Tenn. K-Sigs "saved" by free speech. AMAZING!!!
 

Knoxville, Tennessee-AP -- Free speech trumps sensitivity at the University of Tennessee.
The school has decided not to penalize six white fraternity members who painted their faces black to appear as the Jackson 5.


A statement on the U-T Web site says the university is committed to protecting free speech, "even when some find it to be insensitive and offensive."

School officials warn that the incident recalls earlier times, when minstrel shows depicted blacks as ignorant simpletons, and should not be seen as an innocent prank.

The Kappa Sigma fraternity suspended its Tennessee chapter last month and apologized.

In the past year, Auburn University, Oklahoma State and the University of Virginia have all dealt

The chapter is still suspended though . . .

Only at Tennessee
 

Only at UTennessee would it take six Kappa Sigs in blackface to imitate the Jackson 5.

This is a state where your wealth is measured by the number of rusty cars up on blocks in your yard.

Re: Only at Tennessee
 

LMAO

Re: Only at Tennessee
 

Um . . . I'm from Tennessee, went to UT for the last two years and will be returning next semester . . . Not only is the not the truth. . . I also take offense to that . . . I love my state and school and can't believe anyone would go by a stereotype to judge us . . . :( :( :(

-Jessica :(

Suspended by THEIR NATIONAL OFFICE, not The Universityof Tennessee.

The University has no business suspending them or doing anything to that effect. If Kappa Sigma (which probably has plenty of willing alum lawyers) took them to court over such an action, the school would lose. It would be a symbollic gesture at best -- a very expensive symbollic gesture.

If you want to go to a PUBLIC university and start the Nazi club that is actually your right. The Nazi club has every bit of a right to exist as any other organization and even the same right to ask for funding from the school.

While I think it is reprehensible what these kids did I will defend their right to be idiots. That's the difference between living in the US and anywhere else.. You take the good with the bad.

I think the organization is reacting correctly though and looks to be handling it well internally.

I really think it all depends on the context in which it's meant to be taken. I think that if someone genuinely admires someone, then it really shouldn't be taken offensively if they were to dress up as them/imitate them. However, if it was done in ridicule, then that's another story.

hey! i'm here in tennessee - not to point out the obvious (or accuse the kappa sigs of this) - but there are racist rednecks in every state and every student organization - so don't just blame this poor state...

and - if the kappa sigs fought it - good for them

imho - it's 'bout time that the greek system starts fighting some of this stuff - just cause it was offensive (and i'm not saying it wasn't offensive to some people) doesn't mean that their right to free speech at a state funded institution suddenly disappears.

- marissa

A few thoughts
 

As has been said on other threads (namely by the intelligent and classy IotaNet), what these so-called "men" and "women" did was wrong and offensive. It has horrible historical connotations, and we take offense to it, so don't do it.

Some will defend their right to be idiots, but that doesn't mean that they should be able to get off w/o consequences.

There is no earthly reason that you should express your admiration for the Jackson Five, Louis Armstrong or the Williams sisters by imitating them. Buy CDs, learn to sing, play the trumpet or work on your tennis game instead.

It's 2002, not 1942. There was a civil rights movement that people like me and my parents benefited from, to some degree. And speaking as an educated member of a Greek-letter organization, I'm tired of seeing garbage like this.

I am, however, glad that this is coming to light. To go further, I would love to see some of these cats publicly identified in news accounts, because if I'm a HR person and hiring for a certain company where a diverse workforce is a priority, I want to know if I could be hiring someone who would disrupt my workforce.

As an aside, I'm not sure that if you get more black people in NPC/NIC orgs, such incidents would be reduced.

steeltrap,
i'm not trying to argue, just understand... isn't the fact that its 2002 and not the 50's, allow us a little leeway to make light of the problems of our past and allow us to confront them. i don't pretend to know the intentions of the men who dressed up like the jackson 5, perhaps it was racially motivated. i'm irish, and i'm not sure i'd be offended if a person not of irish decent dressed up as jack dempsey, or even a leprechaun on st. patty's day. i understand the concept of black-face and agree that its original intent was plain wrong. i just don't necessarily see how dressing up like a celebrity is a racially sensitive issue. should there be a rule that people can only dress as someone who is of the same race? there is a skit on SNL where a white actor portrays jesse jackson and wears dark make up to do so. eddie murphy has played a white character in several of his movies. again, i don't know the guys who dressed up for the party, or what their intention was, but i do know that we often jump to conclusions and stereotype people for all the wrong reasons. ok, i'm running long here. i'm looking forward to a reply, i really just want to understand if i'm way off the mark here.

I am TOTALLY an fan of freedom of speech, I'm just not a fan of its abuse.

I sincerely doubt that these men were dressing up to portray their favorite stars in a flattering manner.

What if these men had attended the party as other offensive images? A rape victim...a World Trade Center casualty...an abortion...or a holocaust survivor? Would you be defending their freedom of speech then?

