THE FACTS
Happy Days is an American sitcom. It originally aired from 1974 to 1984, but is set in the 1950s. It centres on the middle-class Cunningham family, often focusing on teenaged son Richie and his friends. The episode entitled “All the Way” is the very first episode of the entire series. CHCH-DT aired the episode on August 22, 2022 at 5:30 pm.
The plot involves Richie planning for and then going on a date with his classmate Mary Lou Milligan. At the beginning of the episode, Richie’s friend Potsie encourages Richie to ask Mary Lou out. Potsie informs Richie that “she’s kind of got a reputation”, “even once dated a sailor” and prefers high school seniors. Potsie presents Richie with a novel and encourages Richie to read “the good parts” to Mary Lou, meaning the parts featuring seduction.
Once Richie has arranged his date with Mary Lou, Postie gives him some instructions on how to act. Potsie tells Richie, “when she twists her hair, that’s a sign she wants to French kiss”, “she loves it when you blow in her ear”, and that Richie should put his arm around her leaving his strongest hand free. Potsie then pulls out a brassiere with hooks and urges Richie to practise unhooking it. Richie refuses, telling Potsie, “I like it to be romantic. I’m just going to do it my way, all right?” Richie is reluctant to go on his date, but musters up the courage after Potsie accuses him of being chicken. When his other friend, Ralph, asks Richie where he is going, Richie replies, “All the way”.
Richie has arranged to meet Mary Lou at the house where she is babysitting some neighbourhood children. They sit on the couch together and Richie awkwardly tries to follow the advice Potsie gave him about reading passages from the novel, blowing on Mary Lou’s ear, and putting his arm around her. When Richie tries to undo Mary Lou’s bra through her sweater, Mary Lou gets up and says, “What are you doing back there? I don’t do things like that.” Mary Lou proposes that they do something else, so Richie, relieved, teaches her how to play chess with a set lying in the living room.
The next day, while playing baseball, Richie’s friends question him about how far he got with Mary Lou. Richie is evasive in his answers, but then Mary Lou shows up, greeting Richie enthusiastically with the comment, “It was fun the other night. Let’s do it again real soon.” Once she leaves, his friends ask, “Did you, Richie?” implying sex, to which Richie simply responds, “You kidding?”
Later at home, Richie explains to his father that he feels guilty for lying to his friends by letting them believe that he had sex with Mary Lou. His father tells him he should set the record straight with his friends and then he will feel better.
The next scene shows Richie telling Mary Lou that he has told his friends the truth about their date. They have the following exchange:
Richie: So I told all the guys I lied. Except Fonzie. And I’ll tell him today.
Mary Lou: That’s funny.
Richie: Funny? What’s funny?
Mary Lou: The boys are always saying I did things with them. And you said we didn’t.
Richie: But we didn’t. You mean, you didn’t with the other guys either?
Mary Lou: Just kissing. I like to kiss.
Richie: And you don’t mind what everybody says about you?
Mary Lou: Who listens?
Richie: Potsie listens.
Mary Lou: Well, I mean, what can you do? The gym teacher, he told me built girls always get talked about. He tried to grab my sweater too.
Richie: Mr. Brockington?
Mary Lou: Yeah. Good old Mister B. Anyway, thank you for what you did.
Mary Lou leaves and Richie’s friend Fonzie arrives on his motorcycle. Richie then tells Fonzie the truth about his encounter with Mary Lou. Fonzie expresses disappointment, saying “seeing how you said you did, I figured you did and she did, so I got a date with her myself this afternoon”. Fonzie complains that he is now going to waste a day to get nothing more than a kiss.
After Fonzie leaves, Potsie comes over to Richie, offering to set him up with another girl. Richie declines and they have the following conversation:
Richie: But can I ask you a question?
Potsie: Go ahead.
Richie: Can you fall in love with a girl who has a reputation?
Potsie: Write this down, Rich. There’s two kind of girls. Those you marry and those that got a reputation.
Richie: What about the ones who give hickeys?
Potsie: Oh well, they’re okay if, uh, uh, if you marry them before they get reputations. Oh say, how many questions did you miss on the history test, huh?
Richie: Oh, I know I missed that one on Alaska. I forgot they’re thinking about making it a state now.
Potsie: Ah, it’ll never happen.
Richie: Sure it will. Do you realize someday an Eskimo could become president?
Potsie: Yeah, terrific. At the World Series, he could throw out the first snowball.
(A fuller transcript of relevant scenes can be found in Appendix A.)
The CBSC received a complaint about this episode on August 23. The viewer complained that the episode aired during after school hours when “impressionable children, preteens, and teens are the target audience.” She characterized the episode as “extremely sexist and demeaning to women. It objectified women as sexual objects. Even worse, it flippantly referred to the sexual assault against a minor female, by a teacher no less, as expected and acceptable!” She also noted “extremely racist remarks against Indigenous communities” at the end of the episode. She wrote that the content might have been acceptable in the past, but is not acceptable by today’s standards. She also noted that the station did not air an advisory at the beginning of the broadcast as they often do on vintage programs warning of such material. The viewer argued that media should not promote the notion that sexual assault is okay and that “boys will be boys”, nor should it “continue the stigmatization and marginalization of our Indigenous peoples.”
CHCH-DT responded on September 28. The broadcaster thanked the viewer for her feedback and further wrote,
CHCH understands that series, such as the retro programming, may contain content that is a reflection of the time it was produced. While we cannot defend the producer’s original intention of this episode of Happy Days, after reviewing, we can accept the possibility that the producer may have included inappropriate portrayals and situations. We apologize that the content in this particular episode was offensive to you.
Given the nature of the content in this particular episode, we will air a Viewer’s Discretion Statement prior to any future airings.
CHCH also stated that it has created a Programming Advisory Committee to review any potentially questionable content.
The complainant filed her Ruling Request on September 28. She maintained that the episode should not be aired at all because it normalizes sexual assault of minors by teachers and that “being a retro show does not absolve your responsibility. [...] It was wrong then and it is wrong now.” She pointed out that “standards of acceptable behavior on television have evolved considerably over the years. [...] Things that were quite common then should be forbidden now.” She also suggested that CHCH-DT generally takes a misogynistic point of view, because it puts discretion advisories on content with racial stereotypes, but not with sexist ones. (The full text of all correspondence can be found in Appendix B.)
THE DECISION
The English-Language Panel examined the complaint under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics, Equitable Portrayal Code and Violence Code:
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 2 – Human Rights
Recognizing that every person has the right to full and equal recognition and to enjoy certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 3 – Sex-Role Stereotyping
Recognizing that stereotyping images can and do have a negative effect, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to exhibit, to the best of their ability, a conscious sensitivity to the problems related to sex-role stereotyping, by refraining from exploitation and by the reflection of the intellectual and emotional equality of both sexes in programming. Broadcasters shall refer to the Sex-Role Portrayal Code for Television and Radio Programming [since March 17, 2008, replaced by the Equitable Portrayal Code] for more detailed provisions in this area.
CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 2 – Human Rights
Recognizing that every person has the right to the full enjoyment of certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 4 – Stereotyping
Recognizing that stereotyping is a form of generalization that is frequently simplistic, belittling, hurtful or prejudicial, while being unreflective of the complexity of the group being stereotyped, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no unduly negative stereotypical material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 5 – Stigmatization and Victimization
Recognizing that members of certain of the following identifiable groups face particular portrayal issues, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming does not stigmatize or victimize individuals or groups on the basis of their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 8 – Exploitation
CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 9 – Language and Terminology
Broadcasters shall be sensitive to, and avoid, the usage of derogatory or inappropriate language or terminology in references to individuals or groups based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.
CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, Clause 10 – Contextual Considerations
Broadcasts may fairly include material that would otherwise appear to breach one of the foregoing provisions in the following contextual circumstances:
CAB Violence Code, Article 7 – Violence Against Women
The Panel Adjudicators read all of the correspondence and viewed a recording of the challenged broadcast. The Panel concludes that this episode of Happy Days did not breach any of the aforementioned code provisions.
