That Should Be Funny
The doctors are frantically operating, and I sit nervously in the waiting room. Hours pass until eventually the doctor comes to meet me, “I’m sorry, but he didn’t make it.” I begin to weep, and you should too. He was a dear friend to all of us once. But he is gone now. Humor is dead. The next generation of liberals on college campuses have reduced comedy to nothing. It is true that people’s lives and identities should be respected, but college students really can’t take a joke. They hide behind their sensitivities and, in turn, miss out on the value of humor. Those students prevent the use of comedy as a social lubricant for meaningful discussion. Most humor should be allowed to be unsettling because it creates interactive and engaging communities, and colleges, especially, should let comedy challenge their students instead of encouraging a helpless over-sensitivity.
Finding great comedians becomes difficult when the scope of humor is limited to completely non-offensive and politically correct comedy. The goal of humor is not to foster a safe-space. Good humor is confrontationally and unapologetically uncomfortable. Good humor forces the listener to encounter opposing perspectives of the world, and college is a place that is advertised to be a life-changing experience. Is it really all that life-changing when the only views presented are nullified arguments stemming from a rigid sensitivity toward diversity and inclusion? Caitlin Flanagan, in her Atlantic article, “That’s Not Funny”, would tell you “to think of college not as an institution of scholarly pursuit but as the all-inclusive resort that it has in recent years become”.
[pullquote]Good humor is confrontationally and unapologetically uncomfortable.[/pullquote]
Comedy can be used as a tool to express concern. In many communities, challenges of mental health are not often publicly discussed. Self-deprecating humor, then, allows for mental health to be addressed, collectivized, and better understood in a situation in which emotional pain cannot easily be made explicit. Comedy is a coping mechanism, bringing students together to know they are not alone in their struggles. It eliminates the negative social stigmas associated with self-expression while allowing for that self-expression to occur. Humor masks the vulnerability of emotion and thus allows for discussion.
Another facet of college is that students need to be mentally challenged to fulfill the purposes of higher education. They are not mindless, droning sheep waiting to be grass-fed political and social views. The goal of a college student should be to seek out engagement in subjects that distress them, including political views that differ from the norm of a university. Comedy allows for this awkward yet enlightening engagement.
[pullquote]Students need to be mentally challenged to fulfill the purposes of higher education.[/pullquote]
Comedy opens the door to discussion in two ways: by presenting controversial opinions and by loosening tensions over delicate subjects. One of the best ways to make students think for themselves is to suppose an outlandish argument, or one that is at least unfamiliar to their closed-off bubble. Comedy breaks the ice and begins to lead the discussion. The awkward silence of the freshman seminar is finally overcome as students begin to form opinions and feel comfortable in their situation to express them. Without a starting point, students have no reference and are disinclined to participate. Conversations are much more productive when engagement centers around reactions and responses rather than disjointed and poorly formed starting opinions.
Once students begin to think for themselves, the college experience has succeeded. By creating a “safe space”, in the sense that all difficult conversations and ideas are averted, colleges create a bubble for their students and do not prepare them for the real world because in the real world, people have vastly differing opinions. Students should have experience interacting with opinions that differ from their own, and they should be ready to defend their argument. Creating a safe space only inhibits students from understanding and developing the reasons they believe in certain ideologies. And while that responsibility lies mostly on the student to immerse her/himself into environments that are uncomfortable, it also lies on the university to present students with opportunities that will help them progress mentally.
One issue with the perceptions of comedians brought to college campuses is that students will assume the reaction of others before understanding their own authentic reaction. As Caitlin Flanagan points out in her article, during a stand-up comedy session by Kevin Yee, two white students negatively reacted to his use of the phrase “sassy black friend” while the black girls enjoyed and applauded the performance. We assume that those around us cannot handle humor the same way that we can, and that assumption creates an unnecessary barrier between comedian and audience. We should not immediately jump to the conclusion that groups of people need to be consoled when a joke is told about them; we should not assume that all jokes are so offensive that they merit a sensitive reaction.
One claim regarding offensive humor is that a comedian must have a certain identity to make jokes about that identity. For example, a white male cannot make jest towards the struggles or personalities of black females. The issue with this comedic limitation is that exclusivity of identity does not lead toward cooperation nor understanding on behalf of the out-group. By restricting the roles we can assume, we prevent ourselves from empathic learning and experiencing of another’s life. If I cannot joke about the lack of representation in our government as a white male, how can I even begin to understand the reasons why a lack of representation is a problem? In other words, comedic exclusivity prohibits us from exploring social issues through humor, completely demeaning its central purpose.
Comedic exclusivity breaks down even further when the hypocrisy of college students is critically evaluated. Just like conservatives find jokes about liberals funny, liberals find jokes about conservatives to be funny. The sensitivity and politically correct nature of liberals only takes effect when the jokes are about liberals. I’ve been at fault, too; I have found straight jokes hilarious, being gay, but I become hypersensitive when straight people make jokes about gayness. How can I claim to be inclusive and politically correct when those qualities are thrown out the window at the prospect of a straight joke? As liberals, we justify our hypocrisy by claiming an identity, but the end effect is elitist, exclusive groups that do not foster the interaction or engagement for which college should be striving.
Colleges tend to think that diversity ends with identities of race, gender, and sexuality. But true diversity extends beyond our biological characteristics into our ideological beliefs. Universities excel at finding and bringing to campus diverse people, but usually fail to present diverse thinkers. Comedians presented by student groups are almost all liberal and have a focus on inclusion. Their jokes are inoffensive, but they often have no point. Intellectual thinkers of different ideologies should be brought to campuses to encourage reevaluation and engagement in discussions.
[pullquote]Universities excel at finding and bringing to campus diverse people, but usually fail to present diverse thinkers.[/pullquote]
While humor should be challenging students in their views, there should be certain boundaries it should not cross. Some fail to recognize the importance of this comedic restriction. The issue with using comedy as a platform to present and argue ideas is that racists, sexists, homophobes, ableists, etc. can use it as a scapegoat to justify their violations of basic human principles. This is the type of humor that has no purpose will only serve to perpetuate hate across impressionable youth. Humor is inherently offensive, but there are non-partisan human rights that transcend political views. It is one thing to present an unpopular political opinion through humor, and it is another to disrespect a person’s very existence while hiding behind the fortified wall of comedy.
I believe jokes should have meaning. They should, if even tangentially, address an issue or present a significant argument. Comedy should not be so toxic such that its only purpose is to offend, nor should the same joke be repeated so often that the original intent is no longer conveyed. Humor is meant to encourage thinking, and pure disrespect with no motive to question, persuade, or motivate only prohibits it.
While comedy has its limitations, it should be embraced by colleges as a tool to introduce arguments and allow for students to engage in meaningful and productive discussions. Schools should encourage a culture of questioning and arguing; they should stop hiring “diverse” comedians purely for their ethnicity. Bring speakers to campus who will challenge the students because our liberal sensitivity to everything that offends is what prevents universities from teaching students how to be active and functioning members of society. And responsibility lies on us, too. We just have to start laughing.
Trevor McKee ’21 studies in the Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts. He can be reached at trevorjmckee@wustl.edu.