By
Jeff Dickson
April 27, 2009
I never thought the day would come when I would publicly praise someone affiliated with the state of California, but after the Miss USA pageant last Sunday, I finally have reason to. On a night typically highlighted by 50 beauties strutting around in swimsuits, there was a demonstration of substance and poise that stood out from the typical drone of over-rehearsed, under-thought interview answers.
For those of you who have managed to avoid YouTube and any Internet news sources for the last week, here’s a brief summary. During the interview portion of the competition, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, about whether or not she believed same-sex marriage should be legalized in all 50 states. Her reply was that she was proud to live in a country where people had the right to choose, but she personally believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Miss California ended up getting first runner-up instead of the coveted crown, and many speculate that her answer cost her the title.
Let me state right off the bat, in order to spare this campus from another controversy and my editor from premature gray hairs, that my opinion on same-sex marriage is completely irrelevant for this discussion. The reason that I so vehemently support Miss Prejean is her display of honesty and integrity — something that has become largely nonexistent and vastly underappreciated in today’s public forum.
Miss Prejean was dealt an incredibly sensitive question that put her in a very difficult position. She had the choice to pick the answer that would cater to the large homosexual fan base, meet the judge’s desired response and all but ensure her victory. In the heat of searing spotlights, under the watchful eyes of millions of people, in only a couple of seconds, she made the decision to give the world a truthful answer that accurately divulged who she really is.
That exhibition of character is exactly what Miss USA should embody. Miss Prejean deserved to be commended for it, not punished. Yet, her opinion on a touchy subject, not her composure and disposition in the face of a complicated situation, is what was ultimately judged.
Perez told ABC News that “she lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that.” Later in his blog, he went on to say that her answer was “the worst in pageant history,” and that “she lost because she’s a dumb b----.” Such remarks only show that Perez Hilton is more ignorant and intolerant than he perceives Miss Prejean to be.
At least some of the blame for this incident lies on the shoulders of the Miss USA organizers for allowing such disparity between the interview questions. While Miss California was forced to tackle a very polarizing, opinion-fueled issue, most of the other contenders were handed questions with very obvious answers that required little infusion of personal partiality.
Miss Kentucky, for example, was asked whether or not she would have spoken out against Chris Brown’s treatment of Rihanna. Anyone who isn’t Ike Turner knows what the appropriate answer is without having to use one of their lifelines. In fact, the only other candidate who was given a semi-tricky question, Miss Arizona, didn’t even answer the question at all. Her response to, “Do you believe all U.S. citizens should have the right to health care?” was, “It is a matter of integrity, and I say that with the utmost conviction.” Maybe her interview coach was Miss South Carolina from 2007’s Miss Teen USA.
The bottom line is that the Miss USA pageant used to be about choosing a representative for our nation that exemplifies what it means to be a young American woman: successful, independent and confident — someone that little girls could look up to as a true role model.
By allowing such volatile figures as Perez Hilton to judge the expression of such qualities, the Miss USA committee does nothing more than provide a platform for his controversial antics and guarantee the erosion of the fundamentals of the competition. The focus no longer becomes a matter of character, but rather a matter of political opinion. It may be great for ratings, but it hinders the ability to find the best representative for the young American female spirit.
In the future, the Miss USA pageant should seek out young women like Miss Prejean, who have the courage to stand up for what they believe in — even in the face of adversity.
Reach columnist Jeff Dickson at opinion@dailyuw.com.
17 Comments
#1 Curt P.
on April 27, 2009 at 12:10 a.m.(Kent, WA)
Remember, the only way one could ever possibly oppose gay marriage is if they are a religious bigot and/or a homophobe. Nothing commendable about that in the eyes of many, as honest as that girl may have been...
[/sarcasm]
#2 bb13
on April 27, 2009 at 10:49 a.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Well-versed and thorough article. I enjoyed your take on how Miss USA's honesty -- regardless of whether or not one agrees with its implications or justifications -- deserves much credit.
#3 Doug M.
on April 27, 2009 at 10:56 a.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Perez Hilton is nothing but a catty blowhard. He talks himself up an awful lot, and he has far less influence than he claims. If her answer to that question was genuinely consequential as you construe it, Jeff, she would not even be runner-up. Instead, you decide to poorly conceal your views on marriage and the rights of GBLTQ people under the auspices of admiring Miss California's purported "character."
Perhaps she had some integrity in that she coherently answered the question. However, she is no more intelligent than the rest of her vacuous opponents. The key failure of logic in her statement is that she believes we all have rights in this country, and unfortunately, by way of her sentiments about marriage, she contradicts herself. This country is a very unequal place, and GBLTQ people have been getting the short end of the stick since its inception.
