America the unilingual: Coke’s Super Bowl ad

Kicking the can: Reconsidering ‘decency’ to politicize tragedy

One topic that invariably comes up following a national tragedy is decency. What is “decent” public discourse regarding an event that has destroyed people, families and communities? Do we as individuals and as a nation offer our condolences and refrain from discussing the tragedy in anything but in a consoling way? Is it indecent to point out what can be done to prevent such a tragedy in the future?
There is one side that always comes out in favor of decency following a tragedy: whichever side whose argument is hurt by the event’s occurrence. Do not politicize this tragedy, they implore, respect those who are grieving and leave policy and politics for a less troubled time. They paint anyone who seeks to talk about such an event in any more than a soothing way as insensitive and divisive. They implore politicians not to drag the tragedy and those affected into the political fray.
If that is decency, then to hell with decency. When disaster strikes, perhaps the least productive thing we can do for the long-term benefit of society is to grieve with no eye towards what can be done to prevent such events from reoccurring. Silence does nothing to help us. If being “indecent’”means asking tough questions and requiring examination of the social standards and institutions that led, directly or indirectly, to the tragedy, then a dose of indecency is precisely what we need.

Kicking the can: Why we need to take religion out of politics

When one thinks of politics at its worst, one probably thinks of endless debt ceiling negotiations or perhaps Underwoodian scheming and deception (“House of Cards” fans will know what I mean). Politics at its worst is dishonest or dogmatic. It oppresses and excludes, or strives for personal gain on the backs of the less powerful populace. So I was skeptical when Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy, which supports a bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to LGBTQIA individuals, called the tactics of her opponents “politics at its absolute worst,” in a statement on the Center for Arizona Policy’s website on Feburary 22. Apparently, the individuals and business groups who opposed the measure engaged in politics at its worst when they asserted that this form of legalized segregation was anything other than nice wholesome religious folks exercising the right to practice their religion.
In brief, the Arizona bill would have expanded the definitions of “exercise of religion” and “person” to include corporations and other businesses as people and then allowed these people to act or not act as they see fit to exercise a sincerely held religious belief. The bill was written in support of businesses across the nation who have turned away gay customers because of their sexual orientations. Similar bills have popped up across the nation, though Arizona’s made it the furthest. Luckily, amid pressure from business groups across the state and nation, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the legislation on Wednesday night.
Politics is at its worst when legislation that is clearly intended to marginalize a minority group makes it to a governor’s desk. It is at its worst when a dominant group tramples the rights of others, using their own rights as justification.
Many on the religious right have been calling for a discussion of religious liberty in the United States. We should have that conversation. We should ask ourselves how far we are willing to let religion penetrate into our supposedly secular nation, and whether we are willing to forego decency and legal equality in pursuit of free, unhindered exercise of religion.
Constitutionally and practically speaking, free exercise of religion is guaranteed unless restricting it is the least restrictive way of achieving a compelling government interest. Legal equality is a compelling issue, and allowing religious beliefs to be used as a legal justification for discrimination conflicts with that interest. Asserting an inviolable right to practice religion in the public sphere, and the right to use religion as a justification for one’s actions or inactions towards others, interferes with the rights of all.
The religious freedom problem extends beyond LGBTQIA individuals being denied service. Some laws protect religious people who violate Do-Not-Resuscitate orders because of their religious mandate to preserve all life. This infringes on people’s property rights to their own bodies. Perhaps more insidiously, religious freedom has been used as a justification for parents refusing desperately needed medical care for their children, at times resulting in a child’s death. Even here at Bowdoin, the religious freedom argument has been used to attack the the College’s removal of Rob and Sim Gregory as formal advisors to the Bowdoin Christian Fellowship when the Gregorys’ refused to sign a non-discrimination agreement that stated that students could not be excluded from any campus groups.
As usual, legal instruments like this can be challenged with a simple thought experiment. All of the rhetoric surrounding Arizona’s bill, of course, has concerned Christian business owners excluding gay customers. The same legal justification the bill offers could be used by Muslims to exclude Christians—something I’m sure the bill’s supporters would not favor. Guaranteeing “freedom of religion” to the extent that it infringes on other peoples’ rights is not just destructive to a few—it would create the potential for a compartmentalized society.
Instead, the ideal for a heterogeneous, diverse society lies in a strictly secular public square where religion is personal and does not dictate public life. The will of God has created an ‘other’ and excluded it throughout history, and in a pluralistic society like ours, such divisive concepts cannot be given a full place at the table. People are free to believe what they choose, but for an egalitarian society predicated on rule of law, they cannot be allowed to act on those beliefs.Politics is at its best when we include and protect rights for all rather than promote narrow interests.

