The following was delivered as a speech, a "white paper," at Niagara County Community College, in room E 211 (1992). Students and faculty were invited via posters in the halls, and so on. The room was crowded to the doorway.
Some Vulgar Remarks about Offensiveness, Censorship, and Other Shit
Lee Simonson, a county legislator, recently asked President Gerald Miller a question: "Would you approve," he asked, "of an assignment, under the guise of writing, to assign your students to... study excrement?"
This was a hostile question, prompted by Miller's defense of academic freedom in a case where Simonson had registered a strong complaint about the content of a videotape used for a class assignment. As it was reported to me, President Miller had been "directed" by Simonson to remove the videotape from the library, I suppose for the purpose of determining its suitability for NCCC students. The tape was subsequently removed from the library; it remained unavailable to students for five days, after which it was returned. I'd initially found out the video wasn't in the library from students who'd gone looking for it. When they'd let me know it wasn't there, I'd told them that they must be mistaken, that of course it was there. Check under other listings. But of course it wasn't.
During the five day period I was told by a student, who had been informed by a staff member of the library, that a "review board" would make a determination about the tape. I don't know who the members of that review board were—or are. No one, then or since, has conveyed to me any sense of regret that my students might have been inconvenienced or that my ability to conduct courses might have been compromised.
Simonson, when he asked President Miller the question, undoubtedly believed he'd selected an example of an assignment so offensive, so obviously worthless, that Miller would be forced into acquiescence, into agreeing that legislators, in conjunction with college presidents, should function as censors.
The question was so viciously ignorant that it knocked Miller off the line of scrimmage. To his credit, after some shifting around, he bounced back, stood his ground, and demonstrated a strong defense of academic freedom. I still take issue with some of the stances he took during this shifting, however, and I'll comment on that later.
Simonson's question as reported here is a paraphrase, not a direct quote. President Miller repeated the question to a group of students and it's likely, for reasons of his own, he "cleaned it up." Do you know anyone who'd say, for example, "We're in deep excrement"? That's a word so infrequently used that it could be called rare. People often hesitate before saying "excrement," as if it's more vulgar than shit, as if they're not quite sure of the substitute they've chosen. If my suspicion is correct, that Simonson said "shit," it's an interesting irony that Simonson would use vulgar language to complain about vulgar language. It's okay for him to use it and Miller to hear it, but NCCC students need to be protected from it.
I've taken the time to prepare these remarks because this incident, suggests a casual disregard of academic freedom, an attitude that assumes that a single individual outside the academic community can make determinations about the suitability of course material. It's my position that: this failure to recognize academic freedom, and the First Amendment rights from which the freedom derives, cannot be ignored without challenge. Like Olaf, in the e.e. Cumming's poem, "There is some shit I will not eat."
I've no complaint about Simonson objecting to course content. He has as much right to do so as any other citizen. This is America, where the freedom of speech is protected. There's no constitutional guarantee, however, that anyone has to pay attention. Furthermore, when he objects as he did, on the basis of a single complaint about a video he's not himself viewed, then he's attempting to throw his weight around as a legislator, as a government official, and this I do find objectionable. Determining the acceptability of educational material is not the function of government in a free society.
Niagara County legislators have much to do with the budget of the college, however, and there might be a general tendency on the part of some of us to tread softly around legislators, to smile and nod in the face of their foolishness. This tendency shouldn't be encouraged; we shouldn't indulge ourselves, nor patronize them. Our behavior, my behavior, must be predicated on the faith that no legislator is so small-minded and vindictive as to behave in a way hurtful to NCCC because of differences of opinion, or because a misguided attempt to influence course content was thwarted.
At any rate, to answer Simonson's question more fully, or at least differently, than did President Miller: Yes, the study of shit would be very appropriate for NCCC students—and for Simonson, as well. It's my observation that most NCCC students don't know shit—and judging from Simonson's question, he doesn't know shit, either. Now, before you get offended by those statements and stalk off to complain to a legislator, let me clarify what I mean.
