OPINION & EDITORIAL
University sets example in frat scandal
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Robert Phansalkar:
- 'Think, Respect' does neither, preempts rational action (November 14, 2007)
- 'Taser this' editorial tame compared to past (October 2, 2007)
- Lawmakers' plan bigger problem than baggy pants (September 18, 2007)
- Right-wing judicial activism fault of liberal tactics (August 31, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Blame for crime misplaced (February 2, 2006)
- Duke scandal multifaceted (April 21, 2006)
- Bucky gets bunny ears (April 6, 2006)
- Better late than never? (April 10, 2006)
- Incident puts UW's dedication to safety in question (February 22, 2007)
by Robert Phansalkar
Monday, November 27, 2006
Johns Hopkins University, well known for its Medical School and lacrosse team, is apparently making a name for itself in the 'hood of Baltimore.
Sigma Chi, a fraternity on campus, thought that the best way to celebrate Baltimore's diverse, albeit rough, neighborhood was to hold a "Halloween in the Hood" party, encouraging students to wear "regional clothing from our locale" including, but not limited to "bling bling ice ice, grills" and the obligatory "hoochie hoops."
My immediate reaction probably served me best: That is just flat out racist. And as it would appear, JHU's administrators agreed with my assessment, but rather than chastise the fraternity's insensitivity and stupidity, they challenged them saying that the members' actions caused "harassment" and "intimidation" to occur.
I have long struggled against these terms of legal vacuity, and it appears that JHU is not going to make my struggle much easier any time soon.
JHU's Student Conduct Board held that Sigma Chi violated harassment policies by performing "conduct or a pattern of conduct that harasses a person or a group" and through "intimidation of any person which results in limiting her/his full access to all aspects of life at the university."
These definitions of harassment and intimidation are messy, even in the eyes of those who challenge hate speech's legality. However, despite these weak policies, the university's model of dealing with this issue provides something of a model for future disputes along these lines.
JHU's Black Student Union was rightfully frustrated by this insensitive party, and the university held listening sessions with students to foster understanding of the situation while attempting to halt the undercurrent of bigotry on campus.
JHU listened, and the result: punishment for the fraternity, but in a manner consistent with the informality of the situation. Although JHU will deprive the fraternity of its means of exploitative expression, parties, until 2008, it did mandate a less formal approach to the problem: incorporation of diversity training into its new members program.
This "punishment" provides a great example of how to handle disputes that should avoid the scope of formal law, but should not go unheard as real and legitimate problems in society.
As my fellow minority students can certainly attest, there are many times when you resort to informality out of choice and necessity. It could be as simple as walking away from situations when someone says something to you, and it does not sit well. You let it slide because you know that some battles just are not worth fighting.
However in situations that are worse, such as Michael Richards' racial tirade at a Los Angeles nightclub, it is awfully hard to maintain that composure and take the moral high road. In these situations, and I would argue that "Halloween in the Hood" is Richards-esque in, if nothing else, its stupidity, we must find a balance between formal law and letting it slide.
Sometimes approaching someone just is not enough, and JHU and its Black Student Union chapter recognized that fact in dealing with this matter. Pushing for prosecution in a formal legal institution would have compromised the goals of the community-building spirit driving the social probation placed against the fraternity.
JHU knew this and acted in a way that was responsible and provided a model for other universities to follow. By taking this path, JHU has presented a valuable lesson that you will not often hear from lawyers:
Justice does not always have to involve a judge and jury to be effective.
For schools, like UW, that are struggling to cope with perceived worsening racial attitudes on campus, let this be a lesson for combating our growing problem.
Robert Phansalkar (phansalkar@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 3:36am):
I'm sorry to be rude, but this is a dumb article. Are you trying to infer that UW frats are racist? You took a simple story (frat = racist = bad = JHU did a good job)and made a 500+ word editorial saying the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER. Until this happens @ UW, this is useless. I'm glad your argument is that the UW needs to punish racism. As if frats get away with this now.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 7:40am):
Mr. Phansalkar, racial tensions exist because everyone has to tip-toe around anyone slightly darker than pale. You or anyone else having their "feelings" hurt every time someone says something that the PC Police tell you is offensive doesn't help anything.
Someday, we'll all realize that we're all just middle-class Americans who want a bite of the same pie.
Fat people, gay people, ugly people, stinky people, and gypsies can all be Caucasian and can all be just as easily offended. Stop handicapping yourself with perceived racism; you'll never amount to anything until you realize that success depends on your talent as a capitalist, not a whiner.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 9:10am):
I don't see why "bling," "hood" and other such slang and modes of dress and behavior are neccessarily "black." Are you saying that dressing in gang colors is a "black" thing to do? Does this mean that every single black person in this country dresses and acts like a rapper? Are you saying that non blacks are not allowed to dress or act that way? I can promise you that if the fraternity had a "hill billy halloween" where everyone dressed in coveralls and straw hats, nobody would complain about that being racist.