The questions presented to the Panel with regards to the representation of women were:
1. Did this episode contain any abusive or unduly discriminatory material against women, contrary to the Human Rights clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics or Equitable Portrayal Code?
2. Did this episode contain any negative stereotypes based on sex or gender, contrary to the Sex-Role Stereotyping clause of the CAB Code of Ethics or the Stereotyping clause of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code?
3. Did this episode exploit women, contrary to the Exploitation clause of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code?
4. Did the episode sanction, promote or glamorize any aspect of violence against women?
5. If the episode does contain problematic content, does the Contextual Considerations clause of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code prevent it from being a breach?
The episode of Happy Days at issue was originally aired in 1974 which was 48 years ago. At that time, the program was considered comedic content for the entire family. CHCH-DT has referred to this content as “retro programming” but it is also referred to as “classic TV” or “legacy content” by other broadcasters. This type of content is widely available across the Canadian broadcasting system both by conventional and discretionary television service providers.
The various CAB codes that apply in the circumstances do not distinguish between “classic TV” episodes or programming content that is new or much newer. The codes apply in the same manner regardless of the age of the content.
With regards to content that may be contrary to the Human Rights clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics or Equitable Portrayal Code, previous CBSC decisions have explained that the content must make extremely negative generalizations about an entire identifiable group to constitute “abusive or unduly discriminatory” material. Similarly, any stereotypes must reach the level of “unduly negative” in order to violate the clauses relating to Stereotyping.
On the matter of Exploitation, programs can have plotlines that feature women in skimpy clothing and alluring postures1 and where men are depicted as admiring and commenting on women’s body parts. In addition, a chauvinistic character is acceptable within the context of some fictional programming, particularly if the character’s behaviour is depicted as negative.
Plotlines that include violence against women are not necessarily condoning such violence; however, making light of violence against women for humour may breach the CAB Violence Code.
In CITY-TV re Beavis and Butt-head (CBSC Decision 93/94-0074, June 22, 1994), the CBSC examined a scene in which Beavis, a character of this adult cartoon, used the term “slut” to describe a female fictional character on the drama program Beverly Hills, 90210. The question to be determined was whether the use of the term “slut” constituted abusive or discriminatory comment based on gender. The Panel determined, on the basis of several considerations, including the context, that this usage did not breach the CAB code provisions regarding Human Rights or Exploitation:
Tone and context can be extremely material in any appreciation of comments made on air. A word or phrase which may be insulting or degrading when used in isolation may, when heard or read in context, may be interpreted otherwise. […] The question here is only whether their use of the term “slut” is negative or degrading regarding the role of women or an abusive or discriminatory comment based on sex.
The Regional Council did not consider that this short (47 seconds) segment of the Beavis and Butt-head show had anything to do with insulting women. It was a comment about a specific person in a specific program. The word “slut” was not generically applied to women or even to women in the particular program. It did not incite hatred against any group or even against any individual person.
The matter of chauvinistic comments by a character who was also involved in inappropriate behaviour toward women was considered in CFMT-TV re an episode of The Simpsons (CBSC Decision 94/95-0082, August 18, 1995). Because of the unattractive and unsupportive way in which the creators of the show dealt with the character, his presence and actions were not seen to be in violation of the code:
[…] Moe, the bartender, is portrayed as a chauvinist, a particularly uncouth chauvinist at that. […M]uch of the behaviour on the program could be characterized as unworthy of emulation. The program does not suggest that this dialogue is suitable. It does not, on that account, amount to exploitation. [...] [T]he tongue-in-cheek approach makes something of a mockery of Moe’s behaviour. No approval is implied.
Overall, the Council concluded, the continued exaggeration of Moe’s inappropriate behaviour emphasizes the unacceptable nature of such behaviour.
In CTV re Complex of Fear (CBSC Decision 94/95-0022, August 18, 1995), the CBSC examined a movie of the week which told the true story of a series of rapes in an apartment building. The CBSC found that the telling of the story did not glamorize violence against women:
[T]he film itself did not depict gratuitous, or unnecessary, violence against women. In other words, the Council affirmed that a film about rape does not necessarily condone rape.
A complaint about bare-breasted women shown in a late-night movie led the CBSC to make the following observations in CKX-TV re National Lampoon’s Animal House (CBSC Decision 96/97-0104, December 16, 1997):
It is essential to remember that the principal goal of the Sex-Role Portrayal Code relates to the equality of the sexes and not to issues of sexual behaviour which do not go to equality or exploitation, which is itself a form of inequality.
While the portrayal of the women in the film is not overly flattering, it cannot either be said that the portrayal of the men is any better or advantages them in any way. All in all, the presentation of almost every one of this group of young college people is as unflattering as one might expect from a film emphasizing the frivolous, narcissistic, often gross, occasionally disgusting portrait of college fraternity life which can best be characterised as high farce. The question of portrayal inequality does not come into play.
In TSN re an episode of WWE (CBSC Decision 02/03-1656, May 11, 2004), a viewer was concerned about the sports entertainment wrestling program’s depiction of women. The episode in question contained a scene in which a wrestler coerced one of the “WWE Girls” to dance for him and his friends, and a scene in which manager Eric Bishoff tried to seduce a woman, calling her the “big breasted beauty”, and kissed her against her will. The Panel did not find a breach of either Article 7 of the CAB Violence Code or Article 4 of the CAB Sex-Role Portrayal Code for the following reasons:
The Panel finds no comfort in the overall presentation or treatment of women in the wrestling program context. The forced dance scene with Stacy and the aggressive treatment of Linda by Eric Bishoff are examples of the offhand acceptance of women in a position of diminished power relative to the dominators, who, at least, are presented as mindless or gawking aggressors. Since, among other things, the two scenes taper away into non-events from their initial plot-setting moments, there is actually no dramatic conclusion to, or even development of, either scene, and, accordingly, nothing that carries them to the level of breach […].
Over 200 complaints were made in relation to Société Radio-Canada’s program Bye Bye 2008, some of which identified a sketch about hockey player Patrick Roy. The viewers were of the opinion that the sketch made light of violence against women. Although the CBSC does not review complaints made in relation to programming offered by the public broadcaster, the CRTC asked the CBSC to examine these complaints. Patrick Roy had been involved in violent altercations in the past and, at one time, had been arrested in connection with a domestic violence investigation (those charges were later dismissed). Both Patrick and his son Jonathan had made headlines during the year when Jonathan had beat up the goalie of an opposing junior hockey team. There was speculation that Patrick had encouraged his son to do this. The sketch in question parodied the violent nature of the male members of the Roy family. It began with Patrick coming in the front door of his house by knocking it down, rather than opening it. He approached his wife to give her a hug, but she flinched as soon as he raised his arm as if she anticipated being hit. Jonathan then entered the room. Patrick made a hand gesture and Jonathan, in full hockey gear, jumped on his mother, knocking her down and punching her. The mother got up from the floor with a black eye, but carried on in a cheerful manner, as though little out of the ordinary had occurred. The CBSC Panel concluded that satirizing certain traits of the Roy family was not problematic, but the emphasis on the violence against the mother breached Article 7 of the CAB Violence Code:
Where the Panel does have a problem, though, is in what it considers the excessive portrayal of the mother as victim. The rule in the CAB Violence Code is not only that broadcasters are prohibited from airing programming which sanctions, promotes or glamorizes violence against women, but also that women are not to be depicted as victims of violence unless the violence is integral to the story being told.
[…]
[...] There was simply no creative need for the Roy men to beat the mother up and to leave the impression that this element was a constant in their family life. The show’s creators may have viewed these actions as a satirical depiction of the Roy men’s violent tendencies, but, in the view of the Panel, they went too far. They exaggerated the reality at the level of the victim, as much or more than at the level of the perpetrators.
A 30-second promotional spot for the comedy special The Roast of Joan Rivers with the tag line “No one wants to see an old lady get taken down… Until now” was found to breach Articles 7 and 8 of the CAB Violence Code because it used elderly women for its humour in The Comedy Network re a promotional spot for The Roast of Joan Rivers (CBSC Decision 09/10-0259, October 5, 2010). The visual images consisted of a series of short scenes in which elderly women were punched, kicked or tackled, in each instance by men. A viewer objected to the images of old women being physically assaulted without provocation. The Panel stated:
This was a promotion reflecting an imbalance of power between young men and old ladies. […] It sanctioned, promoted or glamorized violence against persons based on both their age and their gender.
Both are individually prohibited by the CAB Violence Code and they are the more so collectively proscribed. The broadcaster had to find a different way to promote the Joan Rivers Roast, one that did not involve men physically beating up elderly ladies. It was bad enough that the elderly women were beaten up, but having it done in each of the seven instances on a gender basis, that is to say, by men made the matter worse. Moreover, the extent to which it was out of place is reflected in the fact that there was no violent content whatsoever in the program being promoted.
In CITY-DT re The Long Weekend (CBSC Decision 13/14-0046, February 5, 2014), the CBSC Panel examined a comedy film, the plot of which followed two brothers in their 20s as they spent a weekend trying to find women with whom to have sex. The film featured numerous scenes of sexual activity, as well as frequent discussions about sex and comments about women and their appearances. One brother was a superficial playboy, while the other was more serious and wanted a committed relationship. The serious brother repeatedly expressed disapproval of the playboy brother’s lifestyle and outlook on women, and eventually found a respectable woman to date. The viewer complained that this content was sexist, misogynist and “sex-ploitation” because it presented women purely as sex objects and willing to participate in any type of sexual behaviour. The Panel concluded that the film did not breach any provisions of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code:
The Panel considers that the portrayal of females in this film was to be expected of this genre of vulgar, sexually-focused comedy. Despite the complainant’s contentions to the contrary, the women involved in the sexual acts were consenting adults and they merely represented some, but not all, women. Their characters were exaggerated as were most of the characters and scenarios depicted in the film.
The Panel also observes that many of the male characters did not come off much better. Cooper, in particular, is portrayed as unsuccessful, immature and superficial. [...]
In contrast, and perhaps most importantly, Ed is clearly presented as the “hero” of the movie and he is the one who continually demonstrates respect for women and disdain for Cooper’s playboy lifestyle.
The issue of the appropriateness of “classic TV” or “retro programming” which contains content that may no longer be suitable in this day and age is not new to the Canadian broadcasting system. As noted earlier, legacy content is widely available. Broadcasters sometimes have a hard choice to make: continue to make some of this beloved content available and risk offending or facing complaints such as racial or gender stereotypes, or remove the content or take steps to provide context such as adding disclaimers to highlight content that may cause offence or may not be suitable for all family members. Sometimes the removal of such content has generated negative public reaction since it is seen as a form of censorship.
Moreover, it is possible that this legacy content could breach one or more broadcast codes even with the Contextual Considerations provision, and even in circumstances where the broadcaster provided a disclaimer. It is important to note that a disclaimer alone will not necessarily render this retro programming compliant with the applicable codes.
Broadcasters are aware that when scheduling this type of content, the programs need a rating and classification and must adhere to the applicable broadcast standards. Every broadcaster has its own internal processes with regards to scheduling programming, but they are aware of their obligations in this regard. And as stated earlier, the standards used for this content are the same as for new programming.
The CBSC has stated many times that it is not a censor board. Therefore, as explained above, to breach the applicable codes the content must reach the level of “abusive or unduly discriminatory” or “unduly negative” material about an entire identifiable group before a breach will be found.
The Happy Days episode in question is an interesting case in point. This television series was created in the ʼ70s, but was an idealized view of the ʼ50s through the lens of teenage boys of that era. The program represents a moment in time and is certainly a sign of those times and now likely skews to an older demographic rewatching this program from their past. Even though there is nostalgia attached to this content, there is no doubt that some components of the program may not be pleasant for some viewers.
It is important to note that, although this episode contains what can be considered sexist content, Richie was trying throughout to fight the peer pressure of seducing Mary Lou and to do the right thing. There was a complexity to the storyline even with the times being covered. Evidence of this is when Richie admits to having lied regarding just how far he got with Mary Lou. Richie admits the truth after getting advice from his father that honesty is the best policy. In addition, Mary Lou herself sets some clear boundaries in this episode when she informs Richie that she does not do those things people gossip about and that she simply likes to kiss.
Regarding the content that could be considered sexist, the Panel does not consider that it was “abusive or unduly discriminatory” or “unduly negative” material. There is no doubt that viewed with today’s lens there are moments that could make viewers feel uncomfortable, but these juvenile comments and jokes were, as stated earlier, a sign of the times and did not reach a level of a breach under the various code clauses detailed above.
There was one comment that caused particular concern to the complainant, which was the reference to the high school gym teacher by Mary Lou where she stated that he said that “built girls always get talked about. He tried to grab my sweater too.” The Panel agrees that this type of content can make certain viewers feel uncomfortable, and it is highly unlikely that it would be produced in today’s environment. However, when taken in the context of the entire episode, although the comment can be considered offensive, it has not reached the level of a breach given Clause 10 (Contextual Considerations) of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code.
The Panel wishes to commend the broadcaster for undertaking to “air a Viewer’s Discretion Statement prior to any future airings” of this episode. In addition, the broadcaster has committed to improve its review process by creating “a schedule that is an enjoyable viewing experience for all.” In this regard, the broadcaster has “created a Programming Advisory Committee that will widen the scope for reviewing any content that may be deemed questionable for air.”
The questions presented to the Panel with regards to the comments about “Eskimos” were:
6. Did the use of the term “Eskimos” in and of itself constitute abusive or unduly discriminatory comment contrary to the Human Rights clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code?
7. Did the use of the term “Eskimos” in and of itself breach subsection (b) of the Language and Terminology article of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code?
8. Did the comments about this Indigenous group(s) constitute abusive or unduly discriminatory comment contrary to the Human Rights clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code?
9. Did the comments about this Indigenous group(s) constitute unduly negative stereotypical material contrary to the Stereotyping clause of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code?
10. Did the comments about the Indigenous group(s) inappropriately stigmatize that group, contrary to the Stigmatization clause of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code?
11. If the episode does contain problematic content regarding an Indigenous group, does the Contextual Considerations clause of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code mean the content has not achieved a level of breach?
At the end of this episode, there is an exchange between Richie and Potsie that concerned the complainant. It involves the use of the term “Eskimo” and a joke about such a person throwing a snowball at the World Series should they become President of the United States. Accordingly, the use of the term was done in the context of the United States and the upcoming inclusion in the 1950s of Alaska as a state. The complainant believed the use of this term was racist and served to continue the stigmatization and marginalization of Indigenous peoples.
The term “Eskimo” was commonly used during the period this episode was produced and certainly in the time frame of this series, which covers the ʼ50s. According to the Wikipedia.org entry for “Eskimo”2, the term has been used by outsiders to refer to the Inuit (including the Alaska Native Inupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit and the Canadian Inuit) and the Yupik (or Yuit) of eastern Siberia and Alaska. Many Inuit and others consider the term “Eskimo” to be “unacceptable and even pejorative”. Governments in Canada and the United States have moved to cease using the term, but its use has not been entirely eliminated since in some places it is written into official documents and therefore is the legal terminology. For example, the Canadian Football League (CFL) team in Edmonton was called the “Eskimos” until 2020 and its new name of the “Elks” was announced only in June of 2021.
The Wikipedia entry acknowledges that in Canada “Eskimo” is “a racially charged term” with “Inuit” or “Inuinnaq” the preferred terms. In the United States, however, the term “Eskimo” is still in use (but is decreasing in prevalence) in part because the proposed alternative “Alaska Native” has specific political implications under a land claims settlement. Most Alaska Natives do not accept the term “Inuit” to refer to themselves.