There is a reason questions are asked: it is for us to hear the answers. If we do not like the answers, then we may judge and decide accordingly. Miss California lacks respect for the rights and quality of life of ALL people in this country. It is fortunate, then, that however little influence Perez exerted, it may, by some off chance, have kept her from taking the crown.
#4 Kristin C.
on April 27, 2009 at 11:46 a.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
But she DIDN'T coherently answer the question. She stumbled over her words and didn't have a grasp of the issues. We DON'T have the right to choose a same-sex marriage or "opposite" marriage - except in four states. Actually, she didn't answer the question. He asked if she thought it would be legal - a civic question - and she answered with a religious answer.
She did speak her mind, and it was daring - but in her role as a Miss USA contestant she failed, not because her opinion was not popular, but because she did it dumbly.
#5 Yutaka J.
on April 27, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
I am not convinced that this opinion means what it states. It commends Miss California's "honesty and integrity" and her "courage to stand up for what they believe in — even in the face of adversity" without making an argument for or against the issue discussed. But it seems that the political issue in the question was why this author commends Miss California. I highly doubt that the author would commend a K.K.K. woman if she were to express racism as her conviction and belief - even in the face of adversity. In my opinion, it seems like the author is hiding cowardly behind Miss California to express his dislike of gay marriage.
#6 uwstudent
on April 27, 2009 at 3:40 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
I agree Yutaka.
For once can the USA actually represent its values of Freedom instead of being total hypocrites?
#7 Byron H.
on April 27, 2009 at 10:15 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
"Miss Kentucky, for example, was asked whether or not she would have spoken out against Chris Brown’s treatment of Rihanna. Anyone who isn’t Ike Turner knows what the appropriate answer is without having to use one of their lifelines"
Why is the question "Is Same Sex Marriage ethical?" any more difficult to answer than "Is is unethical to beat your girlfriend?"? They both seem pretty damn obvious to me.
#8 seriously
on April 27, 2009 at 11:43 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Really? This is what passes for intellectual discourse at UW? Jeff, you say that your opinion is irrelevant. A disclaimer of this sort should be inferred from your writing; when a writer feels so compelled to spell this kind of sentiment out it has a tendency to underestimate the capacities of her audience, and walks and quacks like the wo/man behind the curtain we should pay no attention to.
But let's address your reasoning. In writing about Miss California's response you say, "...there was a demonstration of substance and poise that stood out..." Seriously? I will here and now cut and paste her response:
"Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
Substance? Poise, Jeff? Sounds like you have a surplus of chromosomes, buddy. Or just your run-of-the-mill inability to cope without the aid of an imaginary friend who, though omnipotent, can do no bidding without the continual public denouncement of people He created by people He created.
Vanilla Ice just called, said he wants his hack back. Won't ya give it back, Jeff?
#9 jc82
on April 29, 2009 at 6:43 p.m.(Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)
@Seriously.
First of all thanks for posting a transcript of what was actually said. It adds a lot to the discussion. Though I agree with you and others on her reply not exactly being enlightning, I do agree with the author that in a competition where most people would just go with what they know would be the most popular answer she was willing to give her own view. I realise that the general view is for same sex marriage but the issue is still controversial enough within the USA that comparing to whether the KKK is acceptable is farcical (Seriously I realise it wasn't you who said this).
Finally though, it's sad when someone tries to make a valid point and then destroys it with their own hypocrisy.
You want to demonstrate a view that the writer is hiding behind Miss California to hide his own predjudice against the homosexual community. If that is your view then fine, I respect it and possibly even agree with it. But you follow this with blantant bigatory against religion (most likely Christianity I am presuming). Stick with criticising the article and don't launch general attacks against communities that far outnumber the GBLT community (I admit in my ignorance I don't know what the Q satnds for and so admitted it - someone please enlighten me :oP)
#10 Jamie M.
on April 30, 2009 at 7:25 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
The author praises Miss California for her independence, when her answer was the total opposite. To believe something because you were raised that way has nothing to do with an independent mind. A lot of racist men wand women thought that blacks were inferior because they were raised that way as well. If anything, this shows a lack of independence.
Miss California's hypocrisy, nevertheless, did not take a long time to become even more evident. This is from the Huffington Post today:
"The reigning Miss California has gone to Washington to help launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.
Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages.""
HERE IS THE LINK
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04...
