|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
John Rocker: Diversity Truant
The John Rocker situation poses the sort of dilemma that drives conservatives batty. As a rule, conservatives are big believers in the notion of courtesy – that we have an obligation to observe the rules and treat others with respect. It is rightly believed to be one of the components of the glue that makes civilized societies stick together. From this perspective, the rude ramblings of a redneck ballplayer are deserving of social condemnation. On the other hand, we have a visceral dislike of Political Correctness, viewing it as an assault on the principle of free speech in general and conservative ideas in particular. The line between the two is not always as clear as we would believe. Is Political Correctness just a radical take on courtesy? I think not. A person primarily concerned with courtesy would view Rocker’s comments as rude and reprehensible. A PC-cop views them as heinous, evil, and representative of all that is wrong with Amerika. To a conservative, Rocker is a behavior problem. To the progressive his mind and soul are deemed rotten to the core. Because the PC mindset dominates our age, Rocker was packed off to see a shrink and suspended for a month or so.
The biggest puzzle is what Rocker actually said that was so bad. With the exception of one possible racial slur, he really didn’t make any overtly racist remarks. He didn’t recommend that we lock up all the homosexuals or sterilize welfare moms. I have concluded that his true sin was to commit a frontal assault on the basic tenets of diversity. As a Georgia redneck in New York, he looked at the remarkable diversity of life around him, and decided that he didn’t like it. His most damaging remarks were those about riding the subway surrounded by the unique fauna of Big Apple life: self-mutilated teenagers, welfare moms, homosexuals, etc. No Sir, he didn’t like it at all. Neither did he like the sense of being in a foreign country within the confines of a major American city.
John Rocker didn’t "embrace diversity". He didn’t "celebrate" it. In fact he deplored it, and did so in the language of an ignorant farm boy. For many people, this diversity of peoples is an important part of what makes New York exciting and fascinating. For many, many others, it is precisely the reason we wouldn’t live in New York under any circumstances. I am convinced that it didn’t matter what language Rocker used, he would have been just as toasted. This is why conservatives tend to instinctively defend him. We realize that "diversity" is little more than a code word for group-think, a dreary and monotonous view of the world that brooks no dissent.
One last point about this affair puzzles me. Rocker’s comments were made in a Sports Illustrated interview. In my mind I can imagine the interviewer doing mental high fives as soon as the offending words left Rocker’s mouth. What a goldmine! I guarantee that the editors at SI knew two things would happen once the interview was published: they would sell a ton of magazines, and John Rocker’s life would be ruined. Some might argue that his life deserved to be ruined, but does a reputable media outlet have no responsibility here? Surely they had no obligation to include the worst passages. Surely they could have gone back to Rocker and double checked that he didn’t want to re-word parts of it. But they didn’t. And neither does Playboy, or 60 Minutes or any other practitioner of "Gotcha!" journalism. It’s not journalism at all. It is to journalism what Pro Wrestling is to sports. And it stinks.