The etymology of the term “Eskimo” is disputed. Suggested meanings of the term include a “person who laces a snowshoe”, “people who speak a different language” and “eaters of raw meat”.
In 1977, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) voted to replace “Eskimo” with “Inuit” as a designation for all circumpolar Indigenous peoples, but not all Yupik people accept this designation.
The Canadian Encyclopedia entry for “Eskimo”3 states that the term is offensive and derogatory in Canada. It presents a similar summary to that of Wikipedia on the etymology of the term and the ICC 1977 decision.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language4 summarizes the term as being “criticized as an offensive term” due to its supposed etymology as meaning “eaters of raw meat”, though there are other hypotheses about its meaning relating to lacing snowshoes. The entry explains that “Inuit” is more specific to peoples in Canada and Greenland, and because the Yupik in Alaska do not use “Inuit”, the word “Eskimo” remains in more common usage there than in Canada.
The use of various terms in relation to various identifiable groups has been the subject of many CBSC decisions. The CBSC has found terms such as “wogs” and “flip-flops” in reference to Somalis5, “wop” and “guinea”6 in reference to Italians and “chinaman” in reference to Chinese people problematic. However, the CBSC considered that the term “gwai lo”7 in reference to white people and “Gypsy” in reference to Roma people did not breach the codes.
The CBSC determined that the use of the term “squaw” in reference to Indigenous women in a classic country song violated the codes, as did the negative stereotypical depiction of Indigenous women in the song.
Finally, the CBSC has also determined that some humour that lightly mocks identifiable groups is acceptable but comments that make extremely negative generalizations about the entire group represent a breach.
The decision that dealt with the word “squaw” was SiriusXM re the song “Squaws Along the Yukon” by Hank Thompson on the channel Willie’s Roadhouse (CBSC Decision 15/16-1757, February 21, 2018). The Panel considered a 1958 song on a classic country satellite radio channel that included lyrics such as “There’s a salmon coloured girl who sets my heart a whirl”, “she makes her underwear from the hides of grizzly bear” and “the squaws along the Yukon are good enough for me”. The complainant characterized the song as “offensive racist sexist content”. SiriusXM argued that the context of the song had to be taken into consideration: ”Such older recordings may at times reflect the insensitivity and ignorance of past eras”. The Panel concluded that both the use of the term “squaw” and some of the other elements of the song breached Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics, and Clauses 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code:
The Panel considers that the word “squaw” has for several decades had very negative connotations when used to describe Indigenous women. It embodies elements of both racial and sexual slurs. The Panel considers that these negative connotations existed when the song was initially published. The Panel recognizes, however, that historically the word may have been in relatively common usage among certain groups in society.
Language evolves over time. While this word was perhaps once widely used, it is no longer generally acceptable. The Panel notes as evidence the many efforts to have the word removed from place names across the United States, multiple dictionary definitions and the adjudicators’ experiences. The Panel finds unequivocally that the word on its face is not acceptable for broadcast in Canada absent one of the considerations set out in Clause 10 of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code.
[…]
In this case, while the Panel does not believe the intent of the song was necessarily to be offensive, it considers that through a modern lens there are numerous problematic elements. In addition to the prominent use of the word “squaw”, references to a “salmon colored girl” and making underwear from the hides of grizzly bears, the nonsense language “Ooga ooga mooshka”, the line “The squaws along the Yukon are good enough for me”, and the paternalistic tone expressed throughout as exemplified by the line “Then I take her hand in mine and set her on my knee” combine to render the song all the more problematic. Taken together, the noted elements of the song demean and belittle Indigenous women.
A parody of the television commercials for Lakota arthritis pain relief natural products was considered in CKTF-FM re a parody on Les Grandes Gueules (CBSC Decision 04/05-0763, July 19, 2005). The parody was a mock interview with the “Lakota Indian” where the host asked questions about the products to which the “Lakota Indian” gave humorous answers. There were also references to the Lakota Indian’s [translations] “fat, barefoot wife”, that he was a “welfare bum with feathers” and that he was going to “eat hot owl”. A listener found this content offensive. The CBSC Panel determined that the sketch was lightly mocking, but not abusive or unduly discriminatory:
That commercial has chosen to play up the association of the medicinal compound with the Lakota tribe and with nature. The Panel notes that the expression “hot owl” is a harmless link to the communion with nature represented by the entire Lakota approach to the advertised product. As to the expressions “fat barefoot wife” and “welfare bum with feathers”, the Panel readily concedes the rather tasteless choice of a satirical tool but it concludes that the parody only carries the theme established by the commercial itself to a logical, or perhaps ridiculous, extreme. While lightly stereotypical, in the view of the Panel, the expressions “fat barefoot wife” and “welfare bum with feathers” evoke more of the tickling, than the bludgeoning, approach.
The CBSC arrived at a different conclusion in CKOI-FM re a segment by Cathy Gauthier on Fun radio (CBSC Decision 04/05-1729, September 9, 2005). In a comedienne’s segment about “things which she was a bit ashamed to admit”, she confessed, among other things, that she was not able to tell Asian people apart, such as Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Thais. She also suggested that Asian people were small in stature because [translations] “thirteen of them live in a studio apartment” and “four of them have to go out on the balcony just so they can open the fridge door”. A majority of the Panel concluded that the remarks violated Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics:
The majority understands that Cathy Gauthier may have intended to tickle and not to bludgeon but they do not consider that intention to be material. What matters, after all, is the way the comments are received by members of the audience. […]
The humour in the routine was not, in the view of the Panel majority, trivial or harmless. Unduly discriminatory comments may take many forms. These include derision, stereotyping and mockery, which were all present.
As mentioned above, the CRTC asked the CBSC to examine complaints that it had received regarding Société Radio-Canada’s New Year’s Eve variety program in SRC re Bye Bye 2008 (CBSC Decision 08/09-0620+, March 17, 2009). One of the main issues raised by the complainants was the representation of different racial, ethnic and national groups. Canadian First Nations peoples were one group mentioned during the program in the course of a comedian’s monologues. He was talking about gasoline prices and said that they were not high enough. The Panel concluded that the single reference to the First Nations problem of gas sniffing was not abusive:
The Panel acknowledges the unflattering generalization but does not find that, as an isolated comment, it rises to the level of abusive or unduly discriminatory comment, necessary to trigger the sanction of Clause 2, or to the level of unduly negative stereotypical material or comment, necessary to trigger the sanction of Clause 4. […] It also considers that the use of the term “Indians” in referring to the Canadian First Nations peoples is worth avoiding, even in a humorous context, although not in breach of the Code.
In CIDC-FM re a parody of the carol “Twelve Days of Christmas” (CBSC Decision 10/11-0665, July 12, 2011) the CBSC Panel considered whether a parody song contained discriminatory content against Italians. The song was entitled “12 Days of a Guido Christmas” and listed gifts that would be given to a stereotypical North American Italian such as hair gel, Sinatra CDs, pinky rings, fresh cannolis and tight-fitting t-shirts. Although the word “guido” was in the title of the song, it was actually the word “guinea” that appeared in the lyrics. The Panel concluded that the overall song contained Italian stereotypes, but these were not unduly negative. The presence of the word “guinea” in the song, however, violated the Human Rights Clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code:
The Panel finds nothing redemptive in the matter at hand regarding the utterly gratuitous use of the word “guinea”. […]
Insofar as the context is concerned, the Panel finds no justification for the use of the word “guinea”. […] The word is derogatory, inappropriate, abusive and unacceptable [...].
[…]
The majority of the Panel is not oblivious to the fact that stereotyping frequently carries a “Don’t you find this funny?” underlying tone. There may even be said to be a gently mocking aspect to descriptions of those being stereotyped. […T]he comments made in each of the verses were undoubtedly meant to characterize Italian habits and practices, even on a somewhat tongue-in-cheek basis, but it does not consider that the comments were negative, much less unduly negative.