I think the "black community" partly contributes to it's own stereotyping and categorization. A small group of blacks like to speak for their entire race, with concepts like "acting black," or "dressing black." I am sure that there are some blacks who would like to speak up and say, "um, I don't act that way and don't want to be associated with that."
Case in point: BET, black entertainment television. What does this name mean? What if TNN changed it's name to White Entertainment Television? It's insulting to the blacks who aren't interested in that kind of thing.
Things like "gangsta" and "bling" and all that other nonsensical crap should not be associated with blacks. It should be associated with illiterate fools who like to dress and act like clowns. I think it's a shame that all blacks get associated with that kind of behavior just because of few loud mouth idiots on TV say things like "it's a black thing."
But then, I'm white, so I guess nobody cares when I complain.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:41am):
Oh look, bitter conservative white people complaining about double standards!
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 10:55am):
Here is a link to a facebook group that might interest you:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2219826981
and
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2218259859
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 11:22am):
Hmmm... I don't really see the problem there. It was a Halloween party. I have had the misfortune of seeing a music video or two on MTV and I would argue that that is a fairly accurate description of the attire. How, exactly, is dressing like a certain group/subculture of your neighborhood racist? In 1st grade we made vests our of paper grocery bags and feather headbands out of construction paper for Thanksgiving. Is that racist as well?
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 12:15pm):
Unless this fraternity was implicitly implying that all Black people dress according to the dress code encouraged at the party, I find it hard to label this as racist. Holding a party with a "ghetto" theme is not the same as holding a party with a "Black" theme. I'd say your reaction, that is, improperly assuming a ghetto party is indicative of "Blackness", is much more racist than the holding of said party.
(I'm Black)
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 12:49pm):
If black students decided to hold an "Office Space" party where people dressed like nerds and danced poorly, would that fall under the veil of offensive conduct? What if ISA held the same party? Is it not offensive if a "smart" minority group holds this kind of party?
If you have not seen MTV since the turn of the 21st century, let me make it clear that white people can and do sport grills, drive pimped out Escalades with spinners, and have scantily clad girls in their music videos. It's not just a "black" thing.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 1:29pm):
God, the attitudes about race on this campus are ignorant.
Ignoring racism or pretending that it only exists in the eyes of liberals and overly-sensitive black people is just stupid. It wasn't the "PC Police" that created a black poverty rate that's three times the rate of whites and increasing each year, idiots.
And the arguments only get more simple-minded and strained from there. Bitching about Black Entertainment Television is just lazy. Does the American Broadcasting Company suggest to you that it represents all Americans? Is it exclusionary for ABC to put American in their name?
And the idea that a "hood" party at JHU, a primarily white college in a primarily black part of Baltimore, could refer to any race is more semantic BS pushed by ignorant bigots who desperately cling to the idea that racism doesn't exist in order to preserve their privileged little egos. Weak.
Stupid, stupid arguments. Shouldn't even qualify as argumemts, but all the racism-deniers have is a claim that racism is black people's fault, if it exists at all, which it doesn't, so there.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 2:04pm):
Grow up. Step outside of the white privilege that is UW-Madison and realize what is going on. Institutional racism exists, and that includes UW. Black culture does not contribute to the institutional racism forced upon it. Kudos to Mr. Phansalker for being strong enough to broach a topic no one wants to talk about.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 2:09pm):
If a white person puts his clothes on backwards, lets his pants fall half way to his knees, doesn't tie his shoes, and talks like he has a mouth full of marbles, he is considered a retard. If a black person does the same thing, it's called part of his "culture."
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 3:14pm):
@9:10,
That was real
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 5:03pm):
Show me where "institutionalized racism" exists today. You tell me when, where, and how I, as a white male, contributed to racism. The people in power do not force the poor to join gangs, commit crimes, or do drugs. It is a double standard to emmulate and admire the criminal activities of thugs and gangs, then complain when you are treated poorly for acting that way. If you don't want to be treated like a thug, then don't dress like one. It's not a matter of race. I do not think twice about a black man in a nice suit. Likewise, I dispise whites who dress like crack heads.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 7:20pm):
It's easy to post comments of the sort above me anonymously and act as though you stand behind them as non-prejudiced, truthful statements. If your statements are so truthful and you truly stand behind them, why not stand behind them in the public forum? But I'm not going to bother with that, because we all know the anonymity of the internet is the perfect vehicle to put your ignorant ideas on the table, and not worry about defending them.
