Letter to the Editor: Satire is not an excuse for discrimination
Editor’s Note: This is a letter to the editor that has been submitted by a member of the Rice community. The views expressed in this opinion are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the Thresher or its editorial board. Letters to the editor are fact-checked to the best of our ability and edited for grammar and spelling by Thresher editors.
Two Wednesdays ago, instead of ending my weekly Thresher reading with a laugh, I was shocked to see a piece that included the Bible and prayer in order to mock a Christian professor on campus. Turning to other Christian students and Rice parents, I found similar shared disappointment and sadness. Myself and others sent emails to the Thresher explaining why we found this piece distasteful and discriminatory. We were answered only with an editorial published Sept. 27 saying, in essence: it’s satire, so take a joke.
According to Merriam-Webster, satire is “a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn.” Satire is meant to criticize in a comedic way, while a joke is only meant to elicit laughter. This year we’ve seen the Backpage poke fun at Fizz, Publics culture, the JFK 60th Anniversary, nice-guy dating advice and the alleged accomplishments of HackRice. Would we say that the Thresher is criticizing HackRice? Would the Backpage content creators march into President DesRoches’ office and demand that all Publics were canceled? I can’t say definitively that they wouldn’t, but in my opinion, the Backpage pieces often aren’t true satire, but light comedic relief.
Let’s take them at their word and say that the piece on Dr. Tour was satire, meant to criticize him in a comedic way. What are they criticizing? If the piece on him was about the folly of abiogenesis, what his talk was actually about, I would understand. Some abiogenesis fans out there would probably be offended, but it’s satire, so they should take a joke. The Backpage however, chose to make a piece on his personal religious beliefs. Their satire wasn’t about science, but Christianity. They mocked prayer, the Bible itself and the scripture within it.
If not ridicule and scorn, then it was just a joke meant to make someone huff in amusement and break the tension of the week’s reporting. The question I would ask then is this: amusement at whose expense? We’re told that the Thresher ensures “the Backpage does not stereotype or capitalize on marginalized communities.” Are the Christians on campus not a marginalized community? As I heard in CDOD, we’re at a majority-atheist/agnostic, secular school where Christianity, or religion in general, is not the mainstream. And when Christians on campus do speak up, we’re told to sit back down and take it. My mother used to say to me when I was little that “a joke isn’t a joke if someone isn’t laughing,” and she wasn’t giving me stand-up comedy advice. How can we tell where the jokes end? That is decided by those who were made to be the punchline, regardless of the jokester’s intentions, beliefs or biases.
We have a culture of care that extends to anyone regardless of their race, sex, sexual orientation, identity, background and yes … religion. When people come to us when they’ve been hurt, we don’t push them aside.
More from The Rice Thresher
The social media app Fizz made its way to our campus earlier this semester, offering an anonymous discussion platform for exchanging messages and memes amongst Rice students. In recent weeks, antisemitic and racist posts were made by members of our community on this app. It is entirely hateful and dangerously intolerant.
Anyone who walked through the academic quad on Monday encountered the statue of William Marsh Rice visibly covered by sheets of A4 paper that read “习近平下台,” which roughly translates to “Resign Xi Jinping.” Other signs read “No emperor in a republic” and “Not my president.” These signs are part of larger protests happening in mainland China — that are being echoed by Chinese people across the world — in response to nearly three years of aggressive COVID lockdowns across the country.
The words “free speech” will likely elicit groans from Thresher readers. Over the last three years, there have been three articles in the Opinion section bemoaning the need for a “classically liberal” political discourse at Rice. Unfortunately, between their self-righteousness and needless wordiness, they read more like whiny lectures than conversation starters. However, despite their condescension, their existence does suggest something unsettling about not just our campus politics, but politics at large. As the electorates of democracies around the world have become more sharply divided, the way we speak to each other, not just across the aisle but to our similarly minded partisans, has become more accusatory, exclusionary and violent. Put simply: we do not want to talk to each other, and understandably so. It is exhausting, and, more than that, we just don’t seem to know how to.