The word "shit" comes to us from multiple sources, Old English among them, and has occupied major roles in our language ever since. It's asserted itself in Chaucer and other respected literature, often in most graphic and vulgar ways. Consider this from 1386: "And shame it is if a prest... keep a shiten shepherde and a clene sheep." (Prologue) And this from 1705: "You're such a scurvey... Knight, that when You speak a Man would swear you [Shit]." (Villiers) The word's been with us a long time, over six hundred years. Here's a partial list of more contemporary usage:
Shit happens (bad things happen--even a bumper sticker)
Got to get my shit together (must get organized)
In deep shit (in serious trouble)
Had a shitty day (not a good day)
Shithead (pejorative)
Shitfaced (inebriated)
Good shit (potent drugs)
Bad shit (weak or contaminated drugs—or any unfortunate or dangerous situation)
Shitkicker (lover of country + Western music)
You little shit! (endearment--often to a child)
Doesn't give a shit (cares little or nothing)
Not worth shit (worthless)
He's a regular shit (men only; not a good person; 1839)
Shithouse (a messy house; outdoor bathroom)
Crazy as a shithouse rat (rat who lives in an outdoor bathroom under constant threat of bombardment)
Shit or get off the pot (do something)
Sack of shit (worthless person)
Bullshit (not credible)
The shit hit the fan (trouble begins and everyone gets a share)
Didn't say shit (didn't speak)
Shit-eating grin (a guilty smile)
I almost shit! (surprise)
Scared shitless (fear so extreme that one loses control of bodily function)
She was so afraid she almost shit her pants (variation; I used "she" in this expression because the last time I heard it, a student—female—said it to a friend in the hallway—casual conversation)
No shit? (Is that true?)
You're full of shit! (untruthful)
And a shitload (a lot) of other usages.
Why do you think this word occupies so much of our common language? Does it reveal or suggest something about our national character? Do you think Freud would have had something to say about this? Or would he have just smiled and taken another puff on his cigar?
In any case, this informal listing reveals that the word is usually employed negatively. That's the way Mr. Simonson used it, too. Another politician, President Bush (not noted for his verbal ability), was widely ridiculed for his remark about being in "deep doo-doo." His euphemism suggested he lacked the courage to say shit—or we can give him the benefit of the doubt: his political awareness told him he'd offend the voter who wouldn't say shit if he had a mouthful. What he resorted to was worse: childish, cutesy, namby-pamby.
Consider the following information:
1) Scatology is the scientific study of feces for the purpose of diagnosis.
2) For most of this country's history people relieved themselves in structures separate from their homes. These buildings were called outhouses.
3) Men for hire who traveled the roads shoveling the accumulated excrement from outhouses were called "honeydippers."
4) If homeowners cleaned their own outhouses and used the excrement in their gardens it was usually done after dark, in an attempt to conceal their activity. This garden-supplement was called "nightsoil."
5) When the outhouse started to move "inhouse," oldtimers were indignant. "Why would you want to do that in your house?" they wanted to know.
6) Recently reported in a popular magazine: a scientific study shows that the ordinary flushing of a commode results in the atomizing of fecal matter. This contaminant is carried in microscopic water droplets which float in the air of the bathroom, settling on face cloths, towels, drinking glasses, tooth brushes, etc. The study speculated that many of the "flu" symptoms found in American families can be traced to this source.
7) The roughly two hundred and fifty million people in the United States are busily engaged in consuming food and eliminating what's mistakenly referred to as "waste product." Excluding seafood, what we eat has extracted essential elements from topsoil. The still nutrient-rich excrement is flushed into rivers and lakes—our drinking water—from where it ultimately flows into the oceans, and is not returned to the soil. When treatment plants malfunction or operate at sub-standard levels—an all too frequent condition—pathogens are found in the water. Some beaches have been "off limits" to swimming for years.
Meanwhile, technology which permits the generation of significant amounts of methane gas from excrement, both human and domestic animal, has existed for decades. The end product, after the methane has been generated, is germ-free and can be safely returned to the soil. Some villages in China have generated their own heating and cooking energy in this way for many years.
Rationally speaking, why haven't we done something about this? We don't do anything because most of us tend to think of excrement (when we think of it at all) as Mr. Simonson does: as disgusting, offensive, dirty, vile, unworthy of our attention. It's something we’d censor right out of our lives if we could.
Is anyone getting the idea that excrement is a worthy subject for a writing assignment?
I'm going to return now to President Miller's comments concerning the video assignment as they were reported in The Spirit. I'm the faculty member who gave the assignment—which happened to be optional, but which could just as easily have been required.
Incidentally, I'm unaware of exactly what was alleged to be offensive on the video. It does present vulgar language, and vulgar images (as created in the mind by words) and also a parody of religious language. It's conceivable that someone might find the video offensive, although literature is no stranger to this subject matter and language use. You can probably think of examples other than the ones from Chaucer and Villiers that I mentioned earlier.
My optional assignment was, according to Miller, a "perfectly normal legitimate academic technique," but if I'd required the same assignment that, would have demonstrated "poor judgement," because I "didn't understand my students." Well, I believe I understand my students as well as anyone else. I didn't drop in here from outer space at the beginning of the semester. I grew up in Niagara County, attended NCCC as a student, and have taught here for over twenty years. I've advised student organizations, sometimes two simultaneously, for a total of ten years.
It's because I know my students that I can say with some authority that they benefit from being introduced to new and sometimes controversial material and ideas—even if the material is only new and controversial to them. This multiplicity of ideas is suggested by "university" and "liberal education," and other such terms. Students do not—and should not—dictate course content according to their narrow or restricted views.
