Perfectly Logical Explanations

In 2002, I attended the Social Justice Training Institute. As it says on the website:
SJTI provides an intensive developmental opportunity for social justice educators to examine the complex dynamics of race and racism, and to focus on how to develop personal competencies as trainers and practitioners.

It was a powerful training. One of the most enduring concepts I learned at SJTI is what is called a Perfectly Logical Explanation (PLE). Essentially a PLE is what often happens when a person names and/or gently challenges another person on her/his conscious/unconscious use of oppression.

For example, let's say a person of color is waiting at a checkout counter. Several times, the white clerk overlooks him in favor of other white people. If the person of color points this out to the clerk ( I have been waiting for over 5 minutes while you helped other people) the clerk may respond:

Oh. I just didn't see you.

That is a PLE.

Let's say the person of color then factually states, As a person of color, it happens to me all the time.

The clerk is likely to launch into even more rationales for his behavior : I simply didn't see you in line. I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are black. Why do you you people have to always play the race card?

What if, instead, the clerk responded, I apologize. Thank you for pointing that out to me and giving me an opportunity to learn and grow. I'm so sorry I engaged in unconscious, learned behavior that made you invisible. I'm committed to working on and unlearning my own internalized racism.
I know, I know. This kind of self-awareness and dialogue seems to only happen at social justice retreats.

As I read today's excellent New York Times editorial, Ad Follies of the Super Bowl, I thought about the PLE's in this situation.

During the Super Bowl this Sunday, CBS is airing a commercial from Focus on the Family**, while in 2004, they denied the United Church of Christ ad that featured two gay men in a church. This year, CBS rejected a commercial from ManCrunch, a gay men's online dating service.

When asked why they accepted the FOF ad this year and not the UCC ad in 2004, CBS said, that, under its new policies, the UCC ad would now have been accepted for airing. In response to rejecting the ManCrunch ad, CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs said:

After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot.
P. L. E. ' s. (Yeah, it sounds like, Paa-Leeze when you say it out loud).

Of course, as today's New York Times editorial points out, in 2007 CBS gladly aired a Snickers ad that used homophobia as humor.

What if CBS simply owned it? What if their statement read:
We ran the Snickers ad because it's okay (and even hilarious) to make fun of homosexuals (come on, gays...lighten up - even you laughed at that Snickers ad). We denied the UCC and ManCrunch ads because it's not okay to advocate for homosexuals or support them dating, particularly during such an male American institution as the Super Bowl. To be honest, the idea of two guys together makes us really uncomfortable.

I, for one, would appreciate the candor. No more PLE's, please.

(and, Go Saints!)


**Much has been written about the impending Focus on the Family ad that will air during Sunday's Superbowl. I will add just one additional thought to that process. The ad cost $2.8 million dollars.

Keep in mind. FOF has laid off significant numbers of staff since 2008 (in 2002, FOF employed 1,400 people; today, they employ 860). The last round of layoffs happened after FOF dumped more than a half million dollars into California to defeat Proposition 8, which repealed marriage equality for same-sex couples.

How many people could $2.8 employ? How many people could $2.8 feed, educate and shelter? These are questions I hope FOF constituents and donors are asking the organization.