What I have trouble with is that people are so quick to say that the "bling" and the "hood" elements of hip-hop culture are not an exclusively "black" thing, and that's true, but in reality, hip-hop culture and those elements of it--be it fairly or unfairly--are cast upon black people in America. When this fraternity had a "ghetto" party--and don't for one second think that people don't have them at UW-Madison--they weren't thinking about anything other than low income black neighborhoods and the stereotypical sub-culture that contemporary American society associates with it.
People react and say that it's racist to assume a "ghetto party" is supposed to portray poor black people, but cut the bullshit. Who else are the party-throwers and participants trying to portray? I would say the invitation to wear "bling bling", "ice", "grills", and "hoochie hoops" isn't directed at any form of white culture, and I don't think anybody would come close to being surprised if there were individuals in blackface, as have been at documented UW "ghetto" parties. The association made with any "ghetto" party on a majority-white campus is likely almost always a negative association that asks participants to imitate a group of people and a culture that they may not have any real dealings with in an ignorant fashion, which intentionally or unintentionally degrades a sub-culture of people at the least, and degrades an entire race (perhaps multiple races) simply by association at its arguably worse.
There are positive ways to engage and attempt to portray other cultures academically and through your own studies and research, but this is not one of those. It is completely true that hip-hop culture is not only black people and black culture, everyone is and should be engaged with it and involved in it, but when it comes to ignorant people portraying the culture, it all goes back to one set of images, and we all know what those images look like.
I'm sure that party was dominated by individuals portraying that image, and by continuing to propogate that image, people begin to convince themselves that anybody who raps is an uneducated thug who robs and kills. Then it spreads out in the generalizations, and anybody who wears baggy clothing is uneducated and probably engages in some criminal activity. Then it continues to spread and generalize further, and anybody who is black or brown who doesn't look like they engage in the Caucasian idea of "high-culture" (which is presently the dominant majority culture) are reduced to bumbling criminals and misfits who are inferior to those who do fit the standards of majority culture.
It is dangerous to classify one group of peoples' culture as superior to another without any kind of legitimate understanding of that culture. Most of these people are getting their hip-hop--and associatively black culture--from BET and MTV, and making the assumption that black culture is all about material possessions and disregard for education, and then they have these "ghetto" parties and write anonymous comments on message boards and see that other people like them think the same thing, and it serves to cement the idea that most dark people who "look" hip-hop are ignorant and are going to try to rob them.
Take the statement made in an earlier post:
<i>I think the "black community" partly contributes to it's own stereotyping and categorization. A small group of blacks like to speak for their entire race, with concepts like "acting black," or "dressing black."</i>
The so-called 'black community' does not contribute to it's own stereotyping and categorization anywhere near as much as people like yourself just did. It is the groups and individuals who are not involved in the cultures and communities who have a rampant tendency to identify specific individuals who fit the bill, and apply these individuals' traits to the entire community, as you did yourself in one single paragraph. A "small group of blacks" do not "like to speak for their entire race", instead it is people like you who MAKE these individuals speak for their entire race by singling them out as representatives in the first place. Instead, this "small group of blacks" should be taken at face value: a small group of individuals who are black. Just as President Bush and his voting base do not represent the views and ideas of all white people, 50 Cent and MTV gangster rap culture do not represent all black and brown people. Yet somehow, very few think the former, and it would seem that a significant amount of people think (at least on a sub-concious level) the latter.
It's not an issue of hyper-sensitivity, it's an issue of the placement of inferior status that is given to both individuals and communities of people who fit one description and not another. This is evidenced by the statement:
<i>
Things like "gangsta" and "bling" and all that other nonsensical crap...should be associated with illiterate fools who like to dress and act like clowns.</i>
This statement implies that anybody with baggy clothing and/or gaudy jewelry is nonsensical, illiterate, foolish, and clown-like because they don't engage in that persons ideal cultural standards. That's what makes this kind of thinking ignorant and in some cases completely racist: you are inferring that your culture and the group of individuals who engage in it are intellectually and morally superior to another's culture and that group of people.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 7:42pm):
I went to a "black party" once and we all acted black like Oprah and Bill Cosby. It's a shame how the white man kept them down.
Anonymous (November 27, 2006 @ 11:15pm):
"Black culture does not contribute to the institutional racism forced upon it."
Complete and absolute BS. Ask Bill Cosby - opps - I forgot, he was drummed out of "blackness" because he dared to speak truth to Black Power.
Anonymous (November 28, 2006 @ 2:06pm):
"I do not think twice about a black man in a nice suit. Likewise, I dispise whites who dress like crack heads."
People dressed in old white guy garb = A-Okay!
People dressed in contemporary black fashion = Crackhead!
That's how you, as a white male, contribute to racism, and I "dispise" you for it, jackass.
