| |
|
After a certain point, if one’s sexist or racist language has completely compromised one’s ability and the ability of others to do their jobs or receive an education then yes, clearly they need to be removed from that situation. But did that happen here? Would it have been possible for Emily to have received a formal warning, a reminder about the terms of her contract with the show, and an unequivocal statement on the unacceptability of that term and those like it, and then have to go through the more informal but maybe just as effective awkward, unpleasant re-socialisation with the group that she’d let down?
I suppose there are significant differences between the BB house and a place of work or education. As the only real responsibility of a housemate is to be generally entertaining, and even that isn't contractual, behaviour within the house doesn't ever impede anyone's ability to do their job or stop others from doing theirs. Also, as the house is such a public place, with no other real function except as a documentary theatre and showcase of British behaviours, I think it, ironically, actually is fulfilling its originally-intended role as a case study for debate about contemporary morals, conventions and taboos. Ironic because I think that intention was always the official one, but actually was secondary to entertainment and money-making. But in some way the permitted behaviour within the House is now seen to be obliged, particularly after the last Celeb Big Brother, to reflect and echo broader societal values. To allow a participant to use a racial slur and then only be ticked-off and asked to apologise wasn't seen as sufficient. We witnessed that with Jade and Jo O'Meara ~ and we saw last night that someone like Emily will apologise in the face of punishment, but not necessarily learn a thing. She was saying sorry as a means to save her own skin.
Not sure if I am expressing this very well. The house is apparently, currently, seen to have some obligation to mirror and model our contemporary British attitudes. An eviction like last night signals that racist terminology is entirely unacceptable. A discussion, a ticking-off and a mealy-mouthed apology would signal that racist language was open to discussion and some kind of grey area: that we have to be aware some people are very sensitive and don't understand that we would never use a term in an offensive way, because we have black mates and could never be racialist! but that some people outside might have interpreted it that way, and we're sorry for their sensitivities.
In a workplace or educational institution, I agree it could be handled differently, but the house, I feel, is seen as having to set an example and send a message. |
|
|
