Big Brother Autism Slur

The key to the ratings machine for reality television lies in creating controversial situations and topics from the so-called unscripted actions of its main characters. Apparently, CBS got more than they bargained for when they chose to air the offensive comments of one of their reality show contestants. Adam Jasinski, a public relations manager for the United Autism Foundation and housemate on CBS’s show Big Brother 9, made comments about his work with children he calls “retards.” Jasinski claimed that he would use part of his winnings from the show—half a million dollars if he won first place—to “open a hair salon for kids with special needs, so the retards can get it together and get their hair done.” His housemate and partner in the game, Sheila, reacted with disapproval to his use of the word “retards” to which Jasinski responded with, “Disabled kids... I can call them whatever I want, OK. I bust my ass to help these special-needs children!”

Since the episode aired, CBS has been defended its use of the clip by saying that Jasinski’s words are his own, and are offensive, but the negative reaction of the other housemate showed this and therefore the clip was alright to air. Meanwhile, the show has lost advertising from home-improvement store Lowe’s and been leveled with complaints and criticism from other autism groups. On top of the show’s problems, this has drawn unwanted attention to the organization for which Jasinski claims to have worked.

Normally, I would shrug off the rude or offensive comments of a person on reality television; after all, they are there for the money and attention, so if they say something inappropriate, they can always go back and claim they just said it to get airtime. The amount of news that has been generated by this shocked me, mostly because people generally do not pay attention to what is said by the contestants on reality shows. This comment has created a stir among people who would not normally be discussing disability issues. I was happily surprised that Lowe’s pulled its advertising over the comment. Perhaps Lowe’s warned CBS about cleaning up its act after past incidents and this was the last straw. Then again, perhaps Lowe’s has realized that airing such content is CBS’s choice and such content is offensive and hurtful to more than just the people on the show.

Jasinki’s comment reminds me of the common line used by people in defense of racist comments: “But some of my best friends are….” Jasinski’s claim that he works with “special-needs” children does not help him defend his statement, if anything, it highlights the fact that he should know better than to use such language. Even his use of the term “special-needs” after the word “retards” further emphasizes the impropriety of word. The website for the organization Jasinski claims to work with often uses the term “special children.” This phrasing reminds me of Simi Linton’s discussion of the word “special.” While I disagreed with Linton’s argument against the use of the word “special” when I applied to education, I agree with the argument here because the words “special children” does come across as an attempt to be too politically correct and patronizing. Considering the group is geared specifically towards autism, why choose the words “special children?” Does the organization mean to be more inclusive by saying “special children” rather than saying “autistic children?” Perhaps this odd phrasing is what has Jasinski so confused about what he should say.

In the end, the comments made by this contestant are hurtful, but they have also proven to be useful. One blogger who commented on the controversy noted an increase in the visitation to her site and was grateful that something positive is coming from this otherwise distasteful situation. By writing and speaking about such offensive comments, people are reinforcing the idea that such comments are just that: offensive. Until the people using such language are made aware of its offensive nature, they will continue to use it without thinking. CBS may be guilty of trying to gain from one man’s ignorance, but they are not alone. At least now, with the disapproving actions of Lowe’s and other advertisers, they are allowing themselves and their contestants to be made examples of for any other show that may be thinking of airing such material. In addition to that, perhaps the inquiry into the organization will reveal whether or not it is worth the money and time that people have donated to it. Perhaps there could be a silver lining to this discussion after all.