I don't remember parties like this in the 80s.* Not saying they didn't happen, and maybe it was lack of social media where every little aspect of life is publicized around the globe, but in my experience at least these types of parties weren't really that common back then. We were too busy having toga parties and the like.


* Not including "life on the plantation" parties. Those I definitely remember.

In America, you aren't entitled to see someone punished because they offend you. If so, the Westboro Baptist folks would be in prison.

Kappa Alpha Order did (maybe still does) the Old South formals where folks dress in antebellum garb. They flew (and maybe still fly) the Confederate flag, etc.

You are leaping.

In that case, schools and GLOs need to revise quite a few of their policies and procedures. They violate our Riiiiiiiiiiiiights.

Nobody is punishing individual members; they are punishing the group.

I don't know the status of Old South, but I'm pretty sure KA has forbidden use of the Confederate flag.

Not really, if I understand what he's saying, given his comment upthread about this action possibly being okay if the school were private and the prison reference for Westboro Baptist.

I think he's saying in America, you aren't entitled to see the government punish someone because you or others find their speech offensive. And that's true. And the government includes public universities. (Free speech rights may not be quite as absolute in primary and secondary schools because of the nature of those schools.)

Of course, that doesn't mean people or groups are immune from the non-governmental consequences (from fellow students, from GLO HQs, etc.) of their speech. And there could be "hostile environment" considerations beyond speech itself.

And I think there is a legitimate question raised: Is dressing up in sombreros and serapes for "Taco Tuesday" "speech" in the constitutional sense?

I didn't notice this was about government punishment. How did this discussion become about government punishment? Even when talking about public vs private institutions and organizations, schools and GLOs always maintain the ability to impose sanctions. They don't have to use government hate crime legislation to do so.

I'm talking about schools and GLOs choosing to do something beyond a cliche' racial sensitivity training.

There's nothing wrong with Taco Tuesday as long as attendees don't show up imitating and mocking "Mexicans" (or looking and acting like Speedy Gonzalez, gang members, etc). The proposed subjectivity is why it is up to the school and GLO to figure out wether there will be a sanction and what will be the sanction. This is no different than the costume parties GCers rant about annually.

Our theme parties in the mid-80s were: Toga Party, 50s party, Roaring 20s, Beach Party, Halloween party, Hawaiian party... that's about it from what I can remember. We recycled those themes over and over.

I don't know whether to say that my community was more worldly or less? I attended Luau and Fiesta parties into the 90s. These sometimes included costumes like grass skirts/leis or sombreros and Mexican embroidered blouses. (Definitely not fake mustaches or "gang" attire.) Earlier, in my '70s childhood, some moms like mine threw themed birthday parties that might be "Oriental," complete with parasols for the kids, egg rolls, yada yada. I dressed in various ethnic garb on different Halloweens; my parents were well traveled and proud to dress us up in a real Indian sari (plus hairdo and red dot), a real Japanese kimono, whatever. I had some kind of robe with jingling coins on it that they got in Egypt. We thought we were far more cosmopolitan than the kids dressed up as witches and superheroes. We would never do any of that nowadays.

In the Southern Belle Primer, when they're talking about rush parties, it's mentioned in passing that one party is Japanese themed and everyone takes their shoes off at the door. I don't know if that was just a one-time deal.

Hawaiian Party? Toga Party? That's cultural appropriation! Your group should have been placed on double secret probation.

Corporations are people, my friend.

RTA. This is about the University of California Fullerton imposing sanctions on a sorority because they offended some way-too-sensitive people.

Punishing students for off-campus conduct (which is probably speech in this case) at a social event unrelated to any university programming... let's just say if someone brought me this case I'd happily be off to federal court with this thing. Might even get a grant or some help from the ACLU.

If ADPi was sanctioning their own chapter, fine, that's their private business. If a private school is sanctioning the conduct of their students, they are free to do so. Government schools, however, have to respect your constitutional rights, one of which is being able to say just about any damn thing you want without penalty.

GLOs can do, schools? I mean.. maybe they could order sensitivity training.. that might fly, but even that, in my opinion is a stretch.

I'd argue that it's not up to the school. The GLO though? Heck yeah. Can the students protest? Sure. Name and shame? Ok. Picket the house during rush? You betcha. Get the Dean of Students to penalize the organization? I don't think so.

