Comedian Shane Gillis’ opening act before Zach Bryan received mixed reviews. On the one hand, there are those who deem his performance inappropriate for the family setting of a concert at a Catholic university. On the other hand, there are those who absolutely loved the set, thankful for the opportunity to see one of their favorite comedians in action. The most amusing contingent, in my opinion, are those who defend Shane Gillis’ performance as a championing of the First Amendment’s right to speech: a testament of American exceptionalism. As the title suggests, I have constructed and will propose a defense of Shane Gillis’ performance.
Objection 1. It was clear that the majority of Gillis’ jokes were highly offensive and crossed “the boundary” of what ought to be joked about.
Objection 2. Further, the offensive nature of the jokes are simply inappropriate for the setting of a family-oriented concert at a Catholic university.
Objection 3. Further, Gillis should not have been allowed to perform at such an event.
On the contrary, comedy is meant to entertain. It is supposed to subvert social norms: that is what makes something funny.
I answer that, Shane Gillis is hilarious. Full stop. No question. For one, the critics can point out the sensitive or offensive subject matter of the jokes, not the effect of the jokes. It is indisputable that Gillis’ timing, mannerisms and overall execution facilitated widespread laughter, even among those who suppressed their laughs or reacted with a timid “ooh” or “boo”. Even then, Gillis used the discomfort he created by his initial joke to segue into another joke about the audience’s discomfort. Though Gillis himself claimed that it was “impossible” to perform a comedy set at a stadium, he was still able to “work the crowd”, as it were.
The vast majority of critics hold one or more of these objections I have put forth. By responding to the objections, I implore the critics to reevaluate their assessment of Gillis.
Reply to Objection 1. This is the most common objection to Gillis’s performance: it was offensive. First, let us consider the alternatives. Would you rather have Gillis, arguably one of the most popular comedians right now, to do a G-rated set? Would you prefer knock-knock jokes? Magic tricks? Juggling? Or would you prefer Dermot Kennedy to play more songs, so that people would have more ambient noise while they play Clash Royale on their phone or stagger up stairs or stand in lines?
Consider the popular topics of comedy, namely sex and politics. It is no coincidence that these topics are both the most popular topics of jokes and also highly sensitive, polarizing topics, which affect us all. People ascribe far too high a value to sex and politics: It is a disservice to one’s human dignity for a gender/sex ideology or a political ideology to be the core identity of what makes a person a human. Moreover, comedy seeks to break down the seriousness of these topics to, in my opinion, the benefit of everyone. And, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of people who laugh about these issues are not some maligned, evil-spirited people who hold different marginalized communities in contempt.
Finally, “the boundary” of what ought to be joked about is ever elusive to pinpoint. The limits of comedy, like much of social discourse, are unfortunately subjected to people’s competing ideologies about what must be protected at all cost. It diminishes the purpose of comedy, that is, entertainment, if comedians cannot say things that are genuinely funny.
Reply to Objection 2. The internet as we know it has been around since the 1990s, so to claim that you could not have anticipated what Shane Gillis could joke about is simply ridiculous. You do not even have to open up a website to give an AI-created summary about what he is about. And even if you did open a website, it was probably about how he got fired from SNL for being offensive.
Even Gillis himself claimed during his set that it was inappropriate for children to be there. I argue that this objection is akin to the “chicken or the egg” conundrum: Was it Gillis’ fault or is there some culpability in parents or the university itself?
On the other hand, people say that the jokes are not in keeping with the Catholic character of the University. It can easily be argued there are plenty of things that go on at Notre Dame that are not in keeping with its Catholic identity. There are bigger fish to fry, as it were, than raising a clenched-fist in protest of about 30-minutes of offensive jokes.
Reply to Objection 3. Your disapproval should not be targeted at Shane Gillis, whose job it is to do exactly what he did on Saturday: entertain. We may never know what kind of conversations went on behind the scenes about whether the University approved of the set or whether he went off script from the agreed-upon knock-knock jokes. Chances are, Gillis won’t be invited back to perform at a University-sponsored event. The damage, which I can scarcely call it, is done. Whatever the case, I am exceptionally pleased with Notre Dame’s decisions here: They made for a truly spectacular night.
Jonah Tran is a senior at Notre Dame studying finance and classics. He prides himself on sarcasm and never surrendering. You can file complaints to Jonah by email at jtran5@nd.edu.
