serena Williams' behavior at the US Open, and the Kavanaugh hearings. Both were examples of poor public behavior, and both with similar justifications.
Williams got upset when she was penalized for receiving coaching. This is a code violation for the USTA and WTA. A first code violation earns a warning. When she lost her argument, unaware she had been penalized, she smashed her racket. That cost her a point. She proceeded to attack the umpire, calling him a thief. That cost her a game. Williams argued she was unfairly treated because she is a woman, and claimed she is fighting for women's rights. She also claimed that a woman expressing herself strongly gets punished in a way a man does not.
Some of that seems true to me. Women often get judged for an expression of temper (just as men get judged very quickly for violence). It is an odd way to complain of unfair treatment, however, by descending to the behavior for which she is judged. Martina Navratilova got it right in saying that everyone ought to hold themselves to a high standard for the game and the audience. Whether sexism is involved or not, blowing up on court is poor sportsmanship and poor behavior.
Similar behavior happened during the Kavanaugh hearings. Within a minute of their opening, Democrats started interrupting the hearings and objecting out of parliamentary order. Although documents were cleared for release, Cory Booker believed he violated Senate rules by releasing for public review materials marked for committee use only, and did it anyway. The Democrats were abetted by organized protesters, who repeatedly were dragged out of the hearings. The final effort involved a deliberate editing of Kavanaugh's remarks by Kamala Harris to make him look like a racist, when he said nothing of that character.
The Democrats are upset they did not get to review every last page of Kavanaugh's record. There is no question the Republicans have resorted to filthy power politics. However, like Williams, when confronted with a situation where they might be misused, Democrats responded by violating both the rules and the decorum of their venue.
This seems to be the public ethos of the present day. Any public outburst is acceptable if it is protesting 'injustice', if it is a 'genuine emotional response', or if the treatment of the individual or group is deemed in some way unfair. In these cases, wrong and injustice are not defined by law, or even by public opinion, but by the feelings of the complainant. This is in some ways a public version of the federal statutes on harassment, which specify that harassment is in the experience of the harassed, not defined by specific behaviors.
What all this produces, however, is a breakdown in public order, in politeness. We are no longer measured by how we treat others (the Golden Rule). We are measured by how genuinely we express outrage. As noted by others, this is a race to the bottom, with each person outdoing the other in claiming oppression, privileged status, and offence. Public spaces, whether physical or on line, have become uncivil and, in the case of the Antifa, unsafe. Political discussion is not possible. Friends are lost over the emotional responses to arcane federal issues.
Thurgood Marshall's quote is highly relevant here. Marshall spoke before the Supreme Court in 1958, regarding the 1954 decision requiring Arkansas to integrate its public schools. Arkansas argued it was not required to enforce federal law (in passing, this argument was decided decisively by the Civil War, but is being hashed all over again by 'sanctuary' municipalities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration officials). Marshall, arguing for Supreme Court primacy to enforce Arkansas integration, said-
"Education is not the teaching of three R's. Education is teaching of the overall citizenship, to learn, to live together with fellow citizens and above all, to learn to obey the law. I'm not worried about the Negro children at this stage. I don't believe they're in this case as such. I worry about the white children in Little Rock who are told as young people that the way to get your rights is to violate the law and defy the lawful authorities. I'm worried about their future. I don't worry about the Negro kids' future. They've been struggling with democracy long enough. They know about it." Marshall won his case 9-0 with less than a day of deliberation by the court.
Today society is learning, like Arkansas white children, that shouting, losing your temper and interrupting an opponent are all valid forms of argument and public expression. None of them are. Like Navratilova's comments, such behavior debases the speaker (shouter) as well as society. And claiming that the power politics of the majority, or race, or sex, or anything, justify misbehavior is specious and dangerous. That is a path to the raw argument that might makes right, that shouting is better than debate, that disruption is better than compromise.
I hear Joseph Welch's question to McCarthy-
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Apparently, not much.
Ted
Williams got upset when she was penalized for receiving coaching. This is a code violation for the USTA and WTA. A first code violation earns a warning. When she lost her argument, unaware she had been penalized, she smashed her racket. That cost her a point. She proceeded to attack the umpire, calling him a thief. That cost her a game. Williams argued she was unfairly treated because she is a woman, and claimed she is fighting for women's rights. She also claimed that a woman expressing herself strongly gets punished in a way a man does not.
