New York Times Free Speech Editorial Sends Dangerous

Paul Verhoeven’s Benedetta Exploits Queerness for Shock Value

Cal Ransom

Benedetta, a 2021 film co-written and directed by Paul Verhoeven, tells the story of a nun who sees visions of Christ and is headed for sainthood — that is, until a same-sex affair is revealed between her and another young nun. The movie was shown at the Cannes Film Festival and received positive reviews for its explicit sex scenes.

Paul Verhoeven is protected by his manhood and his straightness. He does not feel the shame that comes along with women’s sexuality or queerness. He is able to show those themes on screen while being protected by the shield of his privilege. He has not been taught that his sexuality should be a hidden thing, one that bears shame.

The first time I was aware of my sexuality as a girl was when I wanted to buy a button-down shirt that had buttoned pockets on both sides of the chest. My mother pointed out to me that the buttons might look like nipples, and told me I’d be inviting unwanted attention. Later, I was advised to not send nude photos in case someone kept them and released them later. If the world could see my body, if my sexuality wasn’t reserved for whoever had “won” me and kept quiet, I would be branded and my life could be ruined.

In high school, I had started to accept my queer identity and wanted to wear a suit to prom, but my mother made me buy a dress , though she did eventually let me wear the suit. I learned from these experiences that my sexuality was supposed to be private and I was putting myself in great danger if I exposed myself in any way. I don’t have the luxury of watching the queerness in the film while being removed from it in the way straight people do.

There is no shortage of queer filmmakers trying to make it these days. There are only prejudices and biases that prevent them from succeeding. Queer filmmakers are told not to make their work all about their queerness and are criticized for throwing their sexuality in the viewer’s face. Yet when straight people like Verhoeven tell queer stories, they are praised.

There are three types of viewers of Benedetta. The first and most common is the heterosexual man or woman, who can watch with perverse curiosity. While the woman may have experienced the inherent shame that is taught with women’s sexuality, she is still removed from the experience of lesbianism, the label that adds the final layer to the shock factor of the film. For this group, the film is a circus where Verhoeven serves as the ringmaster. He is detached and in control, letting the viewers delight in the thrill of the voyeurism of the film while remaining safe in their socially acceptable lifestyles.

Similar to the first category of viewers is the queer male. Queer men possess a position of power as men, not taught that their manhood and sexuality is the ultimate shame. In the way that straight viewers can remain detached from the queerness, men can remain detached from the experience of female sexuality. As someone socialized as a woman, I have been taught that my sexuality should be hidden, so I did feel a sense of shame watching the way Benedetta and her lover, Bartolomea, indulge in pleasure. The final conflict centers around a statue of the Virgin Mary, carved by Bartolomea into a dildo. She presents it as a gift to Benedetta and they delight in using it on each other, before the nuncio, a powerful local representative of the Pope, condemns them. While the acts of pleasure are used for shock value in the film, Verhoeven uses the tone of the film to give the viewer reassurance that the queerness is not a sin, at least in the eyes of the God in the movie.

The third type of viewer is the queer woman. While the film does not present the sex scenes in their crudest form, it is the Hollywood “aesthetic” lesbian porn that has become typical of big box lesbian-centered films. Both the women are skinny, white, and feminine; the sex is choreographed and sensual. Anyone who’s experienced sex, regardless of sexuality, knows that sex is not sensual and choreographed — it can be awkward, challenging, and sometimes not even sexy! When the only exposure we have to lesbian sex is highly choreographed and full of mood lighting, how are we supposed to know that sex is not always like that? How do we develop realistic expectations for ourselves and our partners?

Perhaps a fourth category should be included: the former or current Catholic. The Catholic League, a Catholic news journal, criticized the film’s homosexuality in a religious setting and its success at the Cannes Film Festival. The film does use the context and stylization of a typical Bible story to frame the narrative, though there are some notable differences.