In CFXL-FM re a comment made on Tom Kent (CBSC Decision 11/12-1195, July 18, 2012), a joke aired on an American syndicated program that referenced “that famous chinaman Sum Dum Guy” was determined to be pejorative and breached the Language and Terminology clause of the Equitable Portrayal Code but it did not breach the Human Rights clauses for the following reasons:
In this case, there were no comments made that were actually about Chinese people. […]
Although the word was used in this instance in a seemingly light-hearted manner, the Panel notes that most modern English-language dictionaries denote the word as offensive and pejorative. […] While the term may not be as harsh as some other racist terms that could be used to refer to Chinese people or other racial/ethnic/national groups and Kent’s use of it was not particularly malicious, it is nevertheless insensitive and inappropriate. Given “chinamans”’s historical evolution to become a pejorative term, the Prairie Panel considers it sufficiently derogatory as to be unacceptable on Canadian airwaves […].
A monologue by the host Ezra Levant commenting on the arrests of a group of individuals who were of “Gypsy” ethnicity and were allegedly involved in a theft ring was found to breach the Human Rights Clause of the CAB Code of Ethics in Sun News Network re The Source (Theft Ring) (CBSC Decision 12/13-0069+, September 9, 2013). Levant insisted that theft and criminality were part of Gypsy culture and that they now come to Canada to “gyp us”. He also repeatedly called them “Gypsies” and stated that they are not a real ethnic group. Although the Panel found that the negative generalizations about this group breached the Human Rights Clause, the CBSC’s research revealed that the mere use of the word “Gypsy” and “gypped” were not inherently pejorative and, therefore, their use did not violate Clause 9(b) of the Equitable Portrayal Code.
Quebec City radio host Jeff Fillion was the subject of a complaint regarding his comments about a Société Radio-Canada investigative report regarding allegations of sexual assault committed against Indigenous women by police officers in remote communities in CHOI-FM re Fillion (CBSC Decision 16/17-0647, July 4, 2018). Following an investigation, no charges were laid against the police officers. The host stated that he had not believed the allegations from the beginning because, according to a police officer he had spoken to, the young handsome police officers with attractive wives and young families would not be tempted by the [translation] “messed up” Indigenous women in remote communities who have rotten teeth, hepatitis and substance abuse problems. Fillion also stated that he was not talking about all Indigenous people in general but rather only the “problem cases” who tend to have dealings with the police. The Panel concluded that the comments constituted negative generalizations about Indigenous women and was in breach of Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics, as well as Clauses 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Equitable Portrayal Code:
In the Adjudicating Panel’s view, Fillion’s comments surpassed the limits established under the code provisions in question. […]
In its assessment of Fillion’s comments, the Panel finds that they involved generalizations of “Aboriginals” as well of “Aboriginal” women. [...] In addition, Fillion reiterated [...] that they [the young male police officers] would never be tempted to cheat on their spouses with [translation] “someone who undoubtedly has problems like hepatitis whatever, all sorts of problems, rotten teeth, uhh, the girls, look” and for all intents and purposes these “Aboriginal” women are “messed up”. This type of assertion constitutes comments which are abusive, unduly discriminatory, unduly negative stereotyping, and stigmatize and degrade “Aboriginal” women.
[…H]is attack on Radio-Canada’s report and the difficult environment in remote regions was not the main thread of the discussion. Rather, it was the abusive and unduly discriminatory comments and stereotypes that stigmatized and degraded “Aboriginal” women that stood out during the dialogue.
[…] He could have explicitly denounced sexual assault and declared that he was not intending to stereotype or degrade “Aboriginal” women or to minimize acts of violence or aggression towards women. […T]he host did not apologize for his comments and the clarifications made were not done in a clear and unequivocal manner.
As detailed earlier, the complainant was of the view that although this episode of Happy Days may have been acceptable in the 1970s, “Standards of acceptable behavior have evolved considerably over the years. […] Things that were quite common then should be forbidden now.”
The CBSC has in the past had to consider how the Contextual Considerations Clause under the Equitable Portrayal Code should apply in relation to historical works. The first such instance involved a song from 1985 that contained the word “faggot”, namely, CHOZ-FM re the song “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits (CBSC Decision 09/10-0818, October 14, 2010). The CBSC Panel dealt with the unedited version of the song that contained the lines “The little faggot with the earring and make-up/Yeah, buddy, that’s his own hair/That little faggot’s got his own jet airplane/That little faggot, he’s a millionaire”. In response to the complainant’s contention that the use of the word “faggot” is offensive to the LGBTQ+ community, the broadcaster argued that the song was a classic rock song from 1985, had won numerous-industry awards, and had been played on radio for more than 25 years. Moreover, it was station policy to air songs unedited “to provide listeners with [an] authentic cut”. The Panel concluded that the use of the word “faggot” did violate the Human Rights clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics and the Equitable Portrayal Code and Clauses 7 (Degrading Material) and 9 (Language & Terminology) of the Equitable Portrayal Code and that the Contextual Considerations clause of the Equitable Portrayal Code did not apply in this case. This CBSC decision generated considerable public reaction and was the subject of widespread media coverage. Some individuals requested that the CRTC overturn the decision; however, the CRTC requested that the CBSC convene a special panel to review this decision. In that review, Review of the Atlantic Regional Panel decision in CHOZ-FM re the song “Money for Nothing” by Dire Straits (CBSC Decision 09/10-0818, May 17, 2011), the National Panel affirmed the original decision that found that the word “faggot” is abusive and unduly discriminatory as well as degrading on the basis of sexual orientation, but the majority concluded that the Contextual Considerations clause did apply in this case:
[…T]here is a story behind the song. The National Panel does consider it extremely material that the composer’s language appears not to have had an iota of malevolent or insulting intention. The words were, as he has consistently explained publicly since 1986, written, indeed virtually recorded verbatim, by him as he observed a guy working in an appliance store in New York City. As Knopfler said, that “bonehead who worked for the store, a great big macho guy with a, you know with a checked shirt on and a cap and a pair of work boots” […].
From the perspective of the majority of the National Panel, the song lyrics and their background fall squarely within the exceptions provided in the contextual considerations in Clause 10 of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code. […] [As] anticipated in the opening words of Clause 10(a) (Legitimate artistic usage), [...] “Individuals who are themselves bigoted or intolerant may be part of a fictional or non-fictional program, provided that the program is not itself abusive or unduly discriminatory.” The majority of the National Panel is, in other words, of the view that the story told in this song, developed at some length over more than eight minutes, provides sufficient plot development, story line and context to justify the application of the legitimate artistic usage exception in Clause 10(a). [...]
[...T]he National Panel […] would add that it considers that the exception provided in Clause 10(b) (Comedic, humorous or satirical usage) is also applicable. While the Panel is clear that “satirical intention or nature of programming is not an absolute defence” to a complaint of unduly negative portrayal, it may be a defence when challenged “satirical content, although discriminatory or stereotypical [is determined to] be light and relatively inoffensive, rather than abusive or unduly discriminatory.” [...]
The majority of the Panel concludes that Mark Knopfler has satirized the jealous attitude of the “bonehead in the checked shirt” who was his inspiration and that he has done so deftly, and with a light and genuine touch.
The second instance where a CBSC Panel considered the Contextual Considerations clause in relation to a historical work was in Sirius re the song “Squaws Along the Yukon” by Hank Thompson on the channel Willie’s Roadhouse (CBSC Decision 15/16-1767, February 21, 2018). The lyrics of this 1958 song were detailed earlier. The Panel concluded that the breaches to the applicable provisions were not “saved” by Clause 10 from breaching the codes:
SiriusXM argued that, in programming the song on a channel devoted to classic country music, listeners were provided with sufficient context with respect to the song’s original time. [...]