Some of that seems true to me. Women often get judged for an expression of temper (just as men get judged very quickly for violence). It is an odd way to complain of unfair treatment, however, by descending to the behavior for which she is judged. Martina Navratilova got it right in saying that everyone ought to hold themselves to a high standard for the game and the audience. Whether sexism is involved or not, blowing up on court is poor sportsmanship and poor behavior.
Similar behavior happened during the Kavanaugh hearings. Within a minute of their opening, Democrats started interrupting the hearings and objecting out of parliamentary order. Although documents were cleared for release, Cory Booker believed he violated Senate rules by releasing for public review materials marked for committee use only, and did it anyway. The Democrats were abetted by organized protesters, who repeatedly were dragged out of the hearings. The final effort involved a deliberate editing of Kavanaugh's remarks by Kamala Harris to make him look like a racist, when he said nothing of that character.
The Democrats are upset they did not get to review every last page of Kavanaugh's record. There is no question the Republicans have resorted to filthy power politics. However, like Williams, when confronted with a situation where they might be misused, Democrats responded by violating both the rules and the decorum of their venue.
This seems to be the public ethos of the present day. Any public outburst is acceptable if it is protesting 'injustice', if it is a 'genuine emotional response', or if the treatment of the individual or group is deemed in some way unfair. In these cases, wrong and injustice are not defined by law, or even by public opinion, but by the feelings of the complainant. This is in some ways a public version of the federal statutes on harassment, which specify that harassment is in the experience of the harassed, not defined by specific behaviors.
What all this produces, however, is a breakdown in public order, in politeness. We are no longer measured by how we treat others (the Golden Rule). We are measured by how genuinely we express outrage. As noted by others, this is a race to the bottom, with each person outdoing the other in claiming oppression, privileged status, and offence. Public spaces, whether physical or on line, have become uncivil and, in the case of the Antifa, unsafe. Political discussion is not possible. Friends are lost over the emotional responses to arcane federal issues.
Thurgood Marshall's quote is highly relevant here. Marshall spoke before the Supreme Court in 1958, regarding the 1954 decision requiring Arkansas to integrate its public schools. Arkansas argued it was not required to enforce federal law (in passing, this argument was decided decisively by the Civil War, but is being hashed all over again by 'sanctuary' municipalities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration officials). Marshall, arguing for Supreme Court primacy to enforce Arkansas integration, said-
"Education is not the teaching of three R's. Education is teaching of the overall citizenship, to learn, to live together with fellow citizens and above all, to learn to obey the law. I'm not worried about the Negro children at this stage. I don't believe they're in this case as such. I worry about the white children in Little Rock who are told as young people that the way to get your rights is to violate the law and defy the lawful authorities. I'm worried about their future. I don't worry about the Negro kids' future. They've been struggling with democracy long enough. They know about it." Marshall won his case 9-0 with less than a day of deliberation by the court.
Today society is learning, like Arkansas white children, that shouting, losing your temper and interrupting an opponent are all valid forms of argument and public expression. None of them are. Like Navratilova's comments, such behavior debases the speaker (shouter) as well as society. And claiming that the power politics of the majority, or race, or sex, or anything, justify misbehavior is specious and dangerous. That is a path to the raw argument that might makes right, that shouting is better than debate, that disruption is better than compromise.
I hear Joseph Welch's question to McCarthy-
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Apparently, not much.
Ted
I agree 100%. I add that maligning others publicly is part of the problem. Kids today are so confused, as you pointed out last week. They are wondering Is it okay to speak the truth anymore because someone’s feelings may be hurt? But then they see out and out nastiness, and participate in it. Yesterday I began teaching a theatre make up class to teens. I’d handed out their kits and began a discussion on skin color. I asked everyone to put their hands in a circle to look at the their skin tones. I asked, “Do you see anyone here with black or white skin?” I was taking a bit of risk as there was one or two clearly mixed race students. No one said a word. Finally a girl said, That’s racist!” Before I could respond, one of mixed race girls, said, “No, it’s not.” I jumped in and explained that different people prefer different terms. We need to talk about this because race does play a part in plays, acting and directors’ casting choices. I rallied them back to their hands, showed them a black object and a white piece of paper. “Look at each person’s hand. Do you see anyone with skin these colors?” I feel that teens and younger must be put into these discussions, guided by an adult who will lead them to think. I hope, as uncomfortable as they were, that they will start to think about this issue.
ReplyDelete