Don Imus, aptly designated a “shock jock,” contributes significantly to the aural litter that increasingly jams our airways. There is little in his background that might recommend him to the masses as a thinker, an analyst or even an engaging conversational partner. His low-grade mumbling provides a kind of counterpoint to the abundant screaming heads who attempt to insinuate themselves into arenas of serious discourse. That and a gift for junior high-level locker-room banter are major distinguishing characteristics.

He sits apart because he is inexplicably popular, drawing millions of listeners daily, and because, just as inexplicably, he has been coddled by some of the country’s highest profile journalists and politicians. Were Imus a politician himself, many of those who count themselves among the mainstream world of white male journalism, and who are shameless in participating in his morning show and its strange brand of humor, would long ago have called for his head.

Consult Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott for what occurs when a politician allows the ignorant bigotry of a largely bygone age to sprout anew. At a 100th birthday party in 2002 for the now late Sen. Strom Thurmond, Lott remarked: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

Lott got into trouble not for some direct racial slur, but because his remarks indicated that he supported the ideas behind Thurmond’s failed candidacy during which the noted bigot had declared: “All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the negro into our homes, our schools, our churches.” His party platform announced: “We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race.”

Lott, who came under enormous pressure for his comments, eventually was forced down as Senate majority leader.

In time it may become apparent why, after decades of spewing hateful racist, homophobic and sexist prattle, Imus finally got caught up short when he referred to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos.”

What is important, however, is not “Why now?” but what it means that any major broadcast figure would traffick in such trash and that some elements of the culture would finally react with enough force to jeopardize his career.

In 1999, NCR ran a story quoting longtime Imus critic Philip Nobile, who said no one could escape “the racist, sexist and homophobic rhetoric” that was stock-in-trade for the shock jock and his crew.

Nobile at the time was campaigning to convince a priest and a rabbi, who referred to themselves as the “God Squad,” to stop appearing on Imus’ show, where they discussed religion.

In a letter to the local bishop at the time, Nobile said the Imus show “routinely smears racial minorities, homosexuals and the handicapped with vicious and vile remarks that should shock Catholic conscience.”

In a precursor to some of the defense offered by media biggies today, the priest, Msgr. Tom Hartman, told NCR at the time that Imus did a lot for disadvantaged kids and that “he’s doing a real good job with his soul” despite his “locker room, bad boy style.”

We’re not out to judge anyone’s soul, just the content of the material that’s broadcast.

In the case of the remarks about the Rutgers women, it is enough to say that the remarks were vile and demeaning to all women and people of color.

Whatever happens during upcoming meetings and what the Web site TomPaine.com characterized as the “Don Imus groveling and penitence tour,” several beneficial developments could result.

The first is that the incident has spotlighted the accomplishments and the humanity of the group of successful student athletes from Rutgers. This is a case where insults are rendered all the more absurd because of the young women’s accomplishments and their prospects for the future.

Second, the long history of Imus’ bigotry and lack of discretion has been bared. The lesson is that free speech misused can have a downside, and in this case a good example of how that downside works is being demonstrated. At presstime the marketplace was already beginning to distance itself from the Imus world. Corporations were pulling their ads. While principled discussion often fails, economic loss can make the point with the Imuses of the world.

Finally, but certainly not of least consequence, the culture has been forced once again to confront the fact that racism, while not as prevalent or public as during the era of Thurmond’s presidential bid, remains a disturbing reality in America. That division is a fundamental sin of the culture, a fault line that can lie dangerously hidden, its spasms unpredictable. No matter how unsettling the jolts that bring the reality of racism to the surface, the more we are forced to confront it and talk about it, the better the chance that eventually the breach can be healed.

National Catholic Reporter, April 20, 2007