To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Brown, James (hultquist@iptl.com)
`
`TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78802868 - CAROLINA TARHICKS - 4266-108
`
`2/21/2007 4:15:49 PM
`
`ECOM102@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`      SERIAL NO:          
`           
`     APPLICANT:        
`
`Brown, James
`
`78/802868
`
`*78802868*
`
`RETURN ADDRESS: 
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`Please provide in all correspondence:
`
`1.  Filing date, serial number, mark and
`    
`applicant's name.
`2.  Date of this Office Action.
`3.  Examining Attorney's name and
`     Law Office number.
`4. Your
`telephone number and e-mail
`address.
`
`    CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`  STEVEN J. HULTQUIST
`  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY/TECHNOLOGY LAW
`  P.O. BOX 14329
`  RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
` 
`
`CAROLINA TARHICKS
`
`         MARK:      
`        CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :   4266-108
`     CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:   hultquist@iptl.com
`
`   
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`RESPONSE TIME LIMIT:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE
`ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE.  
`MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION:  If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this
`information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the
`prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.
`
`Serial Number  78/802868
`
`THIS IS A FINAL ACTION
`
`STATUS
`This letter is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on January 21, 2007.   Therein, the applicant: 1) responded to the refusal of the
`mark under Section 2(a) based on disparagement; 2) responded to the refusal of the mark based on false connection; 3) amended the
`identification of goods; and 4) disclaimed the geographically descriptive wording.  Numbers 2, 3 and 4 are acceptable.  The refusal for false
`connection is withdrawn.
`
`For the reasons stated below, the refusal of the application because it consists of matter that may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute the
`University of North Carolina Tar Heals is herein made FINAL.
`
`Refusal - Disparaging
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute
`persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols.  Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d
`1705 (TTAB 1999), rev’d in part , 284 F. Supp. 2d 96, 68 USPQ2d 1225 (D.D.C. 2003), remanded, 415 F.3d 44, 75 USPQ2d 1525 (D.C. Cir.
`2005); see Order Sons of Italy in Am. v. Memphis Mafia, Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1364 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1203.03 et seq.
`
`The following two factors must be considered when determining whether matter may be disparaging under Section 2(a):  
`
`(1)   What is the likely meaning of the matter in question, taking into account not only dictionary definitions, but also the relationship of the
`matter to the other elements in the mark, the nature of the goods or services, and the manner in which the mark is used in the marketplace
`in connection with the goods or services; and
`
`(2)   If that meaning is found to refer to identifiable persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, whether that meaning may be
`
`disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group.  
`
`Harjo, 50 USPQ2d at 1740-1741.
`
`The examining attorney has submitted the relevant dictionary definition of the term “HICK”.   The definition itself and the accompanying
`
`quotation is significant evidence that the term would be disparaging to a person of ordinary sensibilities.  
`
`Parody Argument
`Applicant argues that in the proper context of the applicable marketplace, the CAROLINA TARHICKS mark will be perceived as a parody of the
`registered mark and the University of North Carolina and that the case law “compels that Applicant’s mark be treated in the legal context of
`parody rather than disparagement.”   Applicant’s response Section I.A.   However, there is no known “legal context of parody” in relation to
`Section 2(a) unless the law has recently changed.  Although parody may sometimes reduce a likelihood of confusion, parody is not a defense to a
`Section 2(a) disparagement refusal and Applicant has cited no applicable case law as a basis for the parody argument.  Applicant’s mark may
`
`be a parody and still be disparaging to the target, Registrant.   
`
`The Examining Attorney has analyzed the mark in the proper context of the marketplace, contrary to Applicant’s argument.   In Harjo, the Board
`found that the mark “REDSKINS”, when used in connection with the services in the marketplace, referred to Respondent’s football team.
`However, the term had not lost its meaning in reference to Native Americans.  Id. at 1742-3.  This case is substantially different than Harjo.  The
`meaning in the marketplace is intentionally derogatory toward the target, University of North Carolina.  Applicant has provided evidence of the
`rivalry between Duke University and the Registrant.  The evidences states, in part, “[I]n North Carolina, where both schools are located, the
`rivalry may be a way of aligning oneself with larger philosophic ideals – of choosing teams in life – a tradition of partisanship that reveals the
`pleasures and even the necessity of hatred.”   (Emphasis added).  Response at Section I. A.   The evidence and the marketplace indicate that
`Applicant’s mark is not only a derogatory parody, but it is intentionally derogatory to the Registrant and does not appear to be humorous or
`
`light-hearted.   
