Mountains or molehills?

The Super Sunday flash heard ‘round the world—Justin Timberlake ripping a garment off Janet Jackson, exposing her breast. Outrage and fallout were immediate and sustained—and so, too, were the defenses.

Women breast feed in public, so what’s the big deal? Far worse can be seen on television, so what’s the big deal? To many supporters, the easy answer to explain the outrage is to point at President Bush and blame uptight, religious zealots trying to steal freedom of speech.

But the pundits and defenders of Jackson’s bared breasts don’t come from where I do—a classroom full of first graders. Those who say that we’re making mountains out of molehills don’t deal with a society whose values are disintegrating in an onslaught of violent and obscene—some might say pornographic—images uncensored by responsible adults, and misunderstood by children.

As a writer, and the daughter of a librarian, I am no fan of censorship in general. As a teacher, though, I deal daily with the effects of uninvolved, dysfunctional parents who allow children total freedom to view behavior they simply don’t understand. As a result, there are the minor incidents, like a first grader of mine being stalked by a fifth grader, telling me she can’t help it if boys kiss her because the “ll—o-o-o-v-e” her, or keeping a list, invented spelling and all, of “gud for luvrs”, with an appropriate number of checkpoints by each classmate’s name. Cute, yes—but what happens when the fifth grader acts as he sees others on television acting, and my first grader is another statistical victim?

More directly related to Jackson’s little stunts are our fifth grade problems. We had two cases of boys fondling classmates since the Super Bowl fiasco. In both cases, the parents failed to be appropriately outraged at their sons’ behavior, saying that it was no big deal. That it happened everywhere. And when it does happen in front of the world, arguing that it is, indeed, a big deal to the victims becomes almost futile.

Jackson is not alone in the blame, of course; we’ve also had fifth grade girls doing their best Madonna/Brittany impression in the restroom, to the shock of a parent who walked in. Lest some defender of current social misbehavior label this “normal exploration,” let me assure you that this is not my first year teaching, that the fifth grade teacher has taught for more than 20 years, and this type of exploration, at least on an elementary school campus, is far from normal.

Much is made of the increased fines and sanctions that have affected such people as Howard Stern. While I never could stomach his show, finding nothing amusing about belittling and degrading women, I have no problem with him expressing himself freely—in any arena that allows protection to children. Unfortunately, as more parents are either gone from the picture literally or figuratively, I’m not sure that such an arena exists at the moment.

Losing the right to free speech is unacceptable. But our founding fathers never dealt with a world of exposed flesh and lack of moral responsibility when they crafted the Constitution. Free speech to express thought, to make political points, to sway public opinion—yes. But free speech should not be taken to mean gratuitous actions such as having sex in front of children, or subjecting audiences to that kind of behavior without allowing them the choice of not participating.

If I turn on the television and flip to Sex in the City, chances are the material is not something I would invite children to watch with me. My choice, if I turn it on, or if I have children in the room. A deplorable choice, if I do include children, but a choice, nonetheless. When watching the Super Bowl, however, a sporting event that one might expect a whole family to enjoy, I should not be subjected to the behavior of “artists” gyrating, grabbing genitals, ripping off clothes, and exposing themselves, or allowing themselves to be exposed. Since I have chosen programming that I expect to be inoffensive—my rights to that choice should be respected.

Now, a caveat: I didn’t see Janet Jackson’s boob until after the fact. The other “entertainment,” including Jackson and Timberlake “dancing” had turned me off to the point I’d gone to wash dishes. That’s sad commentary about how bad the half time show was. Only later did I find out—first when my son let out a whoop and a holler, and then, on the many replays, through the outrage and the outraged defense.

And later still, in the classroom. Some of my first graders have suffered through domestic abuse situations. A mother told me just days ago, at Open House, about an on-going situation. Another’s mother has given me a copy of a court record stipulating who can pick up the child. So when my children—my first grade children—are subjected to what in their eyes must be seen as assault, and then a woman exposed to the world—I take offense.

None of us deserved Janet Jackson. All of us should have been given a choice to watch or not watch. And everyone involved in the incident should be ashamed of what they offered not just adult viewers—but a nation of children as well.