Gruber said she found it incredibly offensive on the sorority's Facebook page. I don't see why this needed to be posted publicly on a message board. There are definitely reasons to publicly blast groups for the racially insensitive things that they do, however, I don't think this was one of those situations. If someone politely told me that maracas aren't traditionally used in Mexican music, I'd make the small change and move on. Sadly, this girl has made more problems for herself by publicly making a statement. I don't agree with her now being harassed because of it, but sadly, this is what we now deal with when posting on the internet for the world to see.

And MysticCat, her initial comment has been quoted in multiple articles, but they only follow it up by saying that the back-and-forth with Gruber and other students was regarding the use of maracas. And you're right - we don't know her entire thought process. I think the sorority maybe should have just served the food and toned down the use of any other symbols to go along with it.

Either way, from what I understand, they're still holding the event at a later date. It's probably better that they regroup and let this issue die down a bit.

If you're selling food, put a picture of the food on the poster. It makes more sense and doesn't disenfranchise anyone. McDonald's and Wendy's have fish specials during Lent, because they know they can make beaucoup bucks that way, but they don't put a nun on their billboards. I'm sure there are Satanists out there chowing down on filet o fish too.

This poster was stupid because it does not show what's being offered to eat when the only thing the event is about is eating. Stupid trumps offensive. I just don't understand this college world where every blessed thing has to have a theme.

The event was advertised on the Facebook page, so she responded there.

What was the initial comment, or the full comment? I haven't gone looking, but I didn't see it in the National Review article or the school paper article to which it linked. All I saw was this:

"As a Latina student at Quinnipiac I find this incredibly offensive," student Lexie Gruber commented on the Facebook page of Kappa Alpha Theta sorority member Carly Hviding, according to an article in the Quinnipiac Chronicle.

"I support your mission and philanthropy, but ask that you respect the culture of others and do not appropriate it in stereotypical and offensive ways," Gruber continued.

So she says she finds it offensive, but she doesn't say exactly why, at least not in these articles. Was that the extent of her first post about it on facebook?

To be honest, the way the National Review's article only mentions the maracas reads to me like a clear attempt to trivialize any offense Gruber felt. The headline certainly reads that way—they might as well come out and say "how stupid is this?" I would like to see an article where the writer gives her a chance to explain, or at least talks to others in the Latino community about their reactions, instead of just waving away the whole thing as a charity event that was cancelled because having maracas on the poster was offensive.

Not my usual source for news.

http://foxct.com/2015/03/04/quinnipi...thropy-poster/

A quote from Gruber: “The biggest problem for me isn’t the ad,” she said, “it’s that at an institution of higher learning” this issue would exist.

"Had there been cultural sensitivity, that would have been understood" Miss Gruber says.

That sounds an awful lot like when we were 9 years old and responded to questions with "If you don't know, then I can't tell you."

For someone who's been in the public eye quite a bit and moving in some rather rarified circles, you would think that she'd understand calling people out on fb and twittter usually makes you look like a petulant brat even if you are 100% right, and does very little to actually change people's hearts or minds.

Thanks, Maman. Very interesting and helpful, and as I suspected this was not just about being offended by maracas.

And I'm glad they included the chapter's facebook response, which was very well done.

(And this was from the Fox Network affiliate in Connecticut, not FoxNews.)

I'm having a flashback to when the animated show "King Of The Hill" came out. I saw pickup trucks and heard Texas accents, and as a fifth generation Texan my knee-jerk reaction was to be offended. I thought the show was going to make fun of Texan culture, to mock all of the things that I hold dear. But after watching a couple of episodes I changed my mind. Yes, there are hunting dogs, people who proudly speak mangled Spanish, lots of barbecue, and women with big hair. But, those are all things you find in Texas every day. Should I be offended? No, because the show didn't represent all Texans as stupid or mean or in an otherwise offensive way. I liked Hank Hill's work ethic, and I liked Peggy Hill's pride in her Boggle skills, and I liked Bobby Hill and his creative independent spirit. I liked the way they looked after their friends and each other. In the end, I realized that just because someone references a piece of Texas culture doesn't mean they are mocking it.

So if maracas are not truly a Mexican musical instrument (and count me among those who thought they were), would it have been okay to use a valid symbol of Mexican culture in the advertising? Because it's not just food they were serving. It was Mexican food, or at least as close as you're going to find in Connecticut.

Ginger is right. I wish I had a dollar for every Texas slam I've heard.

But I told the family about the maracas story last night at a picnic and my Guatemalan daughter and my 2 Mexican sons-in-law feel that anyone who protests over something as lame as maracas is full of it and looking for a payoff of some kind, be it money or fame.

I'm less than impressed by her failure to specify what she found offensive - so eating nachos is cultural appropriation? I assume next she is going to picket the nearest MLB stadium for their insensitive selling of the aforementioned cultural icon. Maracas may not be associated with traditional Mexican music, but they are a rather generic "fiesta" item. So, which is it - they offended her by featuring a Mexican dish, or they offended her by not representing an authentic instrument of her culture? Is the problem using the culture, or not using it?

Were she writing about this issue in my 1301 class, she would get marked down a great deal for failing to support her assertion that this philanthropic event was offensive cultural appropriation. She needs to define her terms, and be specific, before tarring Theta with her broad brush.

eta - Theta handled it beautifully, and CASA is out the money they otherwise would have been given. So, victory, Ms. Gruber?

I'm glad we've reached the point where we just make ad hominum attacks against anyone who speaks up about race. Well done, GC.

They said they are going to hold another fundraiser later, which they presumably wouldn't have done had this fundraiser gone ahead.

I find myself wondering if perceptions (on both sides) about Mexican cultural appropriation might differ in places where there has been long-standing Mexican influence and cultural presence, such as Texas and the Southwest, and places where that hasn't been the case, such as the Northeast.

They are entitled to their opinion.

Defining my terms: "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

I'm looking in vain for an ad hominum attack - and not finding one. No one has attacked anyone personally. What I am finding is a discussion of the fact that the argument that was presented - that the nacho fund raiser was "cultural appropriation" - is not supported. To be precise, Ms. Gruber is begging the question.

Here you go: