August 20, 2008
Why Special Olympics' Movie Boycott Was a Mistake
The decision by Special Olympics to boycott the new movie ‘Tropic Thunder’ because it uses the word “retard” was a “big tactical communications mistake,” says Kivi Leroux Miller.
Writing on her Nonprofit Communications Blog, Ms. Miller says that the boycott overshadows a Special Olympics’ campaign, announced simultaneously, to convince people to stop using the word “retard.”
The “Stop Using the R-Word” campaign is a great idea, says Ms. Miller. But “by linking the campaign to a movie boycott, Special Olympics comes off as a bunch of humorless finger waggers, which makes them very easy for the public to ignore.”
Tropic Thunder is a satire of the movie industry, writes Ms. Miller. By using the term “retard,” its characters aren’t mocking people with mental disabilities, but distasteful people in Hollywood who throw around the word.
So what could Special Olympics have done differently to get people to pay attention to its campaign? Ms. Miller says the nonprofit group should have tried to do something as “equally creative, sharp, and satirical as the movie itself.”
“What about coming up with a faux ‘Actor’s Guide to Playing a Retard’ that puts the advocates’ issues with Hollywood out there in a stark yet humorous and intelligent way?” she writes. “Or what about a faux thesaurus of more acceptable slurs than the word ‘retard’?”
Sure, these kinds of ideas take a lot of creativity, something Ms. Miller says is in short supply in the nonprofit world. And they could be misinterpreted. But, she says, “Make me laugh at something outrageous and I’ll remember you and your message much longer than this movie will be in theaters, and infinitely longer than the chanting at a movie protest.”
Do you think the boycott was a mistake? What do you think of Ms. Miller’s proposals?
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Giving vs. Investing: Does It Matter What Donors Call It?
Next: How Can You Do the Most for Charitable Causes?
I like the idea of being equally creative, but I disagree that it was a mistake to use the movie as a launching point.
Let me ask you this Ms. Miller — Do you honestly think as many people would have had the issue of this R-word put in front of their faces if it was launched on its own?
There is no way people that the campaign is targeted at would have ever noticed the campaign as a singular launch. By launching it around this movie, a whole lot of the very people who use the R-word flippantly at least had the issue brought before them. Maybe they change their actions, maybe not, but at least it helps them think about something they were probably completely unaware of before.
— Jessy Aug 20, 12:12 PM #
I didn’t say that using the movie as a launching point was a bad idea — quite the opposite. It’s using a movie boycott as a launching point that I think was a mistake.
— Kivi at Nonprofit Marketing Guide.com Aug 20, 12:22 PM #
One tiny clarification . . . I didn’t say that creativity was in short supply, but rather the guts to go through with edgy, creative campaigns. I think the nonprofit field is loaded with creativity, but following through on those ideas is the problem.
— Kivi at Nonprofit Marketing Guide.com Aug 20, 12:41 PM #
If it were another word associated with race, you would never suggest a “An Actor’s Guide to Playing a …..” The very idea that Special Olympics should do somethng like that is ludicrous! You’re asking an organization that is trying to remove a distasteful, derogatory, disrespectful word to make fun of the use of it in a motion picture millions will see.
Sometimes you have to fight the fights that need fighting. If even one person opted not to spend money on this movie because of the boycott then it was worth it.
Congratulations to Special Olympics for making the effort. Fight On!
— Laura Aug 20, 01:47 PM #
Special Olympics was right, and I have been supporting the boycott.
Kivi Miller wants us to “make her laugh at something outrageous” to get her attention. Has it occured to her that her definition of outrageous does not win out here? It’s the reaction of the DISABLED to the R-word that matters, not the reaction of the rest of us to a word that seems much more tame and innocuous when we haven’t been called an “idiot”, “retard” or “lame” our entire lives. To those who matter here, the R-word is just too hurtful to be funny. And it is a legitimate form of “finger-wagging”, and one in which I freely engage, to ask all members of the public to engage in civil and respectful discourse with one another.
Ms. Miller, if you still don’t get it, try using “nigger”, “spic”, or “kike” everywhere that “retard” appears in the movie. Then tell me if the organizations opposing such insulting terms would just “come off as a bunch of humorless finger waggers” were they to oppose such prejudice.
— Nonprofit Professor Aug 20, 01:57 PM #
Not-for-profits need to elevate their dialogue to a point where their key issue stands on its own merits, and does not rely on springboarding off of what another organization or individual seems to be doing wrong.
If you cannot make your case without dicrediting others, then you probably do not have much of a cause in the first place. Do not define yourself by whom you are against. Instead, persuade others in a positive way to your position.
— Steve Aug 20, 02:03 PM #
Most of the efforts this woman suggests as alternatives are more offensive than the movie itself and run the risk of offending and/or alienating other distinct populations. (What other words would you put in that thesaurus that don’t summon up some other aggrieved minority group? A few listed by “Nonprofit professor”?) The smart thing to do would have been to embrace the movie’s message that only extremely dumb and loutish people behave this way and/or use this language, and partner with the production or piggyback with a concurrent PR message to that effect. The SO folks missed the entire point of the movie and made themselves look like fools.
— laura Aug 20, 02:14 PM #
I think the blogger’s two tactics were intended just as “launch pad” ideas. Naturally the creative team working on such a tactic would discuss the PC fallout and come up with something that would offend the smallest possible number of people (this being an age where nothing is inoffensive to everyone)
That being said, I agree completely that the boycott targets the wrong people and makes the Special Olympics look laughable. To be honest, I’d have heard a lot less about this movie without a boycott.
— Lynne Aug 20, 02:18 PM #
Stop attacking her. She’s not saying it isn’t a hurtful word, just that the way they went about addressing it was not ideal. By boycotting the movie, they are actually driving more people to go see it who otherwise may not have seen it. Including myself. I want to see what all the drama is about and if I don’t like it, at least I can say I saw it, unlike most who are boycotting it. And by the way, “nigger” and other hurtful words are used in movies all the time. They are merely words. And we live in a country where words can be freely spoken. The actors in the movie using the “r-word” are not chanting it up and down the streets, pointing at the mentally disabled along the way. They are using it in a movie, one which you and your mentally disabled child, niece, nephew, etc. do not have to see.
And Ms. Miller is right about the non-profit world not willing to take chances and that is unfortunate. However, most cannot for the fear of losing donors who are offended with what they are trying to do. And she’s also right to say that by being more creative instead of finger-wagging, Special Olympics can make their campaign more memorable. Not only do we live in a country of free speak, but one where topics of importance fade as quickly as they appear. It will not be long before we all forget about the movie protests, but a creative, intellectual campaign may last longer.
— Chris Aug 20, 02:21 PM #
Having worked in the field of developmental disabilities for many years and seeing language shift and change… this word was always painful and unacceptable. You can’t imagine what this word does to people.
— T Aug 20, 02:24 PM #
I have been called several of the slur words used as an example above (which particular ones don’t matter — several can apply to me). The one thing I will NEVER do is support anti-speech movements, especially comedy movies, etc. when others tell me to boycott them. The right of free speech in our society is about the most important. I actually have the right to hate you if you are a n—-, k—-, or even a r—- and I have the right to tell you so. If offended, you have the right to call me an a—, or worse, not patronize my product, etc. But I make it MY choice not to see something that I find offensive.That is what makes this country great. How many organizations call for boycotts of films, shows etc. that haven’t even been released and no one yet knows what the final cut looks like. And ESPECIALLY when it comes to art, boycotts can be very dangerous.
— sg Aug 20, 02:35 PM #
I want to echo what has already been posted in response to Ms. Miller’s post. It is unbelievable how many people still use the r-word not even realizing how utterly offensive and hurtful it is. I hear people using it all the time who I know are otherwise very well educated and sensitive in issues of diversity. This isn’t about being politically correct, but about respect. The r-word is every bit as hurtful as all other racial slurs and the use of it in Tropic Thunder is completely distasteful. I applaud the Special Olympics and all the other organizations that banded together to take a stand against the film. I understand that Ms. Miller does not support the use of the r-word, but I wonder why such effort was made to criticize the Special Olympics who are only making a stand for their beliefs.
— Karen Aug 20, 02:44 PM #
I want to thank everyone who has posted here for their thoughts, even those of you who disagree with me. One of the biggest benefits of blogging is the conversations it can create, so thanks for taking part in that and to the Chronicle for supporting it.
The suggestions I came up with were meant to be provocative — and they clearly are — to demonstrate what I consider the opposite end of the spectrum of choices, with a movie boycott at the “play it safe” end.
Special Olympics is a very well-established, big organization that should be able to pull off a campaign that’s somewhere in between. Not as edgy as what I threw out there, but not as weak as a movie boycott.
I would also point out that it took a whole lot more work from the African-American community and others, much, much more than movie boycotts, to get our culture to the place where it is today regarding the N-word. It takes a lot of guts, risk, hard work and time to make cultural shifts like this and if Special Olympics is really serious about taking the R-Word to the same place, they are going to have to really step up their game. Perhaps that’s all in the works and I’ll be blogging about how great their campaign is six months from now. But it will take a very long time to bring out the change they seek if they play it this safe long-term.