Kicking the can

America the unilingual: Coke’s Super Bowl ad

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

February 7, 2014

I’ll be honest—when I heard Coca-Cola’s wholly inoffensive and now controversial Super Bowl commercial featuring the song “America the Beautiful” in multiple languages, I wasn’t actively watching the game. I was in the Union working, hearing the sounds from East Rutherford drifting out of the pub, and I was confused when I couldn’t understand the words to such a recognizable melody. I quickly realized exactly why, and refocused on my readings, thinking little of Coca-Cola’s cute nod to American pluralism as a way to sell soda.

I thought I was cynical about racism and xenophobia in America until I saw the subsequent uproar from certain circles calling the commercial un-American and calling Coca-Cola the “official soft drink of illegals crossing the border.” After seeing these reactions, I realized I had not been cynical enough.

I don’t think there could be anything less offensive than children singing a patriotic song. The commercial is an innocent reference to American multiculturalism and idealized inclusivity. Clearly, nativist pundits see it as their duty to squash the hopes of children who believe in the American Dream and replace their positive view of America with one of a nation of bellicose closed-mindedness.

This is counterproductive. Patriots should be glad that patriotic songs can translate into other languages, spreading the idea of America beyond English’s linguistic borders.

As evidenced by some of the more vicious comments made bearing the hashtag #fuckcoke on Sunday, many see linguistically democratizing our nation as a threat to American identity—even in a silly, 30-second long Super Bowl spot. According to them, the inclusion of languages other than English in America harms our way of life. This view is absurd. English will always be America’s primary language—but not thanks to the efforts of radio commentators who dislike brown people. English will always be America’s primary language because it is the language in which we conduct business and most governmental affairs. Not speaking English presents a huge disadvantage to anyone who lives in America, and invariably leads to isolation and a lack of opportunity.

Coca-Cola including diverse languages in a patriotic commercial does not change the reality that to be an American and to functionally exist in the United States, one must speak at least some English. Part of our citizenship test is a language test, and if that weren’t enough, the forms are offered in English, providing a de facto English proficiency test significantly more difficult than an official one. We have never made English our official language, and we have never had to—market forces have made English widespread and essential. No other language is spoken widely enough in America, especially among the powerful, to constitute a threat to English.

The xenophobic reaction to the ad is typical of insecure people who worry that they will be made worse off by inclusivity. Without barriers to entry to anyone who isn’t white and English-speaking, they worry that they will be unable to succeed in a competitive economy.

But, as we know, restricting competition by excluding certain groups not only hurts those groups, it hurts us all in the long run by stifling productive hands and brains. The response to the ad aligns with the feelings of many middle- and lower-class white men who believe that they are being oppressed simply because, in pursuit of statistical equality, some advantages exist for previously marginalized groups. They misinterpret efforts for minorities to achieve socioeconomic parity with white men as discrimination against themselves.

The global market incentivizes people worldwide to learn and speak English, and America is no exception. English is in many ways the world’s lingua franca. For a variety of reasons, English is the language with the greatest number of second-language speakers, and it is spoken by elites all over the world. Non-English-speaking people in the United States are socially and economically isolated. It is in every American’s best interest to learn English, and arguably the best thing someone can do throughout the world to improve their socioeconomic mobility. It will never be supplanted as America’s dominant and pervasive language. Those who fight to defend the English language in America are tilting at windmills.

Comments are permanently closed.