7-22-89 Saturday. You can learn a lot about a community—about its values, beliefs, and attitudes—by reading the letters to the editor of the local newspaper. Here’s an example (one that is near and dear to my heart). Thirteen days ago, the Bryan-College Station Eagle ran a front-page story about a local nudist colony (in Washington County). Accompanying the story was a large color photograph of a woman and, according to the caption, her five-year-old daughter, both of whom were nude. The woman was seated, facing away from the camera, though she twisted toward the camera and smiled just as the photograph was taken. Her daughter stood next to her, facing the camera, but with a leg raised to hide her genital area. That was it: a pleasant family scene that just happened to be at a nudist colony. Well! You would think that the Eagle had published a picture of a copulating couple, so intense was the criticism. In yesterday’s paper, nearly an entire page was devoted to letters to the editor. I count fifteen letters, seven opposed to the story, picture, or both, and eight either neutral or in favor. Those opposed describe the photograph as “tasteless” (twice), an “embarrassment”, “revealing”, “pornographic” (twice), “rude”, “offensive” (four times), “appalling” (twice), “shameful”, “ridiculous”, “insensitive”, “vulgar”, “distasteful”, “disturbing”, “insulting”, “degrading”, “not of good taste”, “irresponsible”, “disappointing”, “obscene”, “immoral”, and, worst of all, “liberal”.
For the life of me, I don’t understand this. As I say, the photographs were discreet, showing only the mother’s back and the daughter’s flat, undeveloped chest. I’m sure that the critics value family togetherness, so they should applaud this scene. Interestingly, none of the critics blasted the nudist colony per se, or even the story about it. They objected to the photograph. One writer implied that it had no place in “a family newspaper”, then went on to claim that it would lead to “child molesting”. Others viewed the photograph as a symbol of an immoral age, an age in which “our moral and ethical values have relaxed”. Still another says that, because of the photograph, she “had to hide the paper from [her] two young children”. In order for a single, discreet photograph to elicit such venom, there must be a well of frustration and anger in the community. There must be people who despise the liberality of our age—the fact that people have different conceptions of the good life and act upon them. They must resent the fact that not everyone in the community shares their values, their religious beliefs, and their customs and traditions. For my part, I value the moral independence that a liberal society affords. I shudder when I think of tightly-knit communities, religious or not, for in them the individual has no chance of escape.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 