Very good points made on both sides of this issue so far...and I agree that being sensitive to cultural differences is an important aspect of societal harmony...
but, I think the same argument about oppression, injustice, negative images unfairly perpetuated can be made about almost any subgroup.

Backwoods, redneck, hick - can be very offensive to the hardworking, blue collar laborer who puts food on your tables, drives goods and services cross country,etc. These people were often exploited, uneducated, and misused and are one of the reasons we have labor laws, etc. Yet, we love a good hoedown/Sadie Hawkins/white trash party...

I agree that the intent of the mixer was not to offend anyone and I agree that the irony of this occurring in one of the Dakotas is not lost on most.

So, while I agree there is reason to be aware that this type of behavior can go too far and be offensive in some extremes, we can't, for example, freak out every time a kindergarten class has an interactive Thanksgiving celebration where the "Indians" (in traditional garb which usually includes facepaint) have dinner with the "pilgrims."

The intent isn't important.

We usually can't prove ill intentions. Even the idiots who wore black face and gold chains claimed not to have ill intentions. So there's no need to debate intent. We can, however, prove the outcomes and that's what the resulting offense and whatever harms caused are based on.

And toga parties depict Greeks and Romans in a negative light as well. Are they not entitled to the same sort of protections?

I don't really need an education on how natives have been treated in this country. I live a state where our culture and politics feature native issues very prominently.

Blackface in itself was one thing. War paint is quite another. There is no comparison between the two except that a select group of indians who pretend to speak for the whole are acting all butt hurt over something people did at a private party.

War paint does no more to treat a race of people as "Halloween costumes" than dressing up in a toga, or as a viking, or whatever. The party seems more geared at depicting the cowboys and indians of old western films.

If these folks weren't in the "hostile environment," then they lack standing. If this complaint is actionable under the school's policy, then that school's policy is likely not constitutional. Schools try to force students to adopt these ridiculous PC standards of conduct sometimes. This seems to be some massive overstepping of what the school should or should not be engaged in.

This goes back to historical context and the social significance of negative portrayals beyond people's feelings just being hurt.

If a group of Greeks and Romans came together to protest toga parties, pulling from the historical context of negative portrayals that extended to social exclusion, then YES they are entitled to the same sort of protections.

Just something to consider:

WASHINGTON (UMNS) - The head of the United Methodist agency for social action and advocacy has written to the Washington Redskins asking that the football team change its name.
"The name is offensive and hurtful to the many Native Americans who are citizens of this nation and to all people who reject racial stereotypes and bigotry as socially acceptable," writes the Rev. Thom White Wolf Fassett, top executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society.

Fassett acknowledges the difficulty of such a change and the need to involve both the National Football League and the club's fans. The term "redskins" has been derogatory from its start, he says, and by embodying a history of degradation and slaughter, it demeans the team as well as Native Americans.

He cites the denomination's act of repentance for racism on May 4, as well as a resolution in the church's current Book of Resolutions that is "a call for repentance for the church's role in the dehumanization and colonization of our Native American sisters and brothers."


http://gbgm-umc.org/usa/umns062200jpmw.stm


ETA: To the topic itself....there were questions as to whether or not it was a private affair etc and so forth...ladies and gentlemen...let us all remember (sorry if I preach to the choir but I think we are missing this) that what we do in the privacy of our own homes and residence, halls etc are just that....but when it is done advertising your org. regardless of what it is....at that point, what people see people will take at face value. You are your organization's face. People who see any type of activity will make a baseline judgement from those activities. It's not based on the individual(s). So when you hear that Joe Shmoe, Jane Shmore of XYZ org did ABC event that got whatever attention in the news...what part do you think people pay attention to more?

Common sense should dictate, if you are going to do something that may be questionable to your org...

1. THINK
2. If you really decide that you are going to do it...disassociate yourself beforehand because once pix pops up and they see you doing something questionable and letters involved...it's YOUR ORG that comes under question not you. and that image will make more of a lasting impression....


Beta Theta Pi at Aurburn imitating Omega Psi Phi (in black face even) anyone.....?

I have to respectfully disagree about intent not being important. Someone who unthinkingly acts in a culturally insensitive way can be educated. Someone who does it with malice would probably not. 18 - 22 year olds do stupid things - one advantage to going to college and being in a GLO is that you hope they will grow, learn and mature. The programming of NPC sororities is geared to help their members in the process.

eta - and it is my understanding that the problem began with pictures posted on Facebook. FYI.

Anyone can be educated, intent or unintent. But most people with a grain of brain will claim to not know that they were potentially being offensive.

Many of these incidents have prompted campus forums on tolerance and diversity. But that doesn't stop the university or the nhq from handing down sanctions. People learn best when education is mixed with a sanction because now they see the consequences of their actions.

Now if these were 5 year olds we are talking about, then I'd truly believe they were clueless.

I respectfully disagree. I think intent is important to how the situation should be handled. I don't think intent invalidates the results though.

The chapter is on social probation.

Sanctioned for not being politically correct. Might as well just tear up the Constitution.

It must be an oxymoron that some of the dumbest things such as these, happens on college campuses.


Just because you are in college doesn't mean you are 'smart'.

Socially or bookwise.

Do you honestly believe that they thought "I know this is offensive, but I don't care?". No one, of course, can know for sure, but if they knew it was offensive and chose to do it anyway I don't think they would have happily posed for pictures, and then posted them on facebook. Insensitive means they didn't consider others feelings - it doesn't have to mean that they considered them, and then said it didn't matter.

There have been comparisons between black face and this, and I think the difference is that because of the association with sports teams "redface" has been seen and accepted by some in a way that blackface is not. That is not to say that it is not wrong, but that there is not the overwhelming agreement on the topic that you have with blackface. Turn on your TV and you can see sports fans whooping away, tomahawk chopping, etc. There is a very active debate on the matter, and it still has shades of gray that, not to be punny, you don't have when discussing blackface.

eta - so, to get past the point where we argue back and forth over something we can't know (whether or not they meant to be offensive), what do you think the appropriate response should be?

Exactly why intent doesn't matter.

I honestly don't care what they thought. ;) I deal with outcomes. Some outcomes come from more deliberate and intentional actions than others. But that is be based on more than "we didn't know."

The speculation and semantics ("insensitive" versus "clueless") game is a waste of time. After all of these incidents that have been in the media, no college student with a head as distinct from their ass should claim they aren't aware of the potential for offense.

Regarding taking photos: An analogy are the photos of black face that dumb college students took--imagine them happily posing for photos in deliberate black faced costumes and pretending that they don't know that black face is offensive. Perhaps more overt than in the article for this thread, but the "didn't know" defense is all the same. Even if these idiots claimed they "didn't know," the outfits were very crafted and intentionally black face. But if they "didn't know," that says a lot about this society.

And if they truly didn't know, NOW THEY DO and will be handled accordingly. :)

Now that they do know?

The university doesn't have the power to compel you to not offend racial groups. If their organization wants to sanction them, fine. The university has no business doing anything here, except maybe to issue a statement saying that they don't approve, but there's nothing they can do.

The fact that the university legally doesn't have the power to sanction this group preempts this entire argument as to whether it's offensive (which is still an argument).

The university has waaaay overstepped its bounds here and I hope someone sues them for it.