Nah. The Department will ban Halloween costume parties.

On behalf of nittanyalum, you're welcome. One day you'll get all of this straight. :D

Seriously, while it certainly could have happened in a Democratic administration, I do think it would be less likely to happen. I'll leave it to others to argue as to whether that is because Democrats are more socially enlightened or because those in charge would understand that Democrats might have more to lose from the bad publicity. I could also say that I think it would be less likely to happen in the administrations of some other Republicans. Like I said earlier, this situation says as much to me about political naivety as it does about racial insensitivity.

Which is one reason I have no doubt that it would have made the news had this been a Democratic administration.

In some cases, this may be the easiet route. On my job, in which I work with people with psychiatric diagnoses, a consumer (client) who is a devout Roman Catholic, asked if the agency would carry him to church to attend special Marian devotional services. His query was rejected.The assistant supervisor, who's also Catholic,explained the ratiionale to the client like this: Suppose, say,a client is a Satanist and wants to attend Satanic rituals and wants the agency to transport him/her? (This was an odious and unacceptable thing to the asst. supervisor, religiously speaking.) This means we'd have to honor their wishes just as we would the Christians, Jews, Muslims and non-believers in our agency. The best solution is that we won't do it for anyone.

Here's a story which reverses the DHS example. A few years ago, when I lived in Southern California, there was a Fraternity brother who was an engineer in the aerospace industry. He was close to retirement in years at the company. Per his dealing with Fraternity brothers as a district official, he was very good hearted yet brusque with an intimidating persona at times, as if he was still a DP (what you white NIC groups call the pledge trainer). This is the way he dealt with people, even on the job. It just so happened that he had a white female underling on his job with whom he motivated her to do her job as if she was a pledge. She complained to the higher ups that she was the victim of harassment and intimidation. Now, when this field was solely a male domain, I suppose you could possible get away with cussin' a slacker out or gettin' on his a@#, but now this is trickier when the employee is a woman and even trickier when your boss is a large African American male. The corporate higher ups basically exonerated him from any wrong doing but fearing litigation and negative press, and weighing the options, decided it was in the best interest of the company to give him an early retirement.

Eh, since this is already a thread about race, I'll go there...

NIC is sufficient, you can leave the "white" off, as NIC groups accept people of all races.

Au contraire, I was attempting to be inclusive because 3-5 NPHC fraternities and other Latino- and Asian-interest groups are members of the NIC also. We all do not share the same traditions and nomenclature; thus just saying NIC would give a wrong impression because most would not associate its member groups with African American fraternities. That's it, in a nutshell. It's simply descriptive, not pejorative. "Historically white" may have been a better expression; but your concern had nothing to do with the point I was making at all.

No, you were attempting to be EXCLUSIVE...you were excluding the Latino and Asian groups who are members of the NIC. And "white" is descriptive, but certainly not accurate. Saying "what other groups call a pledge trainer" would have also worked for your point. But, the fact that my concern was not associated with the point you were making is not going to stop me from bringing it up. I and other NPC members make an attempt to use the terms that other groups (NIC/NPHC/IFC, etc) prefer, and all I ask is that you do the same. I know I'm not an NIC member, but I do see "white sororities", etc used just as much.

It's curious to hear someone tell me, the writer, what my motivations were, when, I assure you, that was not the case. In my line of work, imputing wrong motives to people and the like can be termed "delusional."

There's no discussion of your motivations in my post. You said you were being inclusive. That is factually incorrect, it has nothing to do with motives. If you were talking about the non-Latino, non-Black and non-Asian focused members of the NIC, you were excluding them from your statement, not including them. And, I don't think it's appropriate to be throwing the term "delusional" around, especially since in your line of work, "delusional" is most likely deemed to be pathological, which cannot be determined from a single post.

It's equally curious, in the context of this thread, to see how a person can take offense at what you said (or how you said it) even when your motivation was benign, and how you suggest that anyone taking offense where none was intended might be "delusional."

I've taken this to the level of the PM. What's important is the story in the thread, not this "aside."

OK - I don't want to open a can of worms here, but I'm somewhat confused about this particular case as indicative of the larger issue of "blackface" . . . as I understand it, traditional blackface imagery is offensive because of its relationship to minstrel shows, and the Al Jolson style of open mocking of African Americans and all things stereotypically 'black.' It's a relic from an unbelievably awful and segregated era in American history, so I can see why it is dangerous, hurtful and stupid to invoke anything from that era.

I realize we've gone far beyond the need for a literal "blackface" paint job (with the oval of black paint and fake white teeth, again a la Al Jolson - linked here) to invoke something racist or prejudiced . . . for instance, the kids at Clemson who dressed as black celebrities did it in a fashion that was beyond even parodic and into hurtful, including a full cadre of prejudicial and stereotypical elements.

Here, though, with just 'darker' makeup (not paint, not stereotypical or mocking, and apparently not all that noticeable), and going as a well-known and respected celebrity (and, apparently, without mocking), is this really the same thing? Does it automatically invoke the minstrel show every time a white guy puts on makeup to look black?

I ask because I really don't know - I know that I would shy away from any kind of makeup, because I'm white and I don't know what is or isn't hurtful. I can go as a white celebrity, I suppose, it seems easy enough. However, can a white guy ever dress as a black guy without being disrespectful? I'm not sure the thought process of "well I'll just go as white because it's easier" is really a step forward for race relations or anything, you know?

I think in a lot of cases if makeup is used then the image of the minstrel show is the first thing to pop in the minds of some. I can see someone dressing up as a celebrity as halloween but how far do you really have to take your costume. I could dress up as Bill Gates. Khakis, green plaid shirt, maybe a wig, and some glasses. Done. Now I wouldn't grab some makeup and lighten my skin to really get into character because I know I would be offended if someone did something similar. I've seen white people be black celebrities for halloween with no makeup and there was no doubt who they were trying to be.

K Sig...it's one of those things..."If you gotta guess...then don't mess"

Same as last year at my job...one of the white guys dressed up as Flava Flav sans the make up....some of us thought it was funny...others didn't.

Some people just cross the line and don't know nor think that what they are doing is offensive.

I think this is a fine principle indeed - however, I think it's a problem when it becomes "I can't dress black because I don't know what's good/bad", since the whole goal should be a modicum of understanding and fellowship, if that makes sense.

That's why I'm asking - cutting down on the guessing would be a good thing, and probably help the stupider members of the population from doing something, well, stupid.

Why would dressing as Flava Flav be offensive, if it doesn't include a historically offensive issue (i.e. blackface or similar)? Now, you could turn anything offensive by dropping a bunch of slurs or generally acting like an ethnocentric douche, but this is kind of what I'm saying - is it implicitly offensive to some African Americans if white people dress up like black celebrities?

to answer the last part of the question....it is dependent on intent and who the celeb is...

back to that in a sec....now as to dude dressing up like flav...it may be the fact that he didn't pull it off too well...lemme see if I can find the pic...hehehe

http://images.kodakgallery.com/photo...2405_0_ALB.jpg

Definitions evolve over time. The word "awesome" isn't used in the manner it was intended. There are still some morons who claim swastikas are benign because of their origin and neglect what they've become. So hey maybe putting on dark makeup isn't what it used to be. But then again, you couldn't convince me it's worth risking offending someone by doing that.

-Rudey