Saturday, June 28, 1997

Southern Baptists' boycott of Disney probably won't be effective

By Tom Schaefer / Knight-Ridder Newspapers

Dressed in medieval robes, and waving his hands to the strains of Dukas' "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," Mickey Mouse frantically tries to rein in his newfound magical powers.

The scene, from the 1940 movie "Fantasia," leapt to mind when I thought of the Southern Baptist Convention's decision to boycott the Disney Co. and its related holdings.

Will a boycott, like Mickey's magical powers, force the Disney Co. into changing its policies? If Mickey's efforts are any guide, don't count on it. Having said that, let me make two points.

Point one: If you believe Disney should not provide health benefits to gay couples, if you think it shouldn't have "Gay Days" at its theme parks, if you oppose some of its violent and sexually explicit films, then you might want to join the boycott. That's the Baptists' contention.

Point two: A boycott probably won't have a major impact. That's reality.

Let's consider point two first.

Disney's holdings are far-reaching. Turn on ABC-TV to watch "Second Noah" or some Saturday morning cartoons, and you're supporting Disney. Pop in a videocassette of "Cinderella" or "Peter Pan" for your kids, and you're supporting Disney. Buy a Discover magazine, and you're supporting Disney.

In a world economy that is increasingly intertwined, and interdependent, selecting a company and boycotting its products can be as confusing as trying to understand a business conglomerate's flow chart.

Not that boycotting is a new tactic. People decide on their own every day to use the power of their purse or wallet to avoid a business or product. Last year, about 20 percent of adults surveyed said they regularly boycott a product when they don't like the company that makes it; 37 percent say they sometimes do.

On a larger scale, organized boycotts have sought to change a host of perceived problems and social injustices. There have been calls for boycotts of a biotechnology company to make it label its products clearly; of a soft drink maker to force it to stop doing business in a country with a repressive military regime; and of specific fish distributors to compel them to stop using fishing methods that snag dolphins along with tuna. And those are only a few drops in an ocean of organized boycotts.

The problem with organized boycotts, however, is that they aim at one target and sometimes hit another.

Last year, civil rights leaders threatened to boycott Texaco because some of its executives were caught on tape reportedly belittling blacks and talking about destroying documents related to a $520 million race-discrimination lawsuit.

But many Texaco dealers, including African-American station owners in urban areas, were upset that a boycott could drive them out of business. Who was really going to be punished, they argued? They had a point. Fortunately, the threatened boycott was dropped after the company's president deplored the remarks and offered a broad plan to diversify its work force and do more business with companies owned by minorities and women.

Still, questions of who endures the brunt of a boycott and how to tell whether a boycott makes any difference cannot be ignored.

If the boycott by Baptists, for example, is even partially successful, will employees at Disney's theme parks be unnecessarily punished because some of their jobs have to be cut? Will parents supporting the boycott throw away their children's favorite videos because they have a Disney label? Will young and old in Southern California who want to punish Disney have to stop rooting for the Anaheim Angels or Mighty Ducks sports teams because Disney owns them? And if they do any or all of the above, will it make any difference to Disney?

But there's another side to this issue. There are movies and television shows, by Disney and others, that advance standards many people completely reject.

Yes, these folks have on/off switches on their television sets, and, yes, no one is forcing them to watch them. But do they have no say in what should be the limits of decency in our society? Can they not protest what they think is obscene without being branded as right-wing fanatics who only want to ban books, shut down movie theaters and control the airwaves? When 12-year-olds spew four-letter words and 14-year-olds are unmarried mothers and fathers, isn't there a legitimate argument for linking the debasing of morals by the media with the decline of public and private morality?

Those are the problems Baptists are decrying. Their protests, however, are often treated as the puritanical ravings of people who only want to control everyone else's fun. And that criticism simply misses the point of what Baptists are about.

In "Fantasia," the swirling waters unleashed by Mickey's powers drag him down - until the sorcerer arrives and calms the troubled scene.

Perhaps our society, with its lowering of standards and lack of commitment to what is good and right and true, also will have to wait - until a Higher Power arrives to calm our troubled waters and bring us peace.

(Tom Schaefer writes about religion and ethics for the Wichita (Kan.) Eagle. Write to him at the Wichita Eagle, P.O. Box 820, Wichita, KS 67201.)

(c) 1997, The Wichita Eagle (Wichita, Kan.).

Visit the Eagle on the World Wide Web at http://www.wichitaeagle.com/

Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services.