— Kivi at Nonprofit Marketing Guide.com Aug 20, 02:57 PM #
Interestingly, the Special Olympics has previously piggy-backed on a movie comedy from the Farrelly brothers, who have produced movies that have featured controversial portrayals of mentally challenged characters.
I found this story in our archives today while looking for something else and thought I’d add it to the discussion.
Here it is:
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v18/i12/12f00401.htm
Perhaps this experience informed how the Special Olympics handled “Tropic Thunder”.
— Peter Panepento Aug 20, 03:25 PM #
The difference between the movie The Ringer – the Farelly Brothers film and Tropic Thunder – is that Special Olympics was allowed input into how mental retardation was portrayed by the Farrelly’s in The Ringer, which was not the case with Tropic Thurday.
This input allowed Special Olympics to educate the Farrelly Brothers on intellectual disabilities and also allowed Special Olympics athletes to participate in the film as actors with large and meaningful roles further showcasing the talents of those with intellectual disabilities.
One other thing that the writer, Kivi, should understand is that Special Olympics did not undertake this boycott alone, but did so alongside many other national organizations who support the rights of individuals with intellectual disabilities. It is always easiest to single out the largest of those groups for criticism, but the writer should make sure to present all the facts when writing the article. This is something that is easily overlooked in blogging and much of today’s journalism.
I for one would prefer to see much better writing with complete coverage of an issue on both sides than the journalism we see today which seems to take the easy way out instead of truly digging into all aspects of the story. Perhaps Kivi could have even asked someone from Special Olympics or one of the other organiztions boycotting Tropic Thunder about the reasons for the strategy or about her suggestions for a different strategy.
Lastly, I think that it is truly important to realize that it is not how you or I judge the use of the word retard, but how those the word has been directed at for so many years view it. As one other writer posted, this is an extremely hurtful word to those with intellectual disabilities. It creates such a negative connotation that the athletes of Special Olympics directed Special Olympics a few years ago to change the terminology used within Special Olympics from mental retardation to intellectual disabilities because of the negative connotations of mental retardation.
— Shane Aug 20, 04:11 PM #
Shane – In my blog post, I refer to advocacy groups led by Special Olympics — which is exactly how they are positioning themselves. The SO page about the protest does not list the other groups, nor does the “Coalition Statement of Support” — an omission which I found very odd, frankly. If SO isn’t going to list all the other groups on their own web pages about the coalition and protest, then they are going to be the main organization listed in commentary, positive and negative. And that’s what blogging is all about: commentary.
I also say very clearly that I support the R-word campaign. I just don’t believe movie boycotts are all that effective in changing people’s behavior.
— Kivi at Nonprofit Marketing Guide.com Aug 20, 04:43 PM #
First of all, the movie is funny as hell. Ben Stiller has been in need of a vehicle to show his acting talents for a long time. The “Meet The Parents” series don’t do him justice. Jack Black is one of the best comedic actors of our time, and Morton Downy Junior is equally good. Please, get over yourselves and see the movie before you judge it.
Secondly, I find it telling that the outrage is coming from the groups who represent people with disabilities, but we don’t hear much from the people themselves. Maybe the folks at the Special Olympics and the “R-Word” campaign are afraid that the people they represent actually get the joke. Retarded, indeed.
— k.o.e. Aug 20, 06:01 PM #
Boy, does Ms. Miller really have this one wrong! I am a Special Olympics Minnesota athlete and I have been called this negative “R” word all of my life. “The Ringer” is a major exception when it came out in 2005, for these reasons:
1. You had the entire Staff and Board of Directors of Special Olympics, Inc. on board (from Tim Shriver being executive producer all the way to Loretta Claiborne showing up on set).
2. There were many former and current Special Olympics athletes who acted in the film-so yes, actors with intellectual disabilities were used.
3. The “R” word was put in there as an educational component to let people without disabilities know that this is hate speech and we don’t tolerate it at all. Just last year, the Brave New World theater in Minneapolis wound up doing a play, where they used the “R” word in the title and of course, the MN Disability Community said “Enough is enough” and that it was time to come out with a documentary on how we do take offense to this word. The premier of the Advocating Change Together’s Offense Taken to the “R” word documentary will be on the night of August 21st and I cannot wait to see myself in the finished product. Ms. Miller should realize that the only “R” word that I like to hear is R-E-S-P-C-T. This is the way that I want to be treated. In fact, I got Dave Ryan, a radio host for KDWB radion station in the Twin Ciites area, to stop saying the “R” word because he is now getting involved with Special Olympics Minnesota by doing a 5K next month and, boy the compliments that I have been getting from Special Olympics Inc. and Special Olympics MN on this one has been huge. I will continue to be involved the the “R” word campaign until the word is off the planet for good, meaning that it will no longer be in anybody’s vocabularly.