#11 Sean K.
on April 30, 2009 at 9:42 a.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Jeff Dickson wrote:
"By allowing such volatile figures as Perez Hilton to judge the expression of such qualities, the Miss USA committee does nothing more than provide a platform for his controversial antics and guarantee the erosion of the fundamentals of the competition. The focus no longer becomes a matter of character, but rather a matter of political opinion."
I agree with Jeff that the Miss USA pageant is indeed a valuable cultural and ideological institution that needs to be preserved and/or protected from thorny political, ethical, and cultural questions that cheapen the whole event.
One need look no further the grocery store checkout aisle - or any source of sexualized or gendered representation in contemporary culture to realize that women as a group benefit each and every day from the the preservation of our traditional concepts of femininity.
That Carrie Prejean showed such a complex understanding of the issues, and is clearly quite comfortable with her body in all its natural beauty, is laudable. I applaud Mr. Dickson for tackling such a pressing concern, and thank my lucky stars when I see entire groups of Carrie Prejeans arriving on campus from just north of here.
#12 Kristin C.
on April 30, 2009 at 1:04 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
There needs to be some new "law," akin to Godwin's, that addresses arguments about gay marriage on the internet. Within one week, someone will claim intolerance against Christians, or any other one of a hundred talking points being fed to right-wing conservatives by their cultural heroes. (Majority of the country, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, What about the children?!?!, Swedish people are having their rights trampled.)
Even though Seriously may have had a negative tone about the invisible friend, the truth is that he/she made a very important point. I realize it might have been tough to get past the bristling that "invisible friend" caused, but check out the last part.
#13 Rebecca_F
on April 30, 2009 at 3:54 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
In response to #9's question: Q = queer. I believe GBLT, GBLTQ and some even longer that I can't remember, are all used . . . and if I got the letters in the wrong order, please don't anyone get mad at me.
#14 Rebecca_F
on April 30, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
In response to #12 and #8, "seriously" DID make an attack that appeared to be an attack on Christianity. Since there is an actual attack on Christianity, on this very thread, why isn't it appropriate to discuss that?
If you don't want people to be concerned, don't give them reason to be concerned. Unfortunately, sometimes those concerns prove to be founded.
Of course, you could support gay marriage and still find #8's comment offensive. Just like you could support gay marriage and still believe that a pastor should be able to preach what he believes (and I don't know the details of the situation in Sweden). And I don't believe that everyone who supports gay marriage opposes free speech. (Refer also to the recent letter-to-the-editor by Michael Amini: http://dailyuw.com/2009/4/24/free-spe...)
It's not really fair to either side of the controversy to lump everyone giving the same yes/no answer to "Should gay marriage be legally recognized?" into one group presumed to be cohesive and homogeneous. The question itself is complicated (domestic partnerships, anyone?). The related issues are many: workplace issues, religious marriage rites and doctrines, sexual morality, concerns about harassment and discrimination, concerns about free speech and religious exercise, etc. A lot of these concerns have merit at some level. We should be careful not to blame someone too much for concerns that may be founded, but also to remember that just because one person on "the other side" said or did something, that doesn't mean everyone else on "that side" holds the same position.
I believe that marriage is a special type of relationship between persons of the opposite sex. I hope that doesn't make me incapable of recognizing that sometimes arguments advanced in opposition of gay marriage are simply not well-framed in one or more ways. I also sometimes like to imagine that it is possible to disagree strongly with someone else's actions and beliefs without really hating them personally.
#15 Rebecca_F
on April 30, 2009 at 5:14 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
While we're at it, does anyone want to discuss prejudice against California? LOL
#16 John V.
on May 5, 2009 at 7:28 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
I have to say, even though I may not agree with the answer, it answers the question in a direct way (it's great Americans can choose), then adds her opinion, and doesn't assert there shouldn't be a choice. Well-spoken for a contestant in the Miss USA pageant, from the very little I've seen.
Perhaps the fact the statement is wrong, as mentioned in comment #4, most Americans can't choose, and that her answer about the "greatness of choice" is a lie (Her answer is actually no, having a choice is wrong, judging by her actions in the link in comment #10) should weigh against her.
Overall, though, the effort of examining too closely the logic in an answer in a Miss USA contest seems misspent.
#17 Anna P.
on May 11, 2009 at 3:19 p.m.(Location Unknown | UW Community)
I would like to know what Mr. Dickson thinks of Ms. Prejean's "honesty and integrity" now that half-nude photos of her have surfaced and she blatantly lied about them being taken when she was a minor.
Post a comment