Under Clause 10, there may be situations where, with sufficient context, the song could be broadcast. For example, if it were played within the context of a program examining the treatment of Indigenous people in popular culture, or during a program that explored hit songs of the era which included appropriate advisories adverting to the inappropriate content of the song in the present, the broadcast might fall into the category of programming described in Clause 10(c). That was not the case here. The Panel does not consider the fact that a channel is devoted to classic country music as sufficient in and of itself for context under Clause 10.
Clause 10(b) anticipates comedic, humorous or satiric usage. Although the Panel views the original intent of the song to be light, it does not consider that the song constitutes actual comedy in the manner outlined in Clause 10(b).
One of the Panel adjudicators emphasized the challenge the CBSC faces when examining historical works:
I suppose a good case could be made that future airplay of this song, with a disclaimer highlighting the inappropriateness of its content today, could serve an educational purpose – it might actually improve our national understanding of, and the damage inflicted by, historical insults on identifiable groups. But frankly, I am uncomfortable applying current community standards to songs created and broadcast in a completely different era. […A]nd adjudging comedic value 60 years after the fact, no matter how grotesque it appears to modern eyes or ears, seems to me a dangerous game (if language and terminology styles and acceptance can change and evolve, so can comedic tastes).
I believe broadcasters and CBSC adjudicators should be permitted to heavily weight original and historical context in their respective programming and assessment decisions. This song is 60 years old. Before the CBSC or broadcasting codes even existed. Before certain broadcast media even existed. That has to mean something. [...] We can’t (shouldn’t?) pretend past eras never existed; and retrospectively sanitizing the arts carries obvious dangers and slippery slopes. […]
More critically, I am concerned that this Decision could chill future broadcast of older songs, TV programs, and so on. The Decision is narrowly applied to the song at hand – but in my opinion, it centres on a particularly difficult section of the EPC, namely that “Broadcasters shall remain vigilant with respect of the evolving appropriateness or inappropriateness of particular words and phrases, keeping in mind prevailing community standards.” The intent of this part of the EPC is laudable; but constant and continuous review of community standards by all manner of broadcasters in every medium (particularly for national providers like SiriusXM) is obviously challenging, fraught with subjective assessment, and has the potential to obliterate entire periods of history, performance, arts. […]
[…] The Panel’s Decision to find Code breaches in this case was correct. But this case puts a spotlight on a larger issue, and we need to address it: Should historical context be given (more) weight in broadcaster programming decisions and by CBSC adjudicators? I believe it should – and have genuine qualms applying current levels of acceptance to older content unless explicit contextualization is present. Assessment of prevailing tastes on new content, terminology, or comedic value is a hard task; uniformly applying current expectations to the past is perhaps a dangerous one. [...]
The Panel considers that the term “Eskimo” is clearly an outdated reference that is out of touch with today’s environment where Indigenous communities are trying to ensure that historical depictions of their lifestyle, work and contributions are accurate. However, as noted above, the term “Inuit” is not uniformly applied across the circumpolar region and is more specific to peoples in Canada and Greenland. In fact, the term “Eskimo” in Alaska remains in more common usage and it is written into official documents and, therefore, is the legal terminology in some contexts. Moreover, there are various hypotheses as to the etymology of the term and, in this case, the reference was made in relation to the upcoming inclusion of Alaska as a state in 1959.
Although an outdated reference and one that was commonly used at the time, its use demonstrates just how people of the 1950s were out of touch with Indigenous communities. It is a reflection of another time and place. The Panel concludes that usage of the term is not unduly discriminatory or abusive nor does it breach the various provisions of the applicable codes outlined above. In addition, the Panel considers that the term “Eskimo” does not have the same negative portrayal as the term “squaw” which is, on its face, far more derogatory and offensive. The reference to throwing snowballs was not a cultural reference but rather reflected the fact that it is cold and there is a long winter season in Alaska.
Moreover, the Panel believes that there is an awareness today especially in regards to the use of certain terminology. There is a greater sensitivity which seeks to have programming content be reflective of how society has evolved and positively adapted to these changes. Having said that, the Panel is mindful of the fact that and, as stated earlier, “Assessment of prevailing tastes on new content, terminology, or comedic value is a hard task”. It requires broadcasters to address the problems associated with beloved retro programming within the context of ensuring content continues to meet the various applicable broadcast codes and ensure that they are not censoring all historical works.
This episode of Happy Days reflects the use of nomenclature that was commonplace and represents a throwback to a particular time; however, the Panel considers that today the flaws related to this time and place are evident.
As noted earlier, the Panel commends the broadcaster’s undertaking to “air a Viewer’s Discretion Statement prior to any future airings” of this episode. In addition, the broadcaster has committed to improve its review process by creating “a schedule that is an enjoyable viewing experience for all.” In this regard, the broadcaster has “created a Programming Advisory Committee that will widen the scope for reviewing any content that may be deemed questionable for air.”
The Panel considers that these steps will likely aid viewers when making a selection of whether to watch historical works.
Broadcaster Responsiveness
In all CBSC decisions, the Panels assess the broadcaster’s response to the complainant. The broadcaster need not agree with the complainant’s position, but it must respond in a courteous, thoughtful and thorough manner. In this case, CHCH-DT provided an acceptable reply to the complainant and has, therefore, fulfilled its obligations of responsiveness and nothing further is required on this occasion.
This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
[1] CHCH-TV re an episode of Baywatch (CBSC Decision 94/95-0045, August 23, 1995)
[2] “Eskimo”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo, accessed October 24, 2022
[3] “Eskimo”, The Canadian Encyclopedia, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/eskimo, accessed October 24, 2022
[4] “Eskimo”, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Eskimo, accessed October 24, 2022
[5] CFRA-AM re The Lowell Green Show (Somalia Commission Report) (CBSC Decision 96/97-0238, February 20, 1998)
[6] CKTB-AM re an episode of the Phil Hendrie Show (CBSC Decision 02/03-0383, May 3, 2003)
[7] CFMT-TV re Gwai Lo Cooking (CBSC Decision 99/00-0220, July 6, 2000)
CHCH-DT aired the episode of Happy Days entitled “All the Way” on August 22, 2022 at 5:30 pm.
The plot involves Richie planning for and then going on a date with his classmate Mary Lou Milligan.
The episode begins with Potsie telling Richie he has fixed him up with Mary Lou Milligan. Potsie also purchased the book I, the Jury by Mickey Spillane for Richie so that Richie will seem experienced.
Potsie: Wow, Mary Lou’s as sexy as Brigitte Bardot.
Richie: I know. I know a lot about her. I sit right behind her in English.
Potsie: Yeah, but there’s things you probably don’t know about her from English.
Richie: Like what?
Potsie: Like she’s kind of got a reputation.
Richie: Mary Lou?
Potsie: She even once dated a sailor.
Richie: Did she ever go out with you?
Potsie: Are you kidding me?
Richie: She did?
Potsie: Are you kidding me?
Richie: I don’t know. Am I kidding you?
Potsie: Well, if you don’t believe me, we could just forget about it.
Richie: Keep your shirt on.
Potsie also tells Richie that Mary Lou prefers high school seniors, so he lied and told Mary Lou that Richie was held back three times which is why he is only in his junior year. They go inside the diner where the local teenagers hang out and see Mary Lou Milligan. Potsie encourages Richie to go over and talk to her.
Richie: I won’t know what to say to her.
Potsie: That’s why I got you the book. Then she knows you’re not inexperienced about those things.
Richie: I show her the book?
Potsie: No, you read her the good parts. And the best way to show you’ve been around is when you read, sort of ha, ha, ha. Laugh it off, like you’ve been there already.
Potsie and Richie sit at a booth with Mary Lou. Potsie encourages Richie to read from the Spillane book. Richie asks Mary Lou if she would like to go to the movies with him that night. She says she cannot because she has to babysit for the Kelly family, but that Richie can help her babysit. She leaves.
Potsie: Babysitting with Mary Lou Milligan! Man, oh man, you got it made in the shade!
Later that evening, Richie is in the bathroom of the diner getting ready for his date. Potsie comes in.
Potsie: Now remember, when she twists her hair, that’s a sign she wants to French kiss. And she loves it when you blow in her ear.