Education should provide, if it's good education, something to offend almost everyone. Though few students regard the ideas of Galileo or Copernicus as offensive these days, some still find the ideas of Freud offensive, and others are offended by the Darwinian model of creation. Still others are offended by being required to read in a literature course—and some by basic facts of biology. Some are offended by geography. They don’t like Pennsylvania cuddling up to us the way it does. They want it to be near New Mexico.
In spite of my belief that I know my students, that I'm aware of the conservative element that characterizes some of the population we serve, that's not often a major consideration in my use of what might be viewed as objectionable material. The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that local community standards regarding obscenity should not be used in deciding whether or not an allegedly obscene material had scientific, literary, or artistic value. A more objective national standard should instead be used. (Pope vs. Illinois)
I'm interested in words like "offensive." I've already suggested that meaningful education requires offending, that is, requires challenging the ethnocentricities, the unthinking dogmas, the views of the pre-endorsed. This shouldn't be accomplished in violent and uncaring ways, but with the most gentle of approaches, the most logical, objective, intellectual consideration possible. Unfortunately, that will still be offensive to some.
Is it possible for students to discuss—in writing—the meaning of the word "offensive," its origins its connotative value? It's rooted in religion, isn't it? If thy right eye offend thee, etc. The Bible talks about what's offensive to the Lord. Perhaps there's a self-righteousness associated with being offended.
I'm offended by things, too. I'm offended by people being jailed, starved and tortured in some parts of the world for the crime of expressing themselves. Some of them are teachers, and poets, and people who speak out for religious freedom and for the freedom to state their opinions. So I’m a card-carrying member of Amnesty International and I write letters in behalf of those who don't enjoy the freedoms that I do. And I'm naturally offended when my part in exercising those freedoms is threatened. A phone call from a legislator to a college president in Niagara County becomes government-controlled schools and libraries and press and the slamming of jail doors in another country. I'd like the phone hung up before some of us begin to think that legislators and review boards are valid censoring agents.
I'm also offended when shit is the most offensive thing that can be imagined. I find offensive millions of the world's children dying from malnutrition and related diseases. Isn't that offensive to you? And I'm not talking about being offended by seeing their images on a TV channel as you flip by. I'm talking about its happening at all. Imagine just one of these belly- swollen children, slowly dying of dysentery, miraculously recovering because of a few cents worth of common medicine. Can you believe that the well-formed shit that finally issued forth from the child's body would be a thing of beauty to the child's mother? Wouldn't it be to you?
While I was writing these remarks I suddenly thought of my tenth grade social studies teacher, Mr. Hudspeth. One day he was late for class and five or six of us gathered near the bulletin board where several magazine pages had been tacked. One was a photograph of desert sand on the surface of which rested a scattering of small, unrecognizable lumps. We leaned forward to read the caption. It read "Petrified hyena droppings.”
At fifteen, we were very amused. While we pointed at the picture, slapping at one another and laughing like hyenas, (some of us were trying to imitate hyenas, and some of us laughed that way normally), in walked Mr. Hudspeth. He didn't sit down, but lectured us right where we stood, in front of the picture of petrified hyena droppings. He called us rude, ignorant yahoos.
He talked for about three minutes, telling us that the hyena droppings were evidence that the barren desert was once an environment of abundant wildlife—and how important it was to understand the forces that change the face of the earth.
He told us if we wanted to learn, we had to open our closed minds and we had to learn to be curious about the world and ourselves. Then we all sat down, Mr. Hudspeth and the ignorant yahoos. That's the only thing I remember from tenth grade social studies.
Mr. Hudspeth deserved better students, speaking of myself at least, students who wouldn't wait nearly forty years, until after he was dead, to get the message.
I'd thought of him again while writing these words because my attention had strayed to a newspaper on the table. There was an article about dinosaurs. Here's a sentence from it: "Poking around in fossilized dinosaur dung, researchers . . . have found evidence that dinosaur flatulence may have been so exuberant that it helped raise the temperature of the Earth so high that the smelly brutes became extinct."
If Mr. Hudspeth were alive he'd be thumb-tacking that article up on a bulletin board somewhere, for a new generation of ignorant yahoos. But he isn't alive, so I'm doing it for him.
I'm keeping my mind open and I'm staying curious—and if I'm seen as someone who's preoccupied only with finding out where the comma goes and circling spelling errors, that's a serious misperception. I'm interested in how language reflects and shapes our lives. I want students to consider how we start out in this country with Mother May I and end up with Your Mama. I'm interested in exploring with them the joys we experience and express through language, and the grief, the hatred, the anger, the bitterness, the hilarity, the love—the complexities, the subtleties , the nuances—and the vulgar, and the irreverent, the silly, the word-play, the quick one-liner. Having made these remarks as part of that process, I intend to keep at it—that's my job, my occupation, my profession, my privilege and my pleasure. Thank you for listening.
