In typical form, the Daily Tar Heel’s editorial board posted a rather inane letter to the editor today that calls for the university to end its relationship with Rush Radio WRDU for comments that Rush Limbaugh made on his program last week. This letter was particularly inane on two accounts.
The first problem with this letter is the author’s proposal that the university pull its sports programming from WRDU simply because the same station happens to run Rush’s program earlier in the day. Logistically, this would cause some problems as Limbaugh’s program is syndicated across thousands of radio stations all over the country. Finding stations that don’t broadcast his program could prove unnecessarily challenging. Aside from this, the idea is just plain dumb. Why should UNC, which has no affiliation with Rush, pull its program from a radio station that happens to syndicate his show? And when did the Athletics Department become the Thought Police? Should UNC also pull its program from any TV or radio station that runs Rick Santorum ads, simply because they find some of his political views offensive. It’s patently absurd. Though, I think one of the last lines of the letter reveals what the author is really after. “By choosing to have UNC sporting events broadcast on WRDU Radio, which also broadcasts Rush Limbaugh, UNC is essentially promoting greater exposure of its students and alumni to Limbaugh’s views.” And we can’t have that now, can we?
But then there’s this whole issue of the girl that Rush criticized, the one who “dared to speak out.” Just what was she “bravely” standing up for? The right for the government to pay for her birth control (a seemingly common theme these days). One wonders how this country has even survived this long. For over 200 years, people have actually had to pay for their own contraceptives. The horror!
Ignoring the fact that the federal government is effectively broke (and with a nice $16 trillion outstanding loan), where does one get the idea that you are entitled to make your neighbors pay for your sexual life? Especially when one attends Georgetown University and can afford to live in one of Washington’s swankest neighborhoods and pay over $41,000 per year just to attend school, I have trouble being sympathetic. But where does all of this end? Surely if access to free contraceptives is a right, shouldn’t things more necessary to life also be free? Why should I have to pay for things like food or clothes? I can live without birth control. I’d have a hard time living without food.
If this incident with the Georgetown student was a single, isolated incident, you could shrug it off and make snide comments about how entitled Georgetown students are. But this seems to be an increasing trend. Health care’s free. Housing’s free. Now birth control’s free. It’s simply ridiculous.
you do understand to what exactly most people are objecting, correct? it has little or nothing to do with his specific views. if it did, people would have been calling for this same action long long ago. instead, it is the flagrant misogyny displayed by mr. limbaugh through these comments, and the idea that it is somehow okay to call a woman a "slut" is in any way acceptable. it is not, and especially not a woman who only wishes to share her perspective and that of many other women.
besides, ms. fluke's testimony was centered around the other uses of oral contraceptives that have nothing to do with having sex: hormonal corrections, control of ovarian cysts, easing of excessively painful periods, etc. also she's not requesting that the government pay for her birth control; she's requesting that insurers cover it since it falls under the umbrella of preventative care. get your facts straight, though this might be expecting too much out of someone who apparently follows the ideas of a man who thinks that the more sex you have, the more birth control you need. woops.
"It is the flagrant misogyny displayed by mr. limbaugh through these comments…" Ok, granted. Then let's go after Bill Maher now. It is an incredible double standard that Limbaugh is held accountable for this comment to this extent, and Maher gets a free pass for comments that I deem even worse and on multiple occasions. Now you can apply that following your logic fairly.
However, I believe that there shouldn't be any "outrage" or an idea of acceptability of either of their language, because I believe in free speech. It is funny to me that those on the left who pride themselves on being progressive and liberal are the quickest to point out those who disagree with them are wrong or their language is not "acceptable" as you say. UNC-Chapel Hill is one of the most oppressive institutions in regards to free speech and the editorial's writer should be ashamed of their perversion of logic and chain of agency.
I agree that there seems to be a double standard when it comes to Bill Maher, though I don't agree that his language is worse, simply because it was childish (and yes, misogynistic) name-calling while Limbaugh's was playing into a very dangerous stereotype that has held women back. Furthermore, Bill Maher is a comedian, while Limbaugh plays himself as a mouthpiece for conservatives. Neither of these reasons excuses Bill Maher's language and attitude towards women, and so I completely agree with you there.
Now turning to the "free speech" argument: Limbaugh has every right to say whatever he wants, no matter how harmful and offensive. But we as consumers also have the right to band together and not support his speech by making sure none of our money is connected to him. Think of it as a free market of ideas — I assume you must love the free market. If this were a good that promoted harm, consumers could band together to boycott it and force the company out of business. From the consumers' perspective, this would be for the good of society. It's the same idea with Limbaugh. He can produce this awful speech all he wants, but we can also band together to stop listening to it and stop supporting him, and as a society remove it.