`
`Applicant states that its intent in the trademark is to provide a light-hearted parody in the context of spirited rivalries by “humorously” playing
`on the HEEL element of TAR HEEL.  However, the intent of applicant is not relevant to a disparagement inquiry.  Harjo v. Pro Football Inc., 50
`USPQ2d 1705, 1736 (TTAB 1999)); see, e.g., In re Anti-Communist World Freedom Congress, Inc., 161 USPQ 304, 305 (TTAB 1969).
`
`Applicant also states that the TARHICKS does not rise to the level of disparagement under §2(a) because it does not invoke unseemly issues of
`racism, sexism, profanity, and/or scandalousness that are involved in the cited cases.  However, Applicant provides no basis for these arguments. 
`Whether a mark is disparaging is determined separately by the target group in each case.  And the targeted or relevant group must be determined
`on the basis of the facts of each case.  Harjo v. Pro Football Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1739 (TTAB 1999).  For cases involving disparagement of
`individuals or commercial entities, the perception of a “reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities” may be appropriate.   Id. at 1741. 
`Applicant’s provides no relevant analysis with the case at hand even though in cases such as Order Sons of Italy in America v. Memphis Mafia
`Inc., 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1364 (T.T.A.B. 1999) and Boswell v. Mavety Media Group Ltd., 52 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1600 (T.T.A.B. 1999), the Board found no
`
`evidence of disparagement.  
`
`In Greyhound Corp. v. Both Worlds Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1635, 1639 (TTAB 1988), the Board found that the applicant's design of a dog defecating
`strongly resembled the opposer's running dog symbol and that the evidence of record established that the symbol "points uniquely and
`unmistakably to opposer's persona." Id. at 1640.  TMEP §1203.03(c).  With regard to whether the mark may be disparaging or “would be
`considered offensive or objectionable” by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities, the Board found that “the offensiveness of the design
`becomes even more objectionable because it makes a statement about the opposer itself, and holds opposer up to ridicule and contempt.”   Id. at
`1640.
`
`This case is similar to Greyhound Corp. because the Applicant’s mark strongly, even intentionally, resembles Registrant’s TAR HEELS mark
`and “points uniquely and unmistakably” to Registrant’s mark.
`  The offensive mark intentionally makes a statement about the
`Registrant itself, namely, that the University is comprised of students, faculty, administration, and alumni who are “p rovincial” or  
`“unsophisticated,” [1] and holds Registrant up to ridicule and contempt. 
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Legally Sufficient Showing of Disparagement
`Applicant also argues, “ even if the Examining Attorney fails to appreciate the lighthearted nature of Applicant’s mark and its perception by the
`referenced group as a parody, the disparagement refusal should be withdrawn because the Examining Attorney has failed to provide any
`
`evidence tailored to the views of the referenced group.”   Response at I.B.  
`
`First, whether the Examining Attorney appreciates the nature of the parody or humor of Applicant’s mark is not at issue.   The mark is legally
`unregistrable.  There is no “it’s just a joke” defense to a 2(a) disparagement refusal.
`  Again, Applicant’s intent is Irrelevant.   In In re
`Tinseltown, Inc., 212 USPQ 863 (TTAB 1981), the Board rejected the Applicant’s argument that its intent to use the mark on the outside
`
`surfaces of its accessories is to satirize the use of designers’ names on such products.    
`
`  A
`Second, the Examining Attorney’s submission of the definition of “HICK” is sufficient to support a disparagement refusal on first action.
`dictionary definition shows what a “reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities” would determine to be the meaning of the term, and provides
`an example sentence showing how a reasonable person feels about being perceived as a HICK.  Applicant argues that this evidence
`does not address whether the element “HICKS” is disparaging “ according to the view of the referenced group.”   Applicant identifies the
`referenced group as “students, faculty, administration, or alumni” of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.”   Applicant is under the
`mistaken belief that the Examining Attorney must provide evidence of the perception of the referenced group themselves.  In In re Tinseltown,
`supra, the Board rejected Applicant’s argument that the mark should be evaluated based on a particular segment of society because there was no
`limitation in the identification on the channels of trade for Applicant’s clothing accessories.   Additionally, the “referenced group” of students,
`faculty, administration, or alumni of the University of North Carolina would clearly comprise individuals within the definition of a “reasonable
`person with ordinary sensibilities.”   Additionally, students and alumni of the University of North Carolina would obviously contain a significant
`number of individuals from the South and its underlying rural areas.  Therefore, any evidence of the general perception of the term “HICK”
`would include the “referenced group.”   Applicant may not construct its own marketplace and limited context of a sports rivalry and assume that
`everyone in this context would understand, and not be offended by, the Applicant’s intended joke or parody.   Further, Applicant’s usage of the
`term implies that the Registrant, an institution of higher education, is comprised of persons who are gullible, uneducated, unsophisticated and
`
`inferior to the rival school which comprises only the sophisticated and educated.  Again, the mark is intentionally derogatory.  
`
`Evidence of the perception of the term by the general public is sufficient to uphold a disparagement refusal when the targeted group comprises
`the general public.  The attached evidence from the Internet shows the likely meaning of “HICK” to be “ a derogatory term for a person from a
`rural area. It connotes a degree of crude simplicity and backward conservativism in values, manners, and mores.”   (See attached).  This refers to
`“HICK” in a disparaging manner because the definition of “derogatory” includes: Disparaging; belittling.[2]  The Examining Attorney may
`
`conclude that the targeted group would consist of persons from rural areas of the South because this is Applicant’s target group.   
`
`The Examining Attorney also attaches articles from a LEXIS/NEXIS search which shows that the perception of the term “HICK” is derogatory
`and offensive.  (Please see attached twenty-six (26) articles).  The articles include the opinion of a “North Carolinian” who found being
`portrayed as HICKS “quite offensive”.   In an article from The Tulsa World, regarding a college sports rivalry, the author stated, “[I]t was Nord,
`OU’s offensive coordinator in one of those pre-Stoops dreary seasons (1995), who insulted Sooners everywhere with his crude comments about
`Oklahomans being hicks and badly in need of full sets of dentures.”   (Emphasis added).  If the persons from the University of Oklahoma are
`insulted by the term HICKS, the Examining Attorney may conclude that the target group of the University of North Carolina will also find the
`term offensive and derogatory.  The evidence also indicates that some people find HICKS to be the equivalent of a racial stereotype because it
`generally refers to white, uneducated people from rural areas.  This contradicts Applicant’s argument that it does not reach the level of other
`
`cases on the issue.  
`
`Accordingly, even if the Examining Attorney appreciates the lighthearted nature of Applicant’s mark as a parody, the evidence clearly shows
`that the targeted group and consumers in general would find the mark offensive and derogatory.  The Examining Attorney has provided an
`abundance of evidence showing that the term “HICKS” is disparaging to a person of ordinary sensibilities who would comprise the target
`
`group.  
`
`Doubts Regarding the Refusal
`Due to the abundance of evidence showing that the term “HICKS” would be offensive and disparaging to the Registrant, Carolinians and the
`public in general, there is no doubt that Applicant’s mark CAROLINA TARHICKS is legally unregistrable because it is disparaging under
`Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act.  Applicant’s intent for the mark to be a whimsical joke or parody to be used only in the context of a sports
`rivalry is not a factor in the Section 2(a) refusal.  And neither is the Examining Attorney’s personal opinion or amount of appreciation of the
`supposed intent.
`
`Final Response
`If applicant fails to respond to this final action within six months of the mailing date, the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond to this final action by:  
`
`(1)   submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R. §2.64(a)); and/or
`
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`(2)   filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class (37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18) and 2.64(a);
`TMEP §§715.01 and 1501 et seq.; TBMP Chapter 1200).
`
`In certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§2.63(b)(2).  37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b), TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matters. 
`The petition fee is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
`
`If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney. 
`Thank you.