This was a hostile question, prompted by Miller's defense of academic freedom in a case where Simonson had registered a strong complaint about the content of a videotape used for a class assignment. As it was reported to me, President Miller had been "directed" by Simonson to remove the videotape from the library, I suppose for the purpose of determining its suitability for NCCC students. The tape was subsequently removed from the library; it remained unavailable to students for five days, after which it was returned. I'd initially found out the video wasn't in the library from students who'd gone looking for it. When they'd let me know it wasn't there, I'd told them that they must be mistaken, that of course it was there. Check under other listings. But of course it wasn't.
During the five day period I was told by a student, who had been informed by a staff member of the library, that a "review board" would make a determination about the tape. I don't know who the members of that review board were—or are. No one, then or since, has conveyed to me any sense of regret that my students might have been inconvenienced or that my ability to conduct courses might have been compromised.
Simonson, when he asked President Miller the question, undoubtedly believed he'd selected an example of an assignment so offensive, so obviously worthless, that Miller would be forced into acquiescence, into agreeing that legislators, in conjunction with college presidents, should function as censors.
The question was so viciously ignorant that it knocked Miller off the line of scrimmage. To his credit, after some shifting around, he bounced back, stood his ground, and demonstrated a strong defense of academic freedom. I still take issue with some of the stances he took during this shifting, however, and I'll comment on that later.
Simonson's question as reported here is a paraphrase, not a direct quote. President Miller repeated the question to a group of students and it's likely, for reasons of his own, he "cleaned it up." Do you know anyone who'd say, for example, "We're in deep excrement"? That's a word so infrequently used that it could be called rare. People often hesitate before saying "excrement," as if it's more vulgar than shit, as if they're not quite sure of the substitute they've chosen. If my suspicion is correct, that Simonson said "shit," it's an interesting irony that Simonson would use vulgar language to complain about vulgar language. It's okay for him to use it and Miller to hear it, but NCCC students need to be protected from it.
I've taken the time to prepare these remarks because this incident, suggests a casual disregard of academic freedom, an attitude that assumes that a single individual outside the academic community can make determinations about the suitability of course material. It's my position that: this failure to recognize academic freedom, and the First Amendment rights from which the freedom derives, cannot be ignored without challenge. Like Olaf, in the e.e. Cumming's poem, "There is some shit I will not eat."
I've no complaint about Simonson objecting to course content. He has as much right to do so as any other citizen. This is America, where the freedom of speech is protected. There's no constitutional guarantee, however, that anyone has to pay attention. Furthermore, when he objects as he did, on the basis of a single complaint about a video he's not himself viewed, then he's attempting to throw his weight around as a legislator, as a government official, and this I do find objectionable. Determining the acceptability of educational material is not the function of government in a free society.
Niagara County legislators have much to do with the budget of the college, however, and there might be a general tendency on the part of some of us to tread softly around legislators, to smile and nod in the face of their foolishness. This tendency shouldn't be encouraged; we shouldn't indulge ourselves, nor patronize them. Our behavior, my behavior, must be predicated on the faith that no legislator is so small-minded and vindictive as to behave in a way hurtful to NCCC because of differences of opinion, or because a misguided attempt to influence course content was thwarted.
At any rate, to answer Simonson's question more fully, or at least differently, than did President Miller: Yes, the study of shit would be very appropriate for NCCC students—and for Simonson, as well. It's my observation that most NCCC students don't know shit—and judging from Simonson's question, he doesn't know shit, either. Now, before you get offended by those statements and stalk off to complain to a legislator, let me clarify what I mean.
The word "shit" comes to us from multiple sources, Old English among them, and has occupied major roles in our language ever since. It's asserted itself in Chaucer and other respected literature, often in most graphic and vulgar ways. Consider this from 1386: "And shame it is if a prest... keep a shiten shepherde and a clene sheep." (Prologue) And this from 1705: "You're such a scurvey... Knight, that when You speak a Man would swear you [Shit]." (Villiers) The word's been with us a long time, over six hundred years. Here's a partial list of more contemporary usage:
Shit happens (bad things happen--even a bumper sticker)
Got to get my shit together (must get organized)
In deep shit (in serious trouble)
Had a shitty day (not a good day)
Shithead (pejorative)
Shitfaced (inebriated)
Good shit (potent drugs)
Bad shit (weak or contaminated drugs—or any unfortunate or dangerous situation)
Shitkicker (lover of country + Western music)
You little shit! (endearment--often to a child)
Doesn't give a shit (cares little or nothing)
Not worth shit (worthless)
He's a regular shit (men only; not a good person; 1839)
Shithouse (a messy house; outdoor bathroom)
Crazy as a shithouse rat (rat who lives in an outdoor bathroom under constant threat of bombardment)
Shit or get off the pot (do something)
Sack of shit (worthless person)
Bullshit (not credible)
The shit hit the fan (trouble begins and everyone gets a share)
Didn't say shit (didn't speak)
Shit-eating grin (a guilty smile)
I almost shit! (surprise)
Scared shitless (fear so extreme that one loses control of bodily function)
She was so afraid she almost shit her pants (variation; I used "she" in this expression because the last time I heard it, a student—female—said it to a friend in the hallway—casual conversation)
No shit? (Is that true?)