Schools need to know their limits. Years ago, I nearly had an issue with a Greek Life adviser with the group I advise. An angry lawyer letter was enough to put the kabosh on anything the school was thinking about doing.

This is an academic discussion of course, I'm guessing that this is going forward with the cooperation of the chapter's alumni/national office, etc.

If they are mimicking demographics of people? I agree.

If they are acting like tourists in Hawaii and Ancient Rome? I disagree.

We were mimicking Animal House with the toga parties so ...yeah. Hawaiian parties typically consisted of wearing Hawaiian shirts.

TO-GA TO-GA That was one of our recycled themes, too! We had 70s themes with lots of tie dye and a barn dance every fall with jeans, boots, flannels and bandannas.

I do recall Pimp and Prostitute -- that was mainly an excuse to dress in revealing clothing around the fraternity men, and it was easy to find cheap, leftover 70s clothes at Goodwill.

I hate to say it, but the shoes we reserved for "slutty" costume attire were tamer than the platform stilettos I see college women frequently wearing today...along with the tight, tube skirts for clubbing.

This whole conversation reminded me of this...

What American-themed parties look like around the world:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/this-...world?s=mobile

Enjoy!

There are no criminal penalties being applied. The sanctions are targeting an organization, not an individual. Courts have agreed many times that there are limits on free speech.

All of which is to say that this argument is so bad, I think you must be trolling.

i'm sorry but i just have to put in my two cents. cal state fullerton is in anaheim/fullerton. most of the population in anaheim and fullerton is hispanic. i'm sorry but people are being way to sensitive about this ENTIRE THING!! since these are college aged women just playing around, i really don't think they were thinking about serious sanctions like this when they were dressing up, maybe like they did to high school.

and also cal state fullerton is part of the california state university system which is public. cal state fullerton is not part of the UC system.

Contrary to misconceptions race and ethnicity-based cluelessness and ignorance increase with racial and ethnic diversity.

This can happen for two reasons or a combination:
1. Presumed familiarity can breed "some of my best friends are _____" or "my friend is _____ and she doesn't mind that I use that word".

2. Diversity can breed a sense of threat that the powerful group is losing or lost dominance.

These women were probably #1.

Nothing of value to contribute to this thread but

YES.

And the title reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx40udwQvZI

Breware the Kragle

Of course courts have said there are limits on free speech. But if this qualifies as speech—unlike Kevin, I'm not as convinced it does—I don't think those limits would apply here. Kevin's argument isn't nearly as bad as you seem to think. Except, that is, as to the claim of offended students being "overly sensitive."

Then it's time for these college-aged women to grow up and learn that their stupidity and cluelessness can have consequences.

And the "these are college-aged people" ignores the demographics of "these college-aged people". It is no coincidence that most of these parties are thrown by white people--despite the prevalence of predominantly non-white college environments in which racial and ethnic minority students (GLO and GDI) have parties (some are themed parties and usually without racial, ethnic, and cultural themes).

Therefore, it is about something more than being "college-aged". I find it amusing when people attempt to race-neutralize these discussions.

Perhaps the people in the OP story were not as stupid and extreme as other parties but this is still a good time to remind people of this article:

http://blackathlete.net/2013/02/spor...theme-parties/

No disrespect to white people but I am not shocked when white college students have these parties (and take photos). I am shocked when nonwhite college students participate in the parties and photos. The photo of the women (I assume a sorority chapter) and there are nonwhite sorority women smiling like idiots---that grates my nerves. Perhaps it is an example of people so happy to be accepted and assimilated as "white enough" that they will do anything to prove they are not an Other.

The Omega-mockery photo is horrible but it still makes me chuckle. How dare they.

We have quite a few students who enjoy dressing up as Black people on Halloween. And little do they know, I have saved their lives from getting their faces pounded in because I didn't want to offended students to get in trouble. I don't care too much about the "they are college students" argument, and neither do others who are offended.

AND I WISH A CHICK WOULD WEAR MY LETTERS AND BE IN BLACKFACE.

Exactly. "They are college students" implies college students are clueless and stupid (which counters the notion that college students are legal adults who can handle running chapters, having jobs, etc.). I cannot stand when humans want to be adults and then want to be children when it suits them.

Some of us weren't allowed to be clueless and stupid, in general, and especially when it pertained to race, ethnicity, culture, and socioeconomic status. It requires privilege to act or claim clueless and stupid.