I guess in the same vein as this thread, you could argue that someone dressed as a WTC victim to "show their patriotism and admiriation of these true heroes".

That's how DUMB this argument is (well...in my opinion at least).

I guess it all lies in your experiences and your values.

Just becuase people have the right to be inconsiderate and rude doesnt mean that they should. These are fraternity men, they're suppossed to be better then that.

Thank you, xp2k, for so eloquently saying what I was thinking. Unfortunately, there's always someone out there who will bring out the "free speech" trump card in order to protect people who are just trying to be obnoxious, rude, hateful, etc.

Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

Dressing up to show admiration for the Jackson 5, my behind :rolleyes:

Yes, as a matter of fact I would. I would think they were disgusting pigs, but I would defend them.


Now I do agree with this. If the fraternity/sorority has a certain image or ideal they strive to attain, and this isn't it (God I hope not!) then they have every right to terminate the charter or suspend or whatever. Because when you join, you take vows agreeing to their rules.

Sir, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

-Voltaire

Another French quote...
 

"Oh Liberty! Liberty! What crimes are committed in your name!"

-Madame Roland

xp2k,
you have a valid point, its a shame you have to belittle my argument as "dumb" in order to assert it. you're analogy to dressing as a celebrity to dressing as an aborted fetus is falacious, however. personifying an aborted fetus or a rape victim, is in fact tasteless and abhorent. the jackson five, while a bit bubble-gum, are not in itself tasteless or abhorent. the attempt of my argument was to merely point out that there is a difference between dressing up as a black celebrity and coming to the party as step-n-fetchit, or in "traditional" black face.
i owned one of those red leather jackets with all the zippers that michael jackson popularized in the 80's. was it wrong of me to do so? no, becausei was emulating him, not belittling. thats where the difference lies, in the intent and the disctretion.

TKE4Life

You should not take offense to my comment about YOUR argument being "dumb" because THIS is not YOUR argument. THIS is a nationwide argument.

Incedents like this and how they are protected by the First Amendment have been argued and discussed for decades, if not centuries, and I doubt that any answer will come about on Greekchat.

Like I said, I am TOTALLY for freedom of speech, just not its abuse.

And...

If you thought hard enough, you would also find the logic in my argument about rape victims, etc.

You find "personifying an aborted fetus or a rape victim....tasteless and abhorent".

Well, believe it or not, myself and many other minorities find black/red/yellow face equally as tasteless and abhorent. Just because you cannot identify with or empathize with this fact does not make it not the case.

TKE4Life, owning one of those red jackets is fine and sporting a single white glove is perfectly fine by me. Michael Jackson has many impersonators, you see them on tv and in magazines (better yet TABLOIDS) all the time.

But why do we not see these peoples' and others admiring blues artists and motown in black face on broadcast television?

Xp2k

There's a significant difference between speach that hurts us emotionally and causes us *emotional* trauma vs. the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

There is a difference between being offended and physically assaulted.

Flag burning is Constitutional and legal... If that's what the High Court would rule then I don't think they'd find much room to say that wearing blackface was any worse.

Although I'm personally appalled by the actions, I think it's up to Kappa Sigma to adequately handle the situation. Not UT.

xp2k,
sorry to come off as offended, i thought you were referrinmg specifically to my post. my other question, what about when comedians darken their faces to impersonate black celebrities, for instance, the man show impersonating carl malone, or snl impersontating jesse jackson? what about eddie murphy impersonating a white character? are these racial offensive, and likewise unacceptable?
i've never heard any public outcry or legal actions against these forms of comedy. what determines what is exceptable? secondly, were these groups sentured because they were greek? these aren't retorical questions. i think it is really important to think about what determines if something is acceptable, and why.

Re: Re: Only at Tennessee
 

kinda like those guys who did the jackson 5 imitation? can't believe that either.

Re: Only at Tennessee
 

my family must be very poor then...we only have one rusty car up on blocks... :rolleyes:

Let's say there's a movie about Holocaust victims/survivors (Schindler's List), the World Trade Center tragedy (World Trade Center Documentary/America 911), or a victim/survivor of an abortion (Hellraiser: Inferno).

Schindler's List and Hellraiser: Inferno are both movies in which ACTORS and ACTRESSES PORTRAY those victims. The World Trade Center Documentary/America 911 actually used real, true life victims and survivors in the movie. Are these movies, such as academy award winning movie Schindler's List, still offensive since actors and actresses portray victims and survivors? And don't tell me this is different from a fraternity portraying black people.

first of all, the last post before today was the day after CHRISTMAS!! this ish is over and done with. now back to the original question....

if you truly believe that they have every right to throw on black face....why not roll into the nearest African American Cultural Center with full black face on and try and walk about 20 steps. then count the number of seconds it takes for you to have your ass handed to you on a silver platter. if you can't do it out in the open, maybe it's not right behind closed doors either. people really have big balls when they can hide behind something.