You're full of shit! (untruthful)
And a shitload (a lot) of other usages.
Why do you think this word occupies so much of our common language? Does it reveal or suggest something about our national character? Do you think Freud would have had something to say about this? Or would he have just smiled and taken another puff on his cigar?
In any case, this informal listing reveals that the word is usually employed negatively. That's the way Mr. Simonson used it, too. Another politician, President Bush (not noted for his verbal ability), was widely ridiculed for his remark about being in "deep doo-doo." His euphemism suggested he lacked the courage to say shit—or we can give him the benefit of the doubt: his political awareness told him he'd offend the voter who wouldn't say shit if he had a mouthful. What he resorted to was worse: childish, cutesy, namby-pamby.
Consider the following information:
1) Scatology is the scientific study of feces for the purpose of diagnosis.
2) For most of this country's history people relieved themselves in structures separate from their homes. These buildings were called outhouses.
3) Men for hire who traveled the roads shoveling the accumulated excrement from outhouses were called "honeydippers."
4) If homeowners cleaned their own outhouses and used the excrement in their gardens it was usually done after dark, in an attempt to conceal their activity. This garden-supplement was called "nightsoil."
5) When the outhouse started to move "inhouse," oldtimers were indignant. "Why would you want to do that in your house?" they wanted to know.
6) Recently reported in a popular magazine: a scientific study shows that the ordinary flushing of a commode results in the atomizing of fecal matter. This contaminant is carried in microscopic water droplets which float in the air of the bathroom, settling on face cloths, towels, drinking glasses, tooth brushes, etc. The study speculated that many of the "flu" symptoms found in American families can be traced to this source.
7) The roughly two hundred and fifty million people in the United States are busily engaged in consuming food and eliminating what's mistakenly referred to as "waste product." Excluding seafood, what we eat has extracted essential elements from topsoil. The still nutrient-rich excrement is flushed into rivers and lakes—our drinking water—from where it ultimately flows into the oceans, and is not returned to the soil. When treatment plants malfunction or operate at sub-standard levels—an all too frequent condition—pathogens are found in the water. Some beaches have been "off limits" to swimming for years.
Meanwhile, technology which permits the generation of significant amounts of methane gas from excrement, both human and domestic animal, has existed for decades. The end product, after the methane has been generated, is germ-free and can be safely returned to the soil. Some villages in China have generated their own heating and cooking energy in this way for many years.
Rationally speaking, why haven't we done something about this? We don't do anything because most of us tend to think of excrement (when we think of it at all) as Mr. Simonson does: as disgusting, offensive, dirty, vile, unworthy of our attention. It's something we’d censor right out of our lives if we could.
Is anyone getting the idea that excrement is a worthy subject for a writing assignment?
I'm going to return now to President Miller's comments concerning the video assignment as they were reported in The Spirit. I'm the faculty member who gave the assignment—which happened to be optional, but which could just as easily have been required.
Incidentally, I'm unaware of exactly what was alleged to be offensive on the video. It does present vulgar language, and vulgar images (as created in the mind by words) and also a parody of religious language. It's conceivable that someone might find the video offensive, although literature is no stranger to this subject matter and language use. You can probably think of examples other than the ones from Chaucer and Villiers that I mentioned earlier.
My optional assignment was, according to Miller, a "perfectly normal legitimate academic technique," but if I'd required the same assignment that, would have demonstrated "poor judgement," because I "didn't understand my students." Well, I believe I understand my students as well as anyone else. I didn't drop in here from outer space at the beginning of the semester. I grew up in Niagara County, attended NCCC as a student, and have taught here for over twenty years. I've advised student organizations, sometimes two simultaneously, for a total of ten years.
It's because I know my students that I can say with some authority that they benefit from being introduced to new and sometimes controversial material and ideas—even if the material is only new and controversial to them. This multiplicity of ideas is suggested by "university" and "liberal education," and other such terms. Students do not—and should not—dictate course content according to their narrow or restricted views.
Education should provide, if it's good education, something to offend almost everyone. Though few students regard the ideas of Galileo or Copernicus as offensive these days, some still find the ideas of Freud offensive, and others are offended by the Darwinian model of creation. Still others are offended by being required to read in a literature course—and some by basic facts of biology. Some are offended by geography. They don’t like Pennsylvania cuddling up to us the way it does. They want it to be near New Mexico.
In spite of my belief that I know my students, that I'm aware of the conservative element that characterizes some of the population we serve, that's not often a major consideration in my use of what might be viewed as objectionable material. The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that local community standards regarding obscenity should not be used in deciding whether or not an allegedly obscene material had scientific, literary, or artistic value. A more objective national standard should instead be used. (Pope vs. Illinois)
I'm interested in words like "offensive." I've already suggested that meaningful education requires offending, that is, requires challenging the ethnocentricities, the unthinking dogmas, the views of the pre-endorsed. This shouldn't be accomplished in violent and uncaring ways, but with the most gentle of approaches, the most logical, objective, intellectual consideration possible. Unfortunately, that will still be offensive to some.
Is it possible for students to discuss—in writing—the meaning of the word "offensive," its origins its connotative value? It's rooted in religion, isn't it? If thy right eye offend thee, etc. The Bible talks about what's offensive to the Lord. Perhaps there's a self-righteousness associated with being offended.
I'm offended by things, too. I'm offended by people being jailed, starved and tortured in some parts of the world for the crime of expressing themselves. Some of them are teachers, and poets, and people who speak out for religious freedom and for the freedom to state their opinions. So I’m a card-carrying member of Amnesty International and I write letters in behalf of those who don't enjoy the freedoms that I do. And I'm naturally offended when my part in exercising those freedoms is threatened. A phone call from a legislator to a college president in Niagara County becomes government-controlled schools and libraries and press and the slamming of jail doors in another country. I'd like the phone hung up before some of us begin to think that legislators and review boards are valid censoring agents.
I'm also offended when shit is the most offensive thing that can be imagined. I find offensive millions of the world's children dying from malnutrition and related diseases. Isn't that offensive to you? And I'm not talking about being offended by seeing their images on a TV channel as you flip by. I'm talking about its happening at all. Imagine just one of these belly- swollen children, slowly dying of dysentery, miraculously recovering because of a few cents worth of common medicine. Can you believe that the well-formed shit that finally issued forth from the child's body would be a thing of beauty to the child's mother? Wouldn't it be to you?
While I was writing these remarks I suddenly thought of my tenth grade social studies teacher, Mr. Hudspeth. One day he was late for class and five or six of us gathered near the bulletin board where several magazine pages had been tacked. One was a photograph of desert sand on the surface of which rested a scattering of small, unrecognizable lumps. We leaned forward to read the caption. It read "Petrified hyena droppings.”
At fifteen, we were very amused. While we pointed at the picture, slapping at one another and laughing like hyenas, (some of us were trying to imitate hyenas, and some of us laughed that way normally), in walked Mr. Hudspeth. He didn't sit down, but lectured us right where we stood, in front of the picture of petrified hyena droppings. He called us rude, ignorant yahoos.
He talked for about three minutes, telling us that the hyena droppings were evidence that the barren desert was once an environment of abundant wildlife—and how important it was to understand the forces that change the face of the earth.
He told us if we wanted to learn, we had to open our closed minds and we had to learn to be curious about the world and ourselves. Then we all sat down, Mr. Hudspeth and the ignorant yahoos. That's the only thing I remember from tenth grade social studies.
Mr. Hudspeth deserved better students, speaking of myself at least, students who wouldn't wait nearly forty years, until after he was dead, to get the message.
I'd thought of him again while writing these words because my attention had strayed to a newspaper on the table. There was an article about dinosaurs. Here's a sentence from it: "Poking around in fossilized dinosaur dung, researchers . . . have found evidence that dinosaur flatulence may have been so exuberant that it helped raise the temperature of the Earth so high that the smelly brutes became extinct."
If Mr. Hudspeth were alive he'd be thumb-tacking that article up on a bulletin board somewhere, for a new generation of ignorant yahoos. But he isn't alive, so I'm doing it for him.
I'm keeping my mind open and I'm staying curious—and if I'm seen as someone who's preoccupied only with finding out where the comma goes and circling spelling errors, that's a serious misperception. I'm interested in how language reflects and shapes our lives. I want students to consider how we start out in this country with Mother May I and end up with Your Mama. I'm interested in exploring with them the joys we experience and express through language, and the grief, the hatred, the anger, the bitterness, the hilarity, the love—the complexities, the subtleties , the nuances—and the vulgar, and the irreverent, the silly, the word-play, the quick one-liner. Having made these remarks as part of that process, I intend to keep at it—that's my job, my occupation, my profession, my privilege and my pleasure. Thank you for listening.
