A veritable Pandora's Box of ethnic strife has been opened in the wake of law professor Leonard Kaplan's comments. It seems that on one side of the rather salacious argument are those who would insist that Kaplan's comments — while brutish and inelegant — are innocuous and pertinent remarks that hold no racial sting when framed within the context in which they were said — and that the comments are fully protected by the much-invoked idea of academic freedom of expression. Others would argue that there is no context in which comments like those ascribed to Kaplan can be made and not be racist. You know my feelings on the issue; I expressed them last week. However, as facts emerge and this vague and controversial event becomes more defined, it seems a lot of us — myself included — really don't have much of a handle on what was said or what was meant to be said in Kaplan's class. Much of the anger, emotion, argument and counter-argument has been based on quotes whose accuracy is now in question. In what I assume to be law-school lingo: Objection! Based on an Associated Press article, I mistakenly reported that Nam Dao, a Vietnamese student who was in attendance at the class, was Hmong. Dao said he did not find the comments Kaplan made racist. This would be a powerful statement if, as I thought and reported, Dao was a Hmong student. However, he is not and neither am I. Our insights must be tempered by the understanding that neither of us can truly understand what frustrated Hmong students must be feeling when reading the kind of statements Kaplan supposedly made about their culture. It would take a unique kind of audacity to tell a member of a specific ethnic group that they have no right to be offended by the kind of comments being ascribed to Kaplan. It also takes a unique kind of audacity to tell a member of a specific ethnic group that his thoughts are of no consequence because they are not of the same ethnicity as those in question. It also takes a unique kind of misinformed audacity to e-mail me claiming I cannot comment on the issue because I am an ignorant, white columnist. As my picture clearly shows, I am, at worst, an ignorant, black columnist. However, the voices of Dao and others like him — that is, those who are not Hmong — cannot be precluded from the numerous discussions and forums that will invariably take place on Kaplan's comments — or supposed comments — based solely on the fact that they are not Hmong. The idea that a Vietnamese student cannot have a valid opinion on this matter is as ridiculous as saying that Hmong students cannot consider themselves an appropriate judge of Kaplan's comments because they are Hmong and he is white. Race and ethnicity do not preclude someone from attempting to understand or even comment upon the particulars and intricacies of the race and culture of another. In fact, Dao is in a position many Hmong students who were present at Thursday's forum on the issue are not in. He was there. He has a firsthand account of what was said, and in what context — something that has been sorely lacking in the discourse following the incident. Initial reports were peppered with the sort of outlandish quotes that have made this story Wisconsin's version of the Duke lacrosse case. However, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and reporter Megan Twohey, Kaplan, speaking at a meeting of fellow colleagues, insisted, "I didn't say what was attributed to me. But I think I know why it was misinterpreted." Kaplan seems to imply that the quotes being ascribed to him are not what he said in the now-infamous lecture. Is Kaplan being misquoted or misunderstood? Or both? Only Kaplan knows. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Kashia Moua, the Hmong student who first circulated Kaplan's comments, admits that the accusations made in her e-mail were "not well-informed." Could it be that we still do not know what professor Kaplan actually said? As the Duke lacrosse case has taught us, nothing creates an uproar and dichotomous discord like the polarizing topic of race and ethnicity. Without knowing what was truly said and in what context there can be no informed and appropriate action on the Kaplan incident. Who is to provide this information, you ask? Why, professor Kaplan. It is the professor himself who should explain to us — or at least to those most offended — what he said in the class and what exactly he meant by it. Explain yourself, professor. I implore you. And next time when a forum is held because of something you said, it might be prudent to attend. Gerald Cox ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in Middle Eastern studies and economics.