LOL . . . I don't think your reply is quite within the context of this thread. . . there are probably plenty of things that if done at certain times and places have a stab at legitamacy whereas at other times might get you killed.

so as long as it's behind closed doors and no one see it, does that make it right?

You are still not responding to her point. Her point, which goes alon with the thread, is that its generally accepted to portray distasteful topics in a communication medium. She is talking aout TV and Film here.

and she's trying to say that since it's ok for TV and Film to portray offensive images....that means it's the same exact things as a frat boy dressing up in black face and portraying that offensive image. i already responded to that. her point has NOTHING to do with this thread. because a movie portraying abortion/ portraying the holocaust/ or a documentary is on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT page vs. mocking a group of people. what's so hard to see about that? are you honestly naive enough to believe dressing up in blackface is actually a way to honor black folks? yea right.

How is it offensive? I mean my great-great-great-uncle, his brother, and mother all survived the Holocaust and could not even watch the movie Schindler's List because of the graphic nature was so offensive to them. So does this mean that we should destroy Schindler's List because it offends a certain population of Jews? The same could go for the abortion movie and WTC documentary movie.

are you kidding me? how the hell is Schindler's list the same thing as blackface? one is a documentary, the other is used to mock. it isn't rocket science....the two are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!! i'm almost positive blackface is offensive to more than a CERTAIN population of black people.

scpiano.. I don't know about your argument here. I personally don't see how the two things are in the same boat.

The examples you are providing are documentaries. Yes, they were created to make money but they are based on events that actually occured. The purpose was two-fold. To make money is of course tops.. but the second purpose was to inform. I think the second purpose, informing people of the horrible things that have happened in our past serves a legitimate purpose.

Something tells me that the fellas that did this didn't have that same legitimate purpose in mind:D

Now I'll maintain the argument that I had a few months ago when this thread originally came up. It's horrible what they did, I think that KS should do something about it. But as far as a PUBLIC institution deciding what statements are acceptable for an organization to make... that's a road I'd rather not see taken.

Well guess what? I AM going to tell you that it is different. WAY different. Here's why:

People that died in the WTC, rape victims, nor Jews have ever been protrayed in minstrels (which, if you study history, is the origination of blackface) as a way to degrade and further oppress them.

If a movie or documentary is made about rape victims, WTC vcitims, or Jews in the Holocaust, it is just that: a movie.

But if you go to a party, would you not be offended if someone showed up in a "costume" made to portray these images?

You are trying to compare apples and oranges, and it just doesn't hold water.

I really don't think the fraternity really meant to mock black people. I believe they were just portraying the Jackson 5. I mean in a predominately caucasion group it's going to be hard to find 5 black people within the same chapter.

We all have our own opinions and if it was a costume party then it was just that. So let's not get in a major heated argument and let's respect others opinions.

The history behind blackface says it all. Whether someone intended to offend or not is not the issue. It is an ignorant thing to do.

Also, no one is disrespecting your opinion, just disagreeing.

Re: Only at Tennessee
 

Just when I thought you couldnt sound more like a jackass - you topped yourself. You know, I thought you were always kind of weird for just posting about chapters closing and getting in trouble - but now you have to add making fun of states to your list. Dude get a life.

Re: Re: Only at Tennessee
 

It wasn't that bad lol . . of course I am not from TN . .. Hoosier just posts from the AFA listserv I think . . or some such organization.

scpiano211,

I think that you haven't realized when you have come across an impossible argument. The reaction to black face is emotional, visceral, any logical counter argument that you make is lost in the out pouring of emotion . . . Ever try and argue with an angry person before lol?

I would say that if (hypothetically) I went to a Halloween party, and I saw someone dressed as a Holocaust survivor (wearing those striped pajamas that are very recognizable), I would find that to be pretty outrageous and offensive, and wonder "what is that person thinking?". I would bet that it would elicit a pretty visceral reaction from people, too.

Similarly, if some dressed up as a WTC survivor and they were in business clothes and were kind of dusty and covered in blood, I would find that pretty tacky and disrespectful as well. The thing is, I don't think anyone would dare to dress as a Holocaust Survivor or a WTC Centre survivor as they know that it would be taken as "amusing".

I don't find movies about these things offensive, as they're reporting a piece of our history so that we can learn from it.
As the saying goes, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it".

Yeah I know it's an impossible argument, hehehe. At least someone else has a sense of humor about it James :-). I just feel this country has become too sensitive of a population and we have our own society becoming like a big brother over what everyone thinks and feels. If you don't agree with the majority then you're condemned as unpatriotic or some other name calling. I have never felt that I needed to agree with the majority to make sure I didn't receive a "dreaded" name from society. Heaven forbid! A name! hehehe

My thing is this: This was a Halloween party, and yes these guys made a poor decision to go as the Jackson 5 because they should have known that some would consider it being in blackface, but yet it was not uncommon to see African American men on campus dress up as every white pop band or Bill Clinton (in the day) etc and no problems ever came up because everyone realized it was a costume party.