* Note: It's been pointed out to me by an astute reader, Larry Coleman, that "holy shit," (usually used as an exclamation),
is missing from the preceding discussion. He's correct. The omission was inadvertent, my oversight, my mistake. In the interest of historical authenticity, it's absence has been preserved, but is hereby noted.
is missing from the preceding discussion. He's correct. The omission was inadvertent, my oversight, my mistake. In the interest of historical authenticity, it's absence has been preserved, but is hereby noted.
As part of Professional Day activities the following observations and remarks were used to introduce the re-reading of the previous 20 year old speech at NCCC, Sanborn NY, on 9 Jan 2013:
Hello, folks--
It's a pleasure and honor to be speaking with you today. When the classrooms of NCCC moved from Niagara Falls to the hamlet of Sanborn, I was among those first teachers who also arrived. What I remember from nearly 40 years ago was the enormous pride we all felt--and the responsibilities to do our best for our students. We were especially proud of our liberal arts programs. Those years are wrapped in a golden haze of nostalgia for me.
We were, of course, blessed.
But let me jump around here now, over years and distance.
That's the structure of Niagara Digressions, btw, tracing deer and buffalo and monarch butterflies, and family history with Niagara and world events--but I've been invited back here in March to entertain you with a more complete reading of that--and in the meantime I hope you'll accept the gift of a bookmark for today....
You know, I'm out of the loop here...I only know what I read in the newspapers. I recently read that Michigan's become a right to work state. President Obama says "it's the right to work for less." I've always been a union guy myself. How many years now have the NCCC faculty been working without a contract?
And so I'm thinking that golden haze business over...and I'm deciding we always worked like hell to maintain educational excellence, and it was always a struggle. At the same time we assumed the right to teach and to learn from one another and our students. We took it for granted. I believe we got a lot of it right.
Others haven't been so fortunate. Here we are about 40 years after arriving in the hamlet of Sanborn, and in the small village of Mingora, in Pakistan, a 15 year old girl, named Malala, who wanted the freedom to go to school, is shot in the head by a member of the Taliban. He climbed aboard her school bus to do it. The Taliban believe women shouldn't go to school.
She's recovering in the UK, with her family now...she advises that a school should not be named after her, that the Taliban would use it as a target...they continue to threaten death to her and her father. You know the story--this is a huge condensation--you can get a more complete idea from Wikipedia.
I couple of months ago I read the following letter in Time magazine. It's four sentences only, elegant in its economy:
College Crisis
As a longtime professor, I appreciated your "Reinventing College" package, with essays by Romney and Obama (Oct, 29). Unfortunately, both missed the key point of a college education: to sharpen students' minds so they become independent thinkers. Both stressed the importance only of science and engineering to serve the needs of corporations. If we don't provide equal support for liberal arts and the humanities, who will uphold and maintain our democracy?
Winberg Chai,
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
University of Wyoming,
Laramie, Wyo.
I wrote to Professor Chai to complement him on his letter and for speaking out, and suggested he send his comment on to President Obama. He wrote back, thanked me, and informed me he had, indeed, sent his remarks on to the president.
{{{Note: unfortunately, I did not think to suggest to everyone present that they might also write to the President in support of Professor Chai--I should have.}}}
In a related matter...how many millions have been earmarked to physically enlarge the English classrooms here at NCCC because they'd be "more efficient"? How insane is it that arbitrators have decided there's no limit to upper classroom sizes? It seems to me that common sense indicates there is a limit...what, classrooms so large that, say, 1000 students have seats? 2000? 5000?
Who were these arbitrators? What are their names? How many student essays have they commented on, in writing, or in personal consultation, from these "no limit" classes? What are the long-term results of such education?
If I were still teaching here, I'd be giving this assignment: To what degree, if any, are we shooting future students in the head by enlarging these classrooms?
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
I then read the following passages from Niagara Digressions:
1) the first paragraph from page 17.
2) from "It was one of those summers..." on page 52, to "No child left behind," page 53 (skipping over the sentence about the poem)
3) from page 29 through 30, stopping at "he'd have understood."
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
Then read "Some Vulgar Remarks about Offensiveness, Censorship, and Other Shit"
(available at www.erbaxteriii.com under Other Writing), and asked, "Questions? Comments?" And there were some of both.
My contribution to PD day was done & I went to a nearby room and found some little three-cornered sandwiches, which I ate.
E.R. Baxter III
Hello, folks--
It's a pleasure and honor to be speaking with you today. When the classrooms of NCCC moved from Niagara Falls to the hamlet of Sanborn, I was among those first teachers who also arrived. What I remember from nearly 40 years ago was the enormous pride we all felt--and the responsibilities to do our best for our students. We were especially proud of our liberal arts programs. Those years are wrapped in a golden haze of nostalgia for me.
We were, of course, blessed.
But let me jump around here now, over years and distance.