The closest I have come at different schools is attending predominantly white parties where white women were OOO-OOOPing and carrying on. LOL. Those were my last predominantly white parties. :p

I totally get that. I had to attend a multitude of meetings when some young ladies got stupid. It made national news.

http://www.bgnews.com/kent-state-sor...b624a9ac8.html

What I find interesting about the situation is that no pictures of the offensive outfits have popped up and the vagueness of how many women were actually in offensive costume.

The 93% of the chapter participated in Taco Tuesday is useless info. Taco Tuesday is not offensive. It's a completely common thing in California.

The article claims nobody was told to dress in costume but 90% of women did, of which some were offensive.

So if the chapter is around 60ish women (guesstimate based on photos I found online) then how many were offensive?

If it's such a small number, the punishment most definitely does not fit the crime. A lecture, a seminar, and extra philanthropy hours for the offending women makes sense to me. And all of that still seems stiff to me.

eta: After re-skimming the article realized, most were in costume (90%) but "some" were offensive.

If you stand around saying nothing when your sorority sisters show up in offensive costumes, you are part of the problem.

DBB - Which also makes me wonder who brought this to anyone's attention? The way everything has avoided that makes me wonder if it was a sister. In which case I wonder why she didn't say anything to the chapter and handle it in house.

Furthermore, IMO, not saying anything does not make you part of the problem. It makes you a human living in society where we're trained from a young age to avoid confrontation and not to embarrass people.

Unless those people are overly-sensitive minorities?

Being trained from a young age to conform to societal norms about avoiding confrontation and not embarrassing people and being part of the problem are not mutually exclusive.

I think SoCalGirl is saying the offending sisters should have been told before anyone showed up that their outfits were offensive - a Taco Tuesday Dress Check, if you will.

What I don't get is how everyone has to dress up for everything. We went to free taco night every Thursday at the Days Inn and it never occurred to any of us to put on a serape, nor did the venue do any decorating. Isn't free or cheap food enough? Why must everything be a theme party? Aren't food, fun and friends sufficient? Is this what people do when they have too much money and time on their hands?

It's a speech vs. conduct issue, where conduct is not as protected as, for example, dialogue or political speech. Of course the conduct cases point to two other types of conduct which aren't protected. There was a case during the Vietnam War where an individual was prosecuted for burning his draft card in protest. He was prosecuted and it was upheld because of the government's need to draft individuals into the military, etc. (that's not a very good statement of the holding, but I'm going from memory here).

I think there was a similar holding in a case which allowed a municipality to zone in such a way as to suppress adult theaters and book stores which claimed they had a First Amendment right to be where they were.

Another conduct case I can think of is the flag burning case in which 5-4, the act of burning a flag is protected.

There's also a line of speech/conduct cases which state that any speech which is likely to incite violence is not necessarily protected (no yelling fire in a crowded theater).

And of course we know what Westboro does is A-Okay... It's fine to denigrate homosexuals, some might say, but race should be more strictly protected?

What I find very interesting about all of those standards is that in all of the above-referenced cases, we had speech which was intentionally used to inflame one group or another. What I find kind of funny about what would be the natural result of a "It is conduct, therefore not protected" argument is that such a standard would actually mean you can be punished for unintentional speech, but if you go out and burn a cross and hang a black faced scarecrow from a noose and burn it in effigy? The school can't touch you. I'm not sure I like the intellectual consistency of that position.

I've never argued there should be no consequences. Just no consequences from the University, since it is a public institution. I would imagine, ADPi's headquarters and local alumnae, left to their own discretion would probably handle things internally and happily issue the necessary apologies. The Latino community might protest in front of the ADPi house, there could be reputational consequences, but when we start letting groups of people punish other groups of people for speech or conduct which was just offensive, I don't believe that's a constitutional or even equitable use of government resources.

W.
T.
F.

I have no words. Damn, some white people are stupid.

I think someone did say something, since it was an internal recruitment prep week event.

But the other thing they all have in common is that whether pure speech (as in words) or conduct (draft card or flag burning) or a mix (Westboro Baptist), they are true political speech, intended to convey a political or idealogical message, which is at the heart of the First Amendment. I'm not sure donning a sombrero, serape or gang clothes for a Taco Tuesday party carry any intent to speak within the meaning of the First Amendment.

I know. I was responding to redryder27's comment that these were just college-aged women playing around who weren't thinking about serious sanctions when they were dressing up.

Basically.