`
`                        
`
`           
`
`/Michael Webster/
`
`Michael Webster
`Examining Attorney
`USPTO Law Office 102
`571-272-9266
`
`HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
`ONLINE RESPONSE:  You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action
`form available on our website at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html.  If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours
`after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS.  NOTE:  Do not respond by e-mail.  THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN
`E-MAILED RESPONSE.
`REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:  To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above, and
`include the serial number, law office number, and examining attorney’s name.   NOTE:  The filing date of the response will be the date
`of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date.  To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing.  37 C.F.R. §2.197.
`
`STATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval
`(TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.
`
`VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded
`online at http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow.
`
`GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at
`http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
`
`FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING
`ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.
`
`MAIL-IT REQUESTED: FEBRUARY 20, 2007                       
`
`10083K
`
`        
`
`      
`         
`
`CLIENT: BROWN
`LIBRARY: REGNWS
`FILE: ALLNWS
`
`YOUR SEARCH REQUEST AT THE TIME THIS MAIL-IT WAS REQUESTED:
`  NOCAPS(HICK) W/PARA (DISPARAGING OR DEROGATORY OR DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE)
`
`NUMBER OF STORIES FOUND WITH YOUR REQUEST THROUGH:
`     
`LEVEL  
`1...     
`85
`
`LEVEL   
`
`1 PRINTED
`
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
`         
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`THE SELECTED  STORY NUMBERS:
`3,5,7,10,12,19,24,26-27,30-32,34-36,42,50,55,57,59,66,68,70,80-81,85
`
`DISPLAY FORMAT: 65 VAR KWIC
`
`SEND TO: WEBSTER, MICHAEL
`        
`TRADEMARK LAW LIBRARY
`        
`600 DULANY ST
`        
`ALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA 22314-5790
`
`**********************************02628**********************************
`
` 
`               
`    
`

`

`    
`
`Copyright 2006 The Seattle Times Company
`The Seattle Times
`
`     
`
`June 13, 2006 Tuesday 
`Fourth Edition
`
`SECTION: ROP ZONE; Opinion; Pg. B7
`
`LENGTH: 1049 words
`
`HEADLINE: Northwest Voices;
`A sampling of readers' letters, faxes and e-mails
`
`    BODY:
`     ... in schools ["Teens approach hugging with open arms," page one, June 10], why does The Times choose to perpetuate a demeaning
`
`stereotype? When describing the range of students who hug each other, [The Times] uses the term "band geeks," a common put-down for a group
`of students who work hard to develop musical talent and learn about great music.
`
` I
`
` noticed [The Times] used the term "athletes." Why not the more descriptive "dumb jocks"? Will we be reading about science nerds,
`bookworms, country    hicks,  urban thugs, or any of the other   derogatory  terms used to classify kids?
`
`In our music program, we have had skilled athletes, academic stars, cheerleaders, thespians, student-government leaders and many students who
`fit into more than one of these categories. They also make time to play with the band. Why label them with the term "geek"? Why not ...
`musician?
`
`Andy Robertson, high school band director, Redmond
`
`   
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`    
`
`Copyright 2006 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
`Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wisconsin)
`
`     
`
`January 28, 2006 Saturday 
`ALL EDITION
`
`SECTION: DAYBREAK; Pg. B1
`
`LENGTH: 411 words
`
`HEADLINE: IRISH WAKE GOOD FODDER FOR BROOM STREET PRODUCTION
`
`BYLINE: JOHN WIEDENHOEFT jwiedenhoeft£madison.com 608-252-6182
`
`    BODY:
`     ... offering interchangeable condolences to the wife and mother of the deceased, but the whirlwind of subjects creates confusion.
`
`Sporadic comic lines, plays on words ("the brown cow, now. How," is a memorable line), and abrupt pop-culture references make it hard to
`identify the tone of the piece, sometimes within a scene.
`
`This is not to say the play is a chaotic mess. Far from it. Although more than three dozen characters are packed into a 90-minute show, they
`rarely appear as caricatures -- with one notable exception being a borderline   offensive  portrayal of three " hick " brothers.
`
`The play works best when it reduces to a single issue contemplated by a few actors in a scene. One standout scene has elderly aunts Martha and
`Eunice, played by Joseph Lutz and Scott Rawson, delightfully channeling Laurel and Hardy. Another is a dramatic flashback of a cousin's death
`in Vietnam, in which the sardonic humor never succumbs to a cheap laugh.
`
`"A Wake" plays at 8 p.m. Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays through Feb. 19 at Broom  ...
`
`   
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`   
`
`   
`
`January 27, 2006 Friday
`
`Copyright 2006 The Times-Herald 
`Vallejo Times-Herald (California)
`
`SECTION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
`
`LENGTH: 1700 words
`
`HEADLINE: Friday, January 27: Police got it right, In response ...
`
`BYLINE: Times-Herald staff
`
`    BODY:
`     ... log for the date of her call, since it was not provided. However, these are just some of the possibilities explaining why they may not have
`
`been able to respond immediately. Just another perspective. In all of the times that I have reported incidents to the police department, not once
`have they not responded.
`
`The second letter, " 'Speed traps' unfair" by Howard Lentz [Jan. 17], was a criticism of the Vallejo Police Department using what he called
`"speed traps," especially on what he deemed "cross-town freeways." In order to make his point, Mr. Lentz had to use a   derogatory  stereotype, "
`hick  Georgia sheriff" [which I'm sure some Georgians would find   offensive ] to make his point instead of just using intelligent arguments.
`
` A
`
` speed trap is specifically designed to "entrap" the motorist, meaning that the officers conceal themselves. However, in all the areas that our
`police department patrols to catch motorists speeding, the officer in his vehicle is always visible.
`
`One of the streets most frequently patrolled by our police is Redwood Street, which has houses facing the street from the intersection of Redwood
`and Oakwood to the intersection of Redwood and Broadway. Many people have been hit, injured and killed in just this short section of roadway.
`Most recently, Rick Kerr was killed ...
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`   
`
`   
`
`March 4, 2005 Friday ST. LUCIE COUNTY EDITION
`
`Copyright 2005 Stuart News Company 
`Fort Pierce Tribune (Fort Pierce, FL)
`
`SECTION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. A6
`
`LENGTH: 110 words
`
`HEADLINE: Wrong person should apologize
`
`    BODY:
`
`The incident occurred during a Jan. 10 Port St. Lucie City Council meeting. It was stated that while young, crying children were also present, the
`mayor asked whether it was Edge crying.
`
`Edge was quoted in his response to His Honor: "We're not some Podunk city in the Midwest." I wonder what Podunk means? It seems to infer
`being   hicks  or inferior, which most certainly seems   offensive  and an apology from Edge is in order.
`
`Ernie Graves
`
`St. Lucie West winter renter
`
`Page, Neb.
`
`  
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`   
`
`Copyright 2004 The News Journal (Wilmington, DE)
`All Rights Reserved  
`The News Journal (Wilmington, DE)
`
`   
`
`April 7, 2004 Wednesday
`
`SECTION: SUPPLEMENT; Matt Sullivan; Pg. 4A
`
`LENGTH: 530 words
`
`HEADLINE: SOUND OFF
`
`BYLINE: Staff
`
`    BODY:
`     ... calls like this. Somehow, I doubt it.
`
`Chatting with readers is, without question, the best part of my day, any day, even when they're saying mean things about me.
`
`Oh, let's face it, I enjoy those the most. I still tell the story from early in my journalism career about the guy who would cut out stories that I
`wrote, circle offending passages and mail them to my editor with notes about how nice he was to hire the mentally challenged.
`
`Or the woman who called me an uneducated, untalented   hick  because I used the    offensive  term "chick flick" in an article I was writing about
`... uhm, chick flicks.
`
`Or the woman who called, after I wrote about a reception hall on Long Island where the bride and groom ascended through the floor in a puff of
`smoke and a blare of trumpets to make their grand entrance into the party. ("My son got married there last weekend," she snapped. "It was very
`elegant." What were the odds?)
`
`But we don't tend to get those kind of letters here at Spark, and in my musings about why not, I've ...