Richie: All right. But tell me what you did. So I don’t do exactly the same thing. Otherwise it might look kind of suspicious. You know what I mean?
Potsie: Yeah, yeah, maybe you’ve got a point. Okay, let me think. First I turned down the lights. Put on “My Prayer” by the Platters. Put arm around back of couch, so it’s around her.
Richie: Oh, which arm?
Potsie: Well, that depends on which side of the couch you’re sitting on. If you’re right-handed, you sit on the left side or vice versa.
Richie: So you keep your strongest hand free.
Potsie: Right. And, uh, I brought this just in case. [Potsie pulls a brassiere out of his jacket]
Richie: What are you, crazy?
Potsie: It’s a brassiere closed by hooks.
Richie: So?
Potsie: Hooks are hard to open. Did you ever take out a girl with hooks?
Richie: Well, uh, no. All my girls had buttons.
Potsie: Buttons? Rich, it’s either snaps or hooks.
Richie: Oh well, I meant snaps.
Potsie: Well, you better practice just in case.
Richie: Practice?
Potsie: [puts the brassiere on the radiator in the bathroom] Yeah. You don’t say “open sesame” and it unhooks.
Richie: Well, I like it to be romantic. I’m just going to do it my way, all right? I’m going.
Potsie: Okay. I didn’t know I was dealing with Cary Grant.
Richie leaves the bathroom. Potsie turns to the brassiere on the radiator and tugs on it, but it won’t open. Fonzie walks in and surprises Potsie. Potsie is embarrassed and leaves quickly. Fonzie rubs the fingers of one hand together, then opens the brassiere with one hand.
Potsie finds Richie standing outside the diner.
Potsie: What are you doing here? Hey, you’re not afraid of Mary Lou Milligan?
Richie: Nah. I just never dated a girl who went out with a sailor before. You know?
Potsie: Are you chicken?
Richie: No, I’m not chicken. I’m going.
Potsie: Go on. You’ll do all right.
Richie walks past Ralph who has the trunk of his car open.
Ralph: Hi, Cunningham. Where are you going?
Richie: All the way.
Ralph is so surprised, he bangs his head on the trunk hood.
Mary Lou lets Richie into the Kellys’ house. They sit down on the couch beside each other.
Mary Lou: So, let’s talk.
Richie: Talk?
Mary Lou: Yeah, talk. And then, whatever.
Richie: Yeah, yeah, I know. Whatever. Well, what did you want to talk about?
Mary Lou: I don’t know. [she moves closer to Richie] You?
Richie: Me? Well, I live on Rich Street and my father owns a hardware store on the corner of Alcott.
Mary Lou: We don’t really have to talk.
Richie: Oh, fine. [Richie stands up and removes his jacket] You know, you’re right. You can talk any time. You can talk at school. I have a better idea. Uh, why don’t we read?
Mary Lou: Okay by me. Do you want me to turn down the lights a little?
Richie: Yeah. Uh, no. Only that little one. I don’t want to get eye strain. My mother’d kill me if I came home tonight needing glasses.
Mary Lou: Oh, yeah.
Mary Lou turns off one light and they sit back down together on the couch. Mary Lou begins twisting her hair and smiling at Richie. Richie looks nervous. He begins reading.
Richie: “Her eyes were blazing into mine. I was only human. I bent over her, taking her mouth on mine.” [Mary Lou pushes her hair back and leans closer to Richie] “Her body was a hot flame.” [Richie stops reading and blows on Mary Lou’s neck]
Mary Lou: Is there a draft in here?
Richie: No. That was me blowing in your ear.
Mary Lou: Oh. [Richie puts his arm around her shoulder] You want to neck?
Richie: Sure. If you think this is the right time. Sure.
Mary Lou: Okay.
Richie: Wait a minute.
Richie takes a stick of gum out of his pocket, chews it for a few seconds, then puts it back in the wrapper. Richie and Mary Lou stand up and Richie kisses her.
Mary Lou: Ow.
Richie: What’s wrong?
Mary Lou: You kiss funny.
Richie: Funny?
Mary Lou: Yeah, you kiss with your mouth closed so tight.
Richie: Oh, did I do that? You know, I wasn’t even aware of it. I’ll pay more attention next time.
Mary Lou nods, closes her eyes and puckers her lips for another kiss.
Richie: Excuse me. Can we sit down on the couch for this next thing?
Mary Lou: Okay by me.
Richie: Great.
They sit back down on the couch. Richie puts his arms around Mary Lou and they kiss. He puts his hand on her back.
Mary Lou: What’s the matter?
Richie: Can we switch sides? You see, I’m right-handed.
Mary Lou: Sure. [They switch places on the couch.] Is that in the book?
Richie: No, I got that one on my own.
They kiss again and Richie tries to undo her bra through her sweater. She wriggles away and puts her hand to her back.
Mary Lou: What are you doing back there?
Richie: Uh, back where?
Mary Lou: I don’t do things like that.
Richie: You don’t?
Mary Lou: No. I’m sorry.
Richie: [mutters to himself] He didn’t tell me what to do if you said no.
Mary Lou: What?
Richie: Uh, nothing. It’s just that you liked the book. You twisted your hair a lot.
Mary Lou: I always twist my hair a lot. If you don’t like it, just say so. But don’t grab my sweater. You’ll stretch it.
Richie: [fingers the fabric of her sweater] Oh, but listen, this is real good material. This won’t stretch much.
Mary Lou: Well, let’s do something else.
Richie: Really? I mean, that’s really a good idea. Look, there’s a chess set.
Mary Lou: Oh, but you have to be smart to play.
Richie: Oh no you don’t. I’ll show you.
Mary Lou: Really?
Richie: Sure. My father taught me.
Mary Lou: Okay.
Richie: See, this is a castle. This is a knight. This is a bishop and this is a king. The object of the game is for you to try to take my king.
Mary Lou: [grabs Richie’s king piece off the chessboard] I won!
Richie: Uh, no. We better start from the beginning.
The next day, Richie is playing baseball with his friends.
Potsie: Come on, Rich. I’m your best friend. You can tell me. How far’d you get?
Richie: All I’m saying is Mary Lou’s a nice girl.
Potsie: You didn’t get very far.
Richie: Lay off, Potsie, will ya?
Potsie: Okay.
Richie: Okay.
Ralph: Hey, Cunningham. Darcy Rosewald said you did a little babysitting over the weekend. Well, did ya? [Ralph looks at Richie, eager to know]
Potsie: Tell him.
Richie: You know something?
Mary Lou: [arrives out of nowhere] Hi, Richie! It was fun the other night. [Richie’s friends look on in surprise] Let’s do it again real soon.
Richie: Fine.
Mary Lou: Call me.
Richie: Sure.
Mary Lou: Okay.
Richie: See ya. [Mary Lou leaves]
Ralph: You did? Huh, Rich?
Richie: Well, I better go take my swings now.
Ralph: Did you, Richie?
Richie: [Potsie and Fonzie look on in anticipation of the answer] You kidding? [Fonzie gives him the thumbs up sign]
Potsie: He’s my best friend.
Back at home, Richie is in the shower. His father Howard enters the steam-filled bathroom and asks Richie why he has been moping around for the last few days.
Richie: I don’t know if I can talk about it with you.
Howard: Why not?
Richie: Well, it’s sexual.
Howard: Richard. Sex is exactly what a son should discuss with his father. I mean, you don’t want to learn about it on some street corner, now do you? Now, what’s the problem?
Richie: Well, this friend of mine, see.
Howard: It’s always a friend.
Richie: He said he did something because everybody else said they did and he didn’t want to be the only one. So he said he did, but he didn’t because she wouldn’t and he was embarrassed he didn’t.
Howard: I have no idea what you’re saying.
[...]
Richie: My friend lied to everybody about a girl.
Howard: Oh well, it’s obvious that the lie is bothering him and he ought to go back and tell the truth.