I grew up watching Bible story films, where the visions that Moses and the apostles see are shown as if they are really happening — complete with the characters being transported to another place and Jesus or angels appearing. The visions Benedetta experiences are also shown as she is presumably seeing them: Jesus appearing in front of her as a shepherd with sheep on a hill, her feet hitting the ground made of dirt and grass as she runs toward him — even though she is seeing these visions while laying on a table in the church play.

However, the film differs from the traditional Bible story film in tone. In this scene, the characters around her stare awkwardly, not in awe, and others show disbelief when she reveals her visions to them. While the church teaches that things happened how God intended them, this movie demonstrates human fallibility and the decision-making by those in power that molds history. Those in power are clearly human; the village priest, the head of the convent, and the nuncio are shown as multi-dimensional people, despite their positions as antagonists. They are allowed to be wrong, and the movie portrays their shock over the actions of Benedetta and Bartolomea. Despite Verhoeven’s flawed usage of sexuality, this is one area in which where the movie shines and satisfies the queer woman(ish) viewer — our “ringmaster” has condemned religious bigotry and given our queer characters vindication.

Ironically, the film highlights the homosexual acts as a source of shock for the audience. Are those who are shocked at the association between homosexuality and religion the villiains? Perhaps we are all to blame for indulging in the shock factors Verhoeven so clearly wants to highlight.

New York Times Free Speech Editorial Sends Dangerous Message

Emma Benardete Opinions Editor

Last week, The New York Times published an editorial titled “America Has a Free Speech Problem.” The title alone is an unfortunate start, but it gets worse. Much worse. Right off the bat, the Editorial Board asserts that one of the core freedoms granted to Americans is “the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.” To its credit, the Board does go on to clarify the “important distinction between what the First Amendment protects (freedom from government restrictions on expression) and the popular conception of free speech (the affirmative right to speak your mind in public, on which the law is silent).” It would have been better if it had come up sometime before the 13th paragraph. That distinction, of utmost importance to the framing of the argument at hand, is buried in the middle of the piece so that, by the time readers get to it, they have already been primed to understand the editorial through the lens of a wildly inaccurate interpretation of the First Amendment.

The core argument of the piece is that a reality in which people hold their tongues for fear of shaming, shunning, retaliation, or harsh criticism is one that fundamentally threatens our democracy. The Editorial Board writes, “Free speech is the bedrock of democratic-self government. … When speech is stifled or when dissenters are shut out of public discourse, a society also loses its ability to solve conflict, and it faces a risk of political violence.” While this statement in and of itself does hold water, the piece conflates real, legal dangers to free speech — such as book-banning and Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill — with “harsh criticism” or “shaming and shunning” in response to the espousal of genuinely harmful sentiments.

The editorial includes data from a poll, conducted by New York Times Opinion in conjunction with Siena College, that explores perceptions of free speech in the U.S. The survey reports that 55 percent of people have “held their tongue” at least once over the past year for fear of retaliation or harsh criticism, and 22 percent said they had retaliated against or harshly criticized someone for something they said. They make it out to be some tragic symptom of an ever more politically correct world, but these statistics are not nearly as concerning as the editorial would lead you to believe. Far from foretelling the downfall of American society, these numbers indicate that people are holding each other accountable for their words.

The poll also found that Black respondents were least likely to have held their tongues for fear of criticism or retaliation and generally felt the freest of all racial groups to talk about issues like gender identity, religion, and race relations. The article glosses over this point and fails to analyze the implications of these results: that the people who feel silenced on important political issues and feel their free speech is being threatened are, by and large, the ones who are accustomed to holding positions of power and not having to watch what they say about people in less privileged positions.

“The old lesson of ‘think before you speak’ has given way to the new lesson of ‘speak at your peril,’” the article reads, but this has always been the case for people of oppressed groups. The difference is that now, privileged people are finally being forced to contend with that reality in a way that used to be reserved for those who have historically been marginalized.