That's the structure of Niagara Digressions, btw, tracing deer and buffalo and monarch butterflies, and family history with Niagara and world events--but I've been invited back here in March to entertain you with a more complete reading of that--and in the meantime I hope you'll accept the gift of a bookmark for today....
You know, I'm out of the loop here...I only know what I read in the newspapers. I recently read that Michigan's become a right to work state. President Obama says "it's the right to work for less." I've always been a union guy myself. How many years now have the NCCC faculty been working without a contract?
And so I'm thinking that golden haze business over...and I'm deciding we always worked like hell to maintain educational excellence, and it was always a struggle. At the same time we assumed the right to teach and to learn from one another and our students. We took it for granted. I believe we got a lot of it right.
Others haven't been so fortunate. Here we are about 40 years after arriving in the hamlet of Sanborn, and in the small village of Mingora, in Pakistan, a 15 year old girl, named Malala, who wanted the freedom to go to school, is shot in the head by a member of the Taliban. He climbed aboard her school bus to do it. The Taliban believe women shouldn't go to school.
She's recovering in the UK, with her family now...she advises that a school should not be named after her, that the Taliban would use it as a target...they continue to threaten death to her and her father. You know the story--this is a huge condensation--you can get a more complete idea from Wikipedia.
I couple of months ago I read the following letter in Time magazine. It's four sentences only, elegant in its economy:
College Crisis
As a longtime professor, I appreciated your "Reinventing College" package, with essays by Romney and Obama (Oct, 29). Unfortunately, both missed the key point of a college education: to sharpen students' minds so they become independent thinkers. Both stressed the importance only of science and engineering to serve the needs of corporations. If we don't provide equal support for liberal arts and the humanities, who will uphold and maintain our democracy?
Winberg Chai,
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
University of Wyoming,
Laramie, Wyo.
I wrote to Professor Chai to complement him on his letter and for speaking out, and suggested he send his comment on to President Obama. He wrote back, thanked me, and informed me he had, indeed, sent his remarks on to the president.
{{{Note: unfortunately, I did not think to suggest to everyone present that they might also write to the President in support of Professor Chai--I should have.}}}
In a related matter...how many millions have been earmarked to physically enlarge the English classrooms here at NCCC because they'd be "more efficient"? How insane is it that arbitrators have decided there's no limit to upper classroom sizes? It seems to me that common sense indicates there is a limit...what, classrooms so large that, say, 1000 students have seats? 2000? 5000?
Who were these arbitrators? What are their names? How many student essays have they commented on, in writing, or in personal consultation, from these "no limit" classes? What are the long-term results of such education?
If I were still teaching here, I'd be giving this assignment: To what degree, if any, are we shooting future students in the head by enlarging these classrooms?
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
I then read the following passages from Niagara Digressions:
1) the first paragraph from page 17.
2) from "It was one of those summers..." on page 52, to "No child left behind," page 53 (skipping over the sentence about the poem)
3) from page 29 through 30, stopping at "he'd have understood."
******************************************************************************************************************************************************
Then read "Some Vulgar Remarks about Offensiveness, Censorship, and Other Shit"
(available at www.erbaxteriii.com under Other Writing), and asked, "Questions? Comments?" And there were some of both.
My contribution to PD day was done & I went to a nearby room and found some little three-cornered sandwiches, which I ate.
E.R. Baxter III
(click on poster)
On 15 August, 2013, I read a revised (for the evening) version at the Starcherone fundraiser at Babesville, Buffalo, NY. billed as "An Evening of Filth and Music." The following paragraphs were added:
In Russia right now, there's a feminist punk group known as Pussy Riot, two members of which are in jail. They did impromptu performance art in Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, where they called on the Virgin Mary to rid them of Putin. They said "Putin is chickenshit." (That's one translation.) Formal charges against the group included "insulting the religious feelings of others."
It may be tempting to see this episode as amusing--but an elderly priest who came out in support of them was stabbed to death, under circumstances that may or may not be related.
And then there's Starcherone's Ted Pelton, who has said quite openly, "Books have ruined my life, and now I want to ruin yours." Could he be charged with "insulting the literary sensibilities of others"? Have you seen his back list?
We jest--but in another country, where that kind of shit goes down....
+++
In Russia right now, there's a feminist punk group known as Pussy Riot, two members of which are in jail. They did impromptu performance art in Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, where they called on the Virgin Mary to rid them of Putin. They said "Putin is chickenshit." (That's one translation.) Formal charges against the group included "insulting the religious feelings of others."
It may be tempting to see this episode as amusing--but an elderly priest who came out in support of them was stabbed to death, under circumstances that may or may not be related.
And then there's Starcherone's Ted Pelton, who has said quite openly, "Books have ruined my life, and now I want to ruin yours." Could he be charged with "insulting the literary sensibilities of others"? Have you seen his back list?
We jest--but in another country, where that kind of shit goes down....
+++