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`   
`
`Copyright 2003 Philadelphia Daily News
`All Rights Reserved 
`Philadelphia Daily News
`
`   
`
`October 2, 2003 Thursday 4STAR EDITION
`
`SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 39
`
`LENGTH: 436 words
`
`HEADLINE: Family sitcoms short on laughs and reality
`
`BYLINE: ELLEN GRAY
`
`    BODY:
`     ... week in what ABC is once again calling its "TGIF" lineup is "Married to the Kellys" (8:30 p.m., Channel 6), which represents the latest
`
`attempt to turn Breckin Meyer ("Inside Schwartz") into a TV star. Meyer plays a New Yorker who moves to Kansas after selling his first novel so
`his wife (Kiele Sanchez) can be closer to her family.
`
` I
`
` can take or leave Meyer, but I detested the pilot the first time I saw it, partly because it seemed overly full of Kansans-are-quirky- hicks  jokes
`that even those of us who've only flown over Kansas should find   offensive.
`
`I've since seen a revised pilot and a second episode and while I'm still not wild about "Married to the Kellys," I'm starting to see where executive
`producer Tom Hertz might go with it, and that might be a place where real family dynamics could creep in past the fart jokes.
`
`Hertz, whose bio indicates he's spent most of his life on one coast or another, told reporters this summer he'd based the Kellys on his own Kansan
`in-laws and Meyer's character, an only child who's ...
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`   
`
`Copyright 2003 The Charlotte Observer
`All Rights Reserved 
`Charlotte Observer (North Carolina)
`
`   
`
`March 11, 2003 Tuesday ONE-THREE EDITION
`
`SECTION: MAIN; Young voices; Pg. 8A
`
`LENGTH: 525 words
`
`HEADLINE: WHAT'S A SOUTHERNER?
`
`BYLINE: Observer Contributors
`
`    BODY:
`     Are portrayals of Southerners as semi-literate   hicks  (as in a new planned reality TV show, and in labeling an ex-Gastonia man's misstatements
`
`"Gastonese")   offensive?  Cole Kettler, 11, home-schooled: Personally, I hate negative stereotyping of any kind. I'll admit that in the past,
`Southerners haven't had the best education in the United States, but today I can't find much difference between people from the North and South,
`except an accent and a custom or two. After all, what's the difference? We're all Americans, aren't we? It's almost like racism!
`
`    ... rednecks who are obsessed with stock-car racing and still whine about William Sherman. I associate being a Southerner with a pride in one's
`
`region that doesn't have to be accompanied by hatred of other regions. It would serve the whole country well if we could look beyond our
`stereotypes regarding each region.
`
`Anisa Mohanty, 18, Providence High (Young Democrats Club), Charlotte: As a person who has lived in both the South and the North, I have
`seen such stereotyping from both perspectives. Perhaps Southerners are portrayed as semi-literate   hicks,  but Northerners are often portrayed as
`cold, unfeeling people. Naturally, stereotyping is wrong, but it is difficult to deny that I have never done so and it would be hypocritical for me to
`become offended by it. Alissa Mroz, 16, Cannon School, Concord: Everyone knows that not all Southerners are semi-literate   hicks,  but this
`negative Southern stereotype has been driven into our heads throughout history. Creating a reality TV show about Appalachian hillbillies is
`bound to hurt people's feelings, but that won't stop CBS from trying to make the most money possible. Although stereotypes are   offensive  and
`wrong, they will continue as long as people are only motivated by self-interest.
`
`Matt Rakow, 17, North Carolina School of Science and Math, Durham: While there are quite a few Southerners who aren't as bright as we might
`hope, the same can be said about (people in) any region of the United States. Stereotyping a region as large as "The South" with this is not only
`judgmental, it's largely inaccurate.
`
`Martha Lineberger, 17, Pinecrest High, Pinehurst: In my opinion, the   degrading      remarks that categorize Southerners as illiterate   hicks  harm
`the reputation of the speaker above all else. Everyone knows that the South is home to large corporations and fine universities that people from
`other places want to be a part of. Let the critics say what they want, because I'm proud of being part of a rich cultural tradition that has taught me
`to respect others, be humble, and be open to many diverse ideas and people.
`
` * Y
`
`oung Voices is an e-mail forum for readers college age or younger. To view all the responses to this question from Young Voices participants,
`click on Opinion on charlotte.com.
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`     
`
`Copyright 2002 Charleston Newspapers 
`Charleston Gazette (West Virginia)
`
`September 21, 2002, Saturday
`
`SECTION: News; Pg. P1C
`
`LENGTH: 651 words
`
`HEADLINE: Logan students offended by Capital's 'hick day'
`
`BYLINE: Christina Adkins
`
`    BODY:
`     ... Everyone thinks West Virginia is back-country and hicks, and it's bad enough to have it from other states across the nation. but to have it
`
`from someone only 60 miles north of us is ridiculous."
`
`This is not considered a small incident at our school. Not only were students angered, but the teachers were also infuriated by the ignorant
`decision made by Capital High to classify its hick day under Logan's name.
`
`To call all of Logan County "hickish" was an insult to every one of us. Sure, dressing up as a   hick  could be fun, but it should not have been
`done using Logan's name. In my opinion, Capital has no idea of how   offensive  we at Logan High School have taken it.
`
`When I heard about "Logan Hick Day," I didn't want to believe a school would execute a decision of that type.
`
` I
`
` now realize I was wrong, and I also realize how far one school will stoop to make another look bad.
`
` I
`
` would like to congratulate the Capital High educators and students who chose not to participate in demeaning the state's reputation, as it has
`been in the past.
`
`The ones who did not participate in this day are obviously the stronger ...
`
`   
`   
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`   
`
`Copyright 2002 The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
`All Rights Reserved 
`The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
`
`   
`
`September 6, 2002 Friday Met and metro Editions
`
`SECTION: FORUM; RF READERS FORUM; Pg. 10A
`
`LENGTH: 1339 words
`
`HEADLINE: READERS' FORUM
`
`    BODY:
`     ... children in any form in light of the Nintendo, TV and computer generation.
`
`While at the Extreme Park, I have witnessed the following: First of all, these kids are soaking wet from absolute dedication to the perfection of
`the "Ollie,'' which is elementary to most. They can handle the curves and the obstructions without protest. They have patience. They exhibit
`leadership through teaching those who want to master the skill, and the camaraderie of having something in common with others, from youth . . .
`to adult.
`
`We have something unique in Louisville, and we have to nurture this opportunity as such.
`
`HEATHER YARON
`
`Louisville 40207
`
`'Offensive' words . . .
`
`The issue isn't whether the word " hick''  is more   offensive  than the "N'' word. The point is that all such terms are used to denigrate other
`individuals or groups. As such, all these terms are   offensive.
`
`JANICE WHITWORTH
`
`Louisville 40208
`
` .
`
` . . 'I rarely agree'
`
`There is no defense for the use of the derogatory terms by Betty Baye or Wendell Berry.
`
`Keep in mind that the most dangerous people in any society are those who say the wrong things very well.
`
`   Both Baye and Berry have been endowed with a great power of self-expression, but despite their eloquence, I rarely agree with either of them.
`
`They tend to make mountains out of molehills. I suppose to some people molehills are mountains.
`
`AUSTIN HANSEL
`
`Munfordville, Ky. 42765
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`   
`
`Copyright 2002 The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
`All Rights Reserved 
`The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
`
`   
`
`August 24, 2002 Saturday Met and metro Editions
`
`SECTION: FORUM; RF READERS FORUM; Pg. 08A
`
`LENGTH: 1065 words
`
`HEADLINE: READERS FORUM
`
`    BODY:
`     ... I'm sure my friends back home will say, 'Betty's gone hick.' ''
`
`Why is that astonishing? Well, let us suppose that the editorial page of The CourierJournal were to carry an article by a white writer, saying, "I've
`come to love Harlem. I'm sure my friends will say I've gone nigger.'' I would find that offensive, and I believe Baye would too. That word, now
`cautiously referred to as "the n-word'' and rarely uttered in public, is an offensive word because it has been used to offend.
`
`Baye's use of the word " hick''  is equally   offensive,  and for the same reason. Do I dare to equate " hick''  with the "n-word''? Yes. It is the same
`kind of word, and it is meant to be used in the same way: to disparage a group of people as a group. It is a word that subjects individual humans
`to a categorical judgment. The word exists only to serve a social prejudice - someth