“The full-throated defense of free speech was once a liberal ideal,” writes the Editorial Board. It goes on to describe some of the legal battles that liberals have historically fought in order to preserve the right to free speech — the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the right to demonstrate against the Vietnam War, the right to burn the American flag. “And yet,” it writes, “many progressives have lost sight of that principle.” It cites a 93-yearold woman from Hartford, CT, who said she was “alarmed about reports of speakers getting shouted down on college campuses.” What the Board fails to realize is that rather than losing sight of that principle, liberals and progressives are able to recognize that it is, in fact, two separate principles. The first is the freedom to speak without government interference. The second is the freedom to speak without social consequence. In the same way I believe in the right of someone to burn the American flag or kneel for the National Anthem, I believe in the right of someone to tell me that I am doomed to eternal damnation because I am a queer atheist. It is my right, then, to shame, shun, and harshly criticize them. Freedom of speech cannot be a one-way street: the assertion of the right to speak without criticism necessarily undermines the free speech of the critics.

As an editor, and especially as an Opinions editor, I understand the importance of giving a platform to a variety of voices and perspectives. In the Review’s Opinions section, we strive to publish pieces that represent the full spectrum of perspectives at the College. However, it is critical that we keep in mind the distinction between an opinions piece and an editorial. While an opinions piece represents the opinion of an individual, an editorial represents the opinion of an editorial board: it is the collective voice of a large team of journalists. At some publications, like The Washington Post, editorials are explicitly stated to represent the position of the entire paper. Even though the Times Editorial Board does not officially represent the views of the publication, it holds the power and influence that come with being perceived that way. The decision to publish an editorial that so clearly antagonizes criticism of harmful views, especially as the most influential editorial board in the country, and perhaps the world, is reckless. It bolsters those who use this argument as an excuse to say harmful things while telling people who have been fighting for decades to be treated with respect that we are wrong for standing up for ourselves and setting boundaries.

They say that free speech is “predicated on mutual respect,” but when someone makes an offensive joke about queer people, that is disrespectful to me and a critical part of my identity, and I will not hesitate to exercise my own right to free speech and criticize the harm that is caused. Respect must be earned, and those who have chosen not to respect others will not earn my respect in return.

Continued from page 5

The Board’s March 1 response to a recent faculty motion includes a call for President Ambar to conduct a long-term compensation review. “We need to know what compensation looks like at peer institutions: how it helps them attract and retain exceptional scholars and educators, pay equitably, and increase diversity,” reads the Board’s letter. Yet, according to One Oberlin, Arts & Sciences faculty are paid “significantly below the average of relevant liberal arts market peers, sometimes known as the Sweet 16.” If the College’s own report outlines this fact so simply, presumably based on its own collected data, why do they need to conduct a new survey? The last official compensation review — other than the aforementioned comparison in the One Oberlin report — occurred in 2013 and resulted in the notoriously unmet compensation goals. Instead of agreeing to go back to the initial 2013 commitment, the College is yet again calling for a compensation review. Given the lack of follow-through on the past two, the announcement of a new review does not bode well.

This Editorial Board is yet again joining the chorus of voices speaking out against the College’s ambivalent approach to faculty compensation. We ask for transparency regarding the intentions behind the upcoming compensation review, in light of the College’s failure to follow through on promises made after previous reviews. We ask that, instead of kicking the can down the road and hoping for minimal upheaval, the Board and administration prioritize the development of creative solutions to the problem of faculty compensation. Our faculty are our greatest asset, the bedrock of our community. It’s time to start treating them accordingly.

Subtle Prejudice of Disney/Pixar’s “Bao,” “Turning Red”

Phoebe McChesney Columnist

For centuries, the United States of America has been seen as the hallmark of opportunity. My whole life, I have been taught that it is the land of the brave and the free, a nation built by immigrants that welcomes them with open arms. But really, truly, how brave or free can a country be that hides its prejudice against immigrants behind happy endings?

Disney/Pixar released Bao in 2018 as an animated short film depicting the shifting relationship between a Chinese mother and her son, the latter of whom is initially represented as a baozi, or dumpling. As he grows older, he starts to pull away from her to assert his independence. A pushpull dynamic ensues between them, culminating when he tries to leave home with his fiancée, and his mother eats him, at which point it is revealed that the dumpling sequence was a dream and her son is still alive, and the two reconcile.

