Will the real refugees stand up

I try to keep this column light and funny, but anyone holding a

newspaper right now can understand why I’m not feeling too blithe. So

with apologies for the change in tone, I’d like to talk about the

hurricane-related language issue that’s been making headlines,

namely, the use of the word “refugees.”

A number of media outlets have used this word to describe the

people displaced by Hurricane Katrina, that is, people seeking

refuge.

Others, including a number of black leaders, have found this word

deeply troubling and offensive. “Refugees,” they point out, tends to

be associated with foreigners -- people who fled their home country

to seek refuge in another. These leaders worry that this word

dehumanizes the flood victims and implicitly suggests they’re somehow

below the status of Americans.

Who’s right? Well, in the opinion of your humble local language

columnist, they both are.

And who’s wrong? I hate to say it because it’s such tired cop-out,

but in my opinion, it’s the media who are wrong. Media consumers

share the blame.

I worked in newsrooms for a long time, and I learned that the

process of deciding whether an event qualifies as a news story is

often alarmingly knee-jerk. Most of the time, very little thought

goes into it. The process runs on autopilot, based on criteria

weighed only subconsciously. Is the story attention-getting?

Incendiary? Hot? Will it emotionally engage readers? And, one of the

most important criteria governing the unspoken process: Will the

competition run this story, making us look like we’re out of the loop

if we don’t?

The result is a pack mentality. Sometimes this is a good thing.

Sometimes it’s a neutral thing. But when it comes to whipping up

divisive national furor over an intangible issue, it can be a bad

thing. That’s what happened with “refugee.”

None of my style guides contains an entry for this word, so we’re

left to rely on dictionary definitions. Webster’s New World College

Dictionary defines “refugee” as “a person who flees from home or

country to seek refuge elsewhere, as in a time of war or of political

or religious persecution.” That’s “home OR country.” So technically,

it’s OK. The word may carry lots of racial baggage, but it is not

expressly racist.

Yet when reporters used this word, people genuinely concerned for

hurricane victims felt the sting of a term that is technically

accurate but subtly and unintentionally demeaning. Already upset,

some of these people overreacted, attacking anyone who would use the

word despite their innocent intentions.

Political correctness is really just politeness. But it’s

politeness once removed. Someone named Robert might not like it if I

call him Bob. Perhaps this if for reasons I can’t understand. Maybe

he had a cruel stepfather named Bob. Either way, when he tells me “I

prefer to be called Robert,” I have no problem honoring his request.

But when such a request comes not directly from Robert but from some

larger, removed force, I feel bullied.

And that’s what all this hype is about. If you or I were in a

one-on-one conversation with a traumatized, sobbing storm victim who

said, “Please don’t call me refugee; that makes me sound like I’m not

an American or something,” we’d be happy to oblige.

Of course, the media can’t kowtow to every language request.

That’s why the New York Times is as right to continue using the word

as the Washington Post is to abandon it. They’re all just trying to

walk a fine line between sensitivity and independence.

But what the media can do is change their minds about whether

stories about single words -- stories that serve mainly to inflame

and rile -- should continue to rank so highly. After all, these types

of debates are about nothing more than poorly worded requests for

sensitivity.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

o7JuneTCN@aol.comf7.