So the university could be required to pay damages if the GLO prevails? In addition to the GLO's legal costs?

Also, could individuals within the orgs seek damages regardless of what their GLO chooses to do (or not to do) legally?

What I see here are two potential causes of action--the first is a Civil Rights claim, a "1983" action, where a state official under the color of state law, deprived the organization or individuals of their civil liberties. There may be some tort claims act issues here, I really don't know anything about California law, but this is federal stuff and attorney fees are paid for the Plaintiffs if they prevail.

This would be more difficult, I think. I'm not sure this would fall into any of the libel per se categories, and again, I'm unfamiliar with California law, and this would be a state action, but it's certainly possible.

@ Kevin. Agree. A 1983 action for sure. UCLA had no business's suspending the greek organization. As for the individual action. I agree it's tougher. If anyone can be identified who was accused of blackface then maybe??

This one really bothers me. It's not like those frat boys who sang a racist song. I would have defended them on constitutional grounds but they were disgusting. But here the GLO did NOTHING wrong as far as I can see. There is nothing racist about it. Why did they pick Kanye and Kim over one C AND W singer? Because in LA and in large parts of this country Kim and Kanye are much bigger stars. They are a phenomenon bringing in huge amounts of money for a tiny peak into some version of their lives.

I feel like everyone involved in this story is an idiot. Is it racist to smear charcoal on your face to dress as a 1840's era gold digger? No. Is it a bad idea to do that at a party named after a black man? Yes. Is it a bad idea to get outraged about that? Also yes.

Is it inherently racist to use a famous PoC as a theme for your event? No*. Is it a good idea, given the fact that lots of groups have handled this very poorly in recent years? Nope.



*I'm still thinking about this one. It's not consciously racist, but do chapters have parties named after white men? Someone gave the example of a Taylor Swifty party. I think I'd need a lot more context...this certainly doesn't rise to the level of racial slurs or blackface, but there are some appropriation issues, and if black people are seen as "themes" while white people are not, there is an "othering" that is happening and in that way, it contributes to structures of oppression.

sigmadiva.... really?!?!

"I was too preoccupied with jumping on the bandwagon to actually look at the pictures, and then when I realized my mistake, I played dumb like I just, totally didn't get the clever play on words that had been pointed out to me 12 bazillion times.

newsflash: many themes are "punny" or have names that leave an innuendo about one thing, but acts out something else. This was a literal gold digger. Not the slang term that people generally think of today when that term is used.

I cannot believe this had to be spelled out for you. :rolleyes:

@deltabetababy. The thing is that Kanye combined WITH Kim has reached a level of celebrity so high it's hard to compare to anyone else now or even in the recent past. Think of the times one or the other has dominated the news. Kanye's comments at awards shows including the one about President Bush, stealing the mike fromTaylor Swift, his antics with paparazzi, the fact that Obama just made fun of his comments that he's going to run for President in 2020. And then Kim and her reality show her " breaking the internet" photos, the televised mega wedding followed the quickie divorce, the two of them marrying and having a baby they named North West ( even they couldn't resist playing around with that last name) never mind her extended family, her former step fathers domination of the news, her sisters ex in it right now. And Kanye still a music star on top of it ...headlining the music festivals that the kids go to like Lalapalooza and making fantastic songs like FourFive Seconds with a white man whose exband indeed provides many a GLO party theme more than half a century since it was formed.

It's just hard to compare Kanye to any other artist working today is my point.

No, they don't deserve to labeled as such, but when you (the general public) put yourself out there on the internet, you are leaving people to make their own interpretations.

While we here at GC can have an academic discussion about what is truly blackface and what isn't, again, the general public is not going to do the same.

Historically white GLO's have had these blackface / ethnic costumed theme parties in the past. The fact that this NPC chapter had charcoal smeared on their faces and called the part 'Kanye Western' was enough to make people concerned based on past incidents of NPC / IFC / NIC orgs.

If these GLOs choose to sue and win, they've won the battle.

But, it is not enough to win a battle, you need to win the war.

Based on my understanding, all GLOs operate on a college campus as a guest on the campus. It is the university's choice to decide to recognize the GLO, and the university can have GLOs removed.

GLOs really need to think about the images they are putting out there. If universities feel that the GLO is a negative reflection on the school, then the GLO can be 'kicked' off campus.

One of the issues we're dealing with in my own org is media/social media image. Our undergrad chapters are being told to keep it clean and above reproach. The internet is forever.

Your understanding of the First Amendment is poor.

I don't get why you keep arguing this when what your saying is flat out wrong.

If you look at girls dressed up as miners with pans of gold in their hands and dirty faces and all you see is black face. That's your own bias. That's you looking for the race problem. It's you hearing "white GLO and blackface" and automatically assuming the worst.

There's nothing wrong with saying, Hey I jumped to conclusions and thankfully this isn't what I thought it was. But nope, you're going to keep digging your heels in.

I'm not quite awake and thought your abbreviation meant Piece of Crap. Which of course is also kind of appropriate in the case of these two.

Which leads to another question....have Kim and Kanye weighed in on this at all? I'm thinking his glee over more recognition overrides his urge to identify himself as an oppressed black man.

I was also wondering if he's made any statement...I'm sure they have publicists attuned to any mention of them in the media.

This is indeed a good point. I think that a Kim/Kanye party is less problematic than rappers/hos or something like that. I would also personally tell any chapter who asked me to stay far, far away from either one.

So, basically--you can't make fun or light of the antics of an especially ridiculous celebrity if that celebrity is a person of color.

Got it.

And in this case, the people not only made their own interpretations but then staged a huge public protest and smeared people publicly and in a very high profile based on that interpretation, and in a way that will undoubtedly unfairly impact them for the rest of their careers, and all this based on an "interpretation" which if you spend more than 5 seconds thinking about it critically, is completely erroneous and impossible to defend.

That is completely unacceptable. Completely, utterly, reprehensibly unacceptable. The protestors involved were so carried away by being victims of an act that never actually occurred AND, like I said, required mere seconds of critical thinking to realize never occurred, and they never stopped to realize they were creating innocent victims of their own.

It's absolutely disgusting. There is absolutely no excuse for what happened here.