This year, the animated full-length film Turning Red made its debut. Protagonist Meilin, “Mei,” Lee lives with her Chinese parents in Toronto and constantly struggles to live up to their expectations. When Mei transforms into a ginormous red panda, the precarious balance of her life soon comes crumbling down and she must choose to either follow her passions — the part of her that the red panda represents — or to satisfy her family by locking away the panda’s spirit. She picks her passions and, in the process, helps her family let go of their expectations for her.

While Domee Shi, the director of both works, appears to appeal to a courageous and liberalizing world view — the dumpling/son being eaten in Bao is definitely a shock factor, and Turning Red addresses menstruation, sparking unreasonable backlash — she skips out on the opportunity to really dig deep. Is this because of Disney/Pixar’s censorship or Shi’s own discretion? Perhaps it’s a bit of both. Regardless, neither film goes far enough to address real experiences of race and assimilation; instead, they actually express some harmful undertones.

Bao and Turning Red both antagonize the main characters’ parents. The parents are the ones stuck in the past, in the old structure of tradition. Their children see the light, the glitter, and the opportunity of Western idealism. All the while, the films champion independence, freedom, and the realization that there is a better world out in the big bright yonder. While independence and freedom are undoubtedly both positive attributes, the films demonstrate, even if unintentionally, prejudice toward Asian culture.

From whom do the children in Bao and Turning Red gain independence? According to Disney/Pixar, the confinements of a cultural household and the people who are part of it — likely immigrant parents.

Where, then, can independence and a sense of liberty be found? According to Bao and Turning Red, in the Western world. This message implies that the ones at fault are those attached to cultural beliefs. Their refusal to accept the exploratory and freedom-loving nature of Western society seems to make them regressive villains who can only be redeemed by the love of their children, suggestive of the films’ communicated prejudice toward Asian cultural backgrounds despite Shi’s own Chinese-Canadian identity. nadian, neither of the films solely circulate in Canada. Disney/Pixar’s international reach and availability on digital platforms such as Disney+ mean that their audience extends both into non-English speaking countries and into the United States.

Thus, Western values are heavily tied to both films: they are idealistic, telling young people that anything is possible as long as they come to the West and integrate themselves into Western culture. Persuasive Western exceptionalism is perpetuated by the distribution of such media. Had 13-year-old me, a quiet and geeky Chinese-American kid from Chicago, seen Bao or Turning Red, I would have believed wholeheartedly in this emphatic and upbeat — dare I say? — propaganda. I wouldn’t have known that the fun and fancy-free messaging failed to address the unfortunate reality of anti-Asian racism.

In Turning Red, no one in Mei’s small Chinatown community is beaten in broad daylight. Her grandmother is neither ridiculed or punched in the face. No stranger stabs her neighbor in the back or demeans her on public transit. None of the random people Mei talks to tells her to “go back to China.”

“But that’s too much for a children’s movie,” I can already hear someone grumble.

Too much? What’s too much is teaching young, impressionable adolescents that only positivity exists; that the grass is greener where contemporary Western ideals of liberty and abundance abound. It devalues other cultures, and it’s essentially a lie.

Amid continuing reports of attacks on Asian Americans, young and old, the one-year anniversary of the Atlanta spa shootings has come and gone. On March 16, 2021, Robert Aaron Long gunned down eight people, six of them Asian women. These victims sought some form of liberty in the United States. For Daoyou Feng, Hyun Jung Grant, Suncha Kim, and Soon Chung Park, it was financial freedom: the ability to make enough money to ensure the comfort of their families back home in China and Korea. Xiaojie Tan and Yong Ae Yue sought the liberty of love through the promised American pursuit of happiness, as marriage brought them to the United States. Unbeknownst to all, there was no freedom to be found.

Bao and Turning Red have delivered to audiences a package of Western exceptionalism wrapped quite nicely with a bow, a message of the “better life” in Western nations free from the cultural tradition, economic conditions, and expectations of the home country. But this message is, at best, deceitful, and, at worst, deadly. It’s especially tragic that young people are the intended audience.

Pixar, you’re not going to change the hearts of prejudiced people by enlisting a Chinese-Canadian director to create a happy-go-lucky Asian/Western representation film. Sunshine and rainbows won’t undo the past. But most importantly, these saccharine lies sell dangerous promises to the highest bidder.

Domee Shi, why exceptionalize the West at the expense of the East? Use your position as director to uplift unheard voices, not give the bullhorn to the ones who have always shouted the loudest.

Children should be able to see and understand the world they grow up in. They won’t be equipped if there is no conversation about realit;, if they are instead lied to and made to prioritize one identity over another.

College’s COVID Policies Fail Athletes

Zach Bayfield Columnist

On a brisk Friday afternoon two weeks ago, I was on a bus heading down to Berea, KY with my teammates. We were going there to play our first game of the 2022 season for Oberlin baseball. It was our first official game in over two years, and the excitement across the team was palpable until one of my teammates got an email from Mercy Allen Hospital. Three days after receiving a test, he was informed that he had tested positive for COVID-19. He was asymptomatic, but regardless, the damage was done. He was around the team during practice — unmasked for that entire time without ever realizing that he had COVID.

While the coaching staff worked out a way to isolate him, he was asked to stand in the front of the bus, as far away from the team as possible. There are no ObieSafe policies on how to deal with such a situation, so the accompanying staff had to improvise a solution while the whole team shared a bus with our COVID-positive teammate. After a couple of hours, we stopped just outside Columbus, OH, where one of our assistant coaches volunteered to rent a car and take our teammate home. We went on to play our game in Kentucky like nothing happened.

Once we came back from Kentucky, the whole team was required to take a rapid test and a PCR test. Normally, athletes are only required to take a weekly PCR test, but these were extenuating circumstances. We were leaving the next day for a spring training trip to Florida, and our trainers wanted to see if there were any other positive cases on the team.

When I took the PCR test, I had a bit of a scratchy throat, but I assumed it was just allergies since I didn’t feel any additional symptoms. A small group of teammates and I took the test together, and everyone else’s test in my group was negative. Then came my turn. The scratchiness in my throat was joined by dread when I saw the second red line appear on my test. I had tested positive. I was devastated as my trainer told me to grab my baseball bag and head straight to my house to quarantine. Sadly, I wasn’t the only one. Four of my teammates and I ended up missing out on the biggest trip of our baseball season.

If the College had done everything in its power to implement effective COVID-19 testing policies, all the pain and frustration we’re experiencing now could have been easily avoided. This experience made it clear that Oberlin’s athlete-specific testing policies are performative and do nothing to prevent the spread of COVID-19. If my teammate had received his results on the same day he was tested, he would have never come to practice and the spread to our teammates would have been prevented. Instead, he was around our team without a mask for two hours a day for three whole days.

If the College really cares about our health and safety, it should implement rapid PCR testing for all athletes as a standard practice. This way, outbreaks like the one that occurred on my team would be far more preventable. Rapid PCR tests are just as effective as regular PCR tests, but results can be processed within hours. If these tests are made available instead of the regular PCR tests, athletes who test positive would be able to get their results and quarantine before ever setting foot on a practice field. The only reason for the College not to implement rapid PCR testing is that doing so would be more expensive than regular testing.

At the bare minimum, the school should provide rapid antigen tests on a weekly basis. These would not be as accurate as rapid PCR tests but would be a much more cost-effective option that achieves the same goal of preventing outbreaks. However, spending even a little bit more money to keep students safe seems to be too much for an institution who claims its goal is “to reduce health risks.” Unsurprisingly, our College’s administration is once again choosing frugality over the health and well-being of Oberlin students.

As we have seen throughout the pandemic, our administration’s negligence continues to negatively affect Oberlin students. If our administration really cares about our health and safety like they claim to, then their COVID-19 protocols must be changed going forward.