— Roberta Blomster Aug 20, 09:08 PM #
Roberta,
I am criticizing the use of a movie boycott as an effective way to get the message out, not the R-word campaign itself. It’s two different things.
I think people are blurring the two because of the two hypothetical (and extremely satirical) campaigns I threw out there.
The reality is that the R-Word is not yet viewed in the same way as the N-word — that’s just reality, and why there’s a need for a campaign in the first place. In order to really show some people how offensive the R-Word is, you may actually have to use it sometimes — say the word “retard” instead of R-word — as you are driving home your points about it.
I too look forward to the day when it and other slurs are out of our vocabulary.
— Kivi at Nonprofit Marketing Guide.com Aug 20, 09:41 PM #
Having worked for several years for nonprofits that served children and adults with developmental disabilities, I would suggest that advocates should direct their impassioned pleas and efforts to the more pressing issues of lack of employment opportunities, lack of housing/waiting lists for people who require emergency placement, lack of transition services, and lack of transportation.
— Pamela DePompo Aug 21, 10:22 AM #
Actually all of the members of the coalition are clearly listed on http://www.r-word.org/ homepage (column on the right).
— Karen Aug 21, 12:42 PM #
And this r-word.org webpage is a link off of the Special Olympics website and was created by the Special Olympics to focus on the use of the r-word overall as opposed to just focusing on boycotting Tropic Thunder.
— Karen Aug 21, 12:57 PM #
At one time or another in my career, I have worked with organizations in service to the struggles of nearly all of the PEOPLE mentioned in this discussion whose humanity is denigrated by the prejudice illustrated above with letters and dashes (equally denigrating as the pejorative term itself, BTW).
Campaigns that proscribe a behavior may reduce or even eliminate that behavior, but they do nothing to actually help eliminate the prejudice that denies people access to jobs, housing, and even basic freedoms.
Campaigns that create a motivation for inclusion are the only efforts that yield long-term results and actually effect change. (Just look at the lengthy tenure and success of “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”.)
In this “seven seconds, and you’re off the radar” culture, an outcry over nomenclature is a waste of an opportunity to educate on the basic-living, tangible issues of prejudice. It may even lead to increasing the marginalization we try so hard to eliminate, as our cause becomes more widely identified with valuing protest and criticism over education and change.
— Gina Aug 21, 05:29 PM #
I volunteer with an organization that serves people with disabilities and their families.
I think the boycott made the Special Olympics seem like whiners, and it actually called more attention to the movie. I went to see it myself so I could judge it.
The goofy characters talk about what they need to do to get an Oscar and they compare the “Simple Jack” character to that of “Rain Man” and Sam in “I Am Sam.” They make themselves look ridiculous for talking the way they do. Intelligent people will get the joke.
People who are likely to make fun of any group that’s different from them won’t see the smart edgy humor in it. These are the same people who don’t understand the difference between mental disabilities like schizophrenia and intellectual disabilities and physical disabilities like CP, and it doesn’t help that we as a society don’t talk more openly about it.
I completely agree that the protest has eclipsed their campaign efforts, and I would rather see Special Olympics athletes compete against – what do I say – typical athletes(?) and have all-inclusive training and competition.
Good conversations!
— Laura Aug 27, 04:41 PM #
People will always fear what they do not understand, and anything that is unusual or new can fall into this category. Creating “campaigns” of this type, while certainly for a worthy cause, will have very little effect, in my opinion on those ignorant,apathetic, and small minded individuals who cannot develop their own vocabularies to the point where these “offensive” slurs are no longer necessary. Freedom of Speech is a fundamental right in this country, and no cause or campaign, however worthy, should advocate censorship in any way, shape or form. This is a freedom for which our Nation is envied world-wide. Satire is made to be thought-provoking, and it seems that Ben Stiller and Co. have achieved their objective in creating controversy about Tropic Thunder. Even had this issue not been brought out, I would still go to see the movie based on the strength of Stiller’s past work.
I support the work that Special Olympics does, and admire anyone working to overcome a disability. Let’s work on teaching our kids tolerance by example,there is no better way.
— Virginia Aug 29, 05:30 PM #