Richie: To everybody? I mean, even Fonzie?
Howard: What’s a Fonzie?
Richie: Arthur Fonzarelli. He dropped out of school. [...] It’s a little embarrassing to tell the truth. I mean, for my friend.
Howard: Richard, if it was easy there’d be no problem, huh? And then, uh, your friend wouldn’t be moping around all the time. [...] Truth is the best answer. Believe me. Then you, your friend, the girl and this Fonzie person will all feel much better. Take my word for it.
Back at school, Richie talks to Mary Lou.
Richie: So I told all the guys I lied. Except Fonzie. And I’ll tell him today.
Mary Lou: That’s funny.
Richie: Funny? What’s funny?
Mary Lou: The boys are always saying I did things with them. And you said we didn’t.
Richie: But we didn’t. You mean, you didn’t with the other guys either?
Mary Lou: Just kissing. I like to kiss.
Richie: And you don’t mind what everybody says about you?
Mary Lou: Who listens?
Richie: Potsie listens.
Mary Lou: Well, I mean, what can you do? The gym teacher, he told me built girls always get talked about. He tried to grab my sweater too.
Richie: Mr. Brockington?
Mary Lou: Yeah. Good old Mister B. Anyway, thank you for what you did.
Richie: Oh well, I feel –
Mary Lou: And I meant to tell you. You’re very smart for someone who was left back three times.
Richie: Well, I ... thank you.
Mary Lou: Oh hey, there’s Fonzie. Well, I’ll see you later. I’m going to the girls’ room to check my face.
Richie: Oh, all right. See ya.
Mary Lou: Bye. [she leaves]
Fonzie pulls up on a motorcycle.
Richie: Hey, Fonzie. Can I talk to you for a minute? Well, remember the other day I was telling you about me and Mary Lou Milligan? [Fonzie nods] Well, the fact is I played chess.
Fonzie: You played with her chest?
Richie: No, chess, Fonzie. The game chess. We didn’t do anything. I lied.
Fonzie: Oh.
Richie: So I thought I should probably –
Fonzie: You know, that makes me mad.
Richie: I don’t like to make you mad, Fonzie.
Fonzie: No, I mean, seeing how you said you did, I figured you did and she did, so I got a date with her myself this afternoon.
Richie: Oh.
Fonzie: I’m gonna waste a whole day ... and gas.
Richie: She kisses real good.
Fonzie: I polished my bike for a kiss?
Richie: I’m really sorry.
Fonzie: Come here. [Fonzie puts his arm around Richie] I’m going to forget it this time. But no more lying. [Richie nods] I’ll do all the lying.
Mary Lou: [comes back] Hi, Fonzie. I’m ready. [She gets on the back of Fonzie’s motorcycle] Let’s ride. It’s going to be fun. This is really going to be fun.
Fonzie: [gets onto motorcycle] It ain’t gonna be that much fun.
Potsie comes running over to Richie.
Potsie: I found out who gave Ralph Malph his hickey.
Richie: Who?
Potsie: Sue Ellen Lysky. I got a Coke date with her.
Richie: Oh gee, that’s great, Potsie.
Potsie: Hey listen, I could fix you up with her best friend Debbie Hawkhauser who also bites.
Richie: No thanks.
Potsie: Okay.
Richie: But can I ask you a question?
Potsie: Go ahead.
Richie: Can you fall in love with a girl who has a reputation?
Potsie: Write this down, Rich. There’s two kind of girls. Those you marry and those that got a reputation.
Richie: What about the ones who give hickeys?
Potsie: Oh well, they’re okay if, uh, uh, if you marry them before they get reputations. Oh say, how many questions did you miss on the history test, huh?
Richie: Oh, I know I missed that one on Alaska. I forgot they’re thinking about making it a state now.
Potsie: Ah, it’ll never happen.
Richie: Sure it will. Do you realize someday an Eskimo could become president?
Potsie: Yeah, terrific. At the World Series, he could throw out the first snowball.
The Complaint
The CBSC received the following complaint on August 23, 2022:
Television Station: CHCH
Program Name: Happy Days
Date of Program: 22/08/2022
Time of Program: 5:30PM
Specific Concern:
The title of this episode is "All the Way". Happy Days is a family situation comedy. This episode was aired in the after school hours when impressionable children, preteens, and teens are the target audience.
This particular episode was extremely sexist and demeaning to women. It objectified women as sexual objects. Even worse, it flippantly referred to the sexual assault against a minor female, by a teacher no less, as expected and acceptable!
At the end of the episode there are a number of extremely racist remarks against indigenous communities!
I cannot believe that [in] today's day and age this is acceptable material to be teaching children! It may have been acceptable back in the seventies when it first aired, but it is certainly not acceptable by today's standards. To add insult to injury, the station did not air the blurb they commonly have at the beginning of vintage programs warning of such material and explaining why they are airing it. Which in this case they absolutely should not have aired. It is media such as this that continues to promote the notion that sexual assault against women and minors is ok and that boys will be boys. These programs serve to continue the stigmatization and marginalization of our indigenous peoples.
Broadcaster Response
CHCH-DT responded on September 28:
We are in receipt of your email dated August 22nd, 2022 regarding the episode of the series Happy Days titled “All the Way.” Please know that we take your complaint seriously and we have held a copy of the logger tape of the broadcast that concerned you, as per CBSC requirements.
Thank you for bringing this concern to us. It is feedback such as yours that helps us to better understand the needs and concerns of our audience, which, in turn, helps us make informed programming decisions that create a more positive viewing experience.
CHCH understands that series, such as the retro programming, may contain content that is a reflection of the time it was produced. While we cannot defend the producer’s original intention of this episode of Happy Days, after reviewing, we can accept the possibility that the producer may have included inappropriate portrayals and situations. We apologize that the content in this particular episode was offensive to you.
Given the nature of the content in this particular episode, we will air a Viewer’s Discretion Statement prior to any future airings.
It may give you comfort to know that in addition to airing a Viewer’s Discretion Statement prior to any programs that may contain outdated terms or portrayals, we continue to work to improve our review process, striving to create a schedule that is an enjoyable viewing experience for all. We have created a Programming Advisory Committee that will widen the scope for reviewing any content that may be deemed questionable for air.
Thank you for your feedback and continued support and viewership of CHCH.
Additional Correspondence
The complainant sent an email to the station and submitted her Ruling Request on September 28. Both documents contained the same message:
Thank you for your response; however I do not accept your apology. You and your station still do not get it, as evidenced by the fact that you state in your apology that you may air this episode again! This isn't just about an inappropriate situation or offensive comment. The episode was normalizing the sexual assault and abuse of young girls, minor children, by their teachers and portraying it as an acceptable behavior! Children seeing this will think and feel that sexual advances from adults, particularly from teachers, is okay. Many will not report abuse because you are telling them that it's okay. Being a retro show does not absolve your responsibility, or permit you to say that it was a sign of the times so it's ok. Are we back in the boys will be boys era? Or the old boys network? Or maybe the blame the victim scenario? What the director intended is of absolutely no consequence here. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
As a teacher myself, I feel that it is my duty to bring this to the attention of teachers federations, boards of education, and the media.
As an aside, I find that your station very often takes a misogynistic point of view. You air your viewers discretion statement on retro shows that portray racial stereotypes or slurs, but you do not do that when the bias or prejudice is against women. I used to love the TV show Bewitched as a child. I was watching episodes on your station a while back and they made me sick. They were so blatantly misogynistic that I couldn't believe we would still air garbage like that in this day and age.
Standards of acceptable behavior on television have evolved considerably over the years. Things that were forbidden years ago are quite commonplace these days. We don't even think about it. It is time for your station's programming to evolve to the times and the culture of 2022. Things that were quite common then should be forbidden now. If you're looking for retro shows to air, I would suggest shows like All in the Family or MASH; so she was values [sic] are just as relevant today. Your regularly scheduled sitcoms and dramas are all white TV shows with very few or no characters of colour or visible minorities.