PiKA-GA State Blackface, updated and continuing
 

Blacks decry GSU fraternity
Protesters complain of slur, threaten boycott of school

By ETAN HOROWITZ
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/25/04
Tempers continued to flare at Georgia State University on Thursday over a racial incident that happened at a fraternity party in January.
_
About 200 people attended a rally organized by the Black Student Alliance to demand that the university take further action against the predominantly white Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity. At the emotional rally, students raised their fists in the air chanting "Black Power," and presented a list of 12 demands.
_
"The entire organization needs to be kicked off this campus," said Dawn Davison, 27, who led the rally. "Any threat to diversity is a threat to the university."
_
The protest was in response to a Jan. 24 Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity party where two members arrived wearing blackface, according to a university incident report. After members of Phi Beta Sigma, a historically black fraternity that was at the party, objected to the blackface, the two members took it off, the incident report said.
_
A few days after the party, members of both fraternities met with school officials and Pi Kappa Alpha apologized for the incident, said Dan Forrester, the fraternity's president. The fraternity also suspended the two members. Georgia State officials have suspended the fraternity pending the outcome of a hearing.
_
The university has also held a hearing for the two students who wore blackface, but university officials declined to release the outcome of the hearing, saying federal student privacy laws prevent them from doing so.
_
Students on the campus, where enrollment is about one-third African-American, have been debating the issue and the racial climate at Georgia State.
_
A Pi Kappa Alpha member has filed charges with the university against the Black Student Alliance for producing a flier that criticized the fraternity. Forrester, 23, said members of his fraternity have been threatened because of the flier and have filed reports with police.
_
"Pi Kappa Alpha as an organization has taken every opportunity to apologize on this matter," Forrester said, "but the school isn't portraying it that way. I've been disappointed in the way the school has dealt with the issue. I hope we are going to receive a fair hearing."
_
Speakers at Thursday's rally, which included students from Morehouse College, demanded further action from the university and threatened to boycott businesses run by Georgia State. Among the demands: suspension of Pi Kappa Alpha for a minimum of three years, the addition of a mandatory African-American history course for all students, and hiring of more minority faculty in tenure track positions. Shakeema Bell, a member of the Black Student Alliance, said the university has until 4 p.m. Wednesday to respond to the list of demands.
_
University President Carl V. Patton released a statement Thursday urging students to be patient as the fraternity's case goes through the school's judicial process. "Georgia State University will not tolerate racial discrimination, threats or intimidation," the statement said.
_
Earlier in the day, at a Student Government Association carnival held at lunchtime, the College Republicans held an "anti-bigotry bake sale." The group's chairman, Russell Mildner, said the fund-raiser was not in support of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity, but rather to protest the way the university handled the incident and ensuing response. Mildner said the university is unfairly blaming the entire fraternity for the actions of two members.
_
The bake sale grew tense when students from the Black Student Alliance gathered in front of the College Republicans' table, denouncing the group and the fund-raiser with a bullhorn. Members from both groups shouted at each other across the table. Members of the Black Student Alliance were upset over a sign on the College Republicans' table that accused them of not being inclusive. Soon after the complaints, Mildner removed the sign.
_
The recent protests are reminiscent of demonstrations that took place at Georgia State in 1992 after a racial slur was discovered on a trashcan in the University Center. The slur was written by an inactive member of the predominantly white Sigma Nu fraternity and set off a two-day sit-in by black students. That same year, the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity was also sanctioned for displaying pictures of their members in blackface, according to university documents.

What...absolute...BULLSHIT

Christ screw the BSA

I'm not black, and I take it your not either. Your comments make you out to be a racist, and in this day and age I don't really see a point to saying "Christ screw the BSA" They have a right to voice their opposition to Pike, so let them

That statement is so Orwellian, that it makes the hair on my neck stand.

Odd, I didn't get the feeling that Colonist was racist from this statement. I think he is commenting that the reactions by the BSA and University are not proportional to the situation. I agree with him on that score.

"Much to do about nothing" comes to mind.

Bullies?
 

The actions of the Black Student Alliance do give cause for concern.Much about that paragraph is striking. While the actions of the fraternity should not to put it mildly be commended, (duh) the holding of a rally to engender a hostile campus attitude to the group, is... unfortunate.
Moreoever, the campus student organization which held the party being removed is NOT giving a mature response but a kneejerk one, plus there are their fliers. I see little to suggest black student responses are not being listened to which could warrant last resort fliers etc. Firstly, I am not confident that the entire fraternity chapter is a hotbed of extreme racial hatred existing to oppress and mock the black student community at GSU as seems to be suggested. The chapter did host the party at which the acts were committed, should it be wiped off the face of the campus or more specifically would that be appropriate cause and effect and would it help?
While it is correct that two members acted with stupidity and racial sensitivity; greater education and coalition between campus groups and students would surely be the way to go. Dawn Davison seems to wish to perpetuate a "them and us" attitude.The fraternity seems to have taken clear non-tokenistic steps against the members and apologized (nobody is saying there is not some way to go). I note that HBGLO groups were invited too.
I take issue with the militant nature of this. The BSA seems to want to bulldoze in with a list of demands to make major changes.

ok, racist might be a little harsh and I could have worded my statement better

I know a member of the GSU BSA, this story isn't balanced. According to her members of the BSA have been threatened as well.
I don't think the action they're taking is right, list of demands? That's rather silly.
But they have a right to stand up for what they believe, the opponents should organize and demonstrate as well, not whine about it.

Well, it seems that the three last posters finally agree on something! Thank you!:cool:

Now the problem is one cannot or do or say anything about any group with out the Sh*T hitting the fan!:mad: Wow, glad I am a in America!:rolleyes:

If this is the case, I dont like:

OTW, she is Hawian
decadence, he is in England
mor-ron he is South Africa,
EM1843 He is to tall
Jill, she is Black

And on and on!

Last I heard, I have my right to my beleifs unless it infringes on someone elses legal rights! Not going black face to a party! May have been not Politically Correct, but if it was not malicious, then get off of the wagon of rightousness!

Last I heard, BSU can be one of the most radical do rightious groups on a campus!:(

If the story is not properly balanced, which most media reports are then what the F! It is blown way out of proportion and stirs things up as on GC!:o

Saw Jimmy Kimmel tonight on a Man Show rerun. He was dressed up like Karl Malone, doing a bad imitation of Karl.

He was wearing blackface.

Now this was a rerun that was a few years old. I didn't hear of any protests or angry letters in the newspaper. To my knowledge, Comedy Central doesn't think they did anything wrong. Most likely, they are not even aware of what the skit could mean to some folks.

In contrast to this GSU incident which was perpetrated behind closed doors and then apologized for, I think that the Man Show's skit is a lot more egregious.

Why no outcry?

Why no calls for apology? Could it be that not one single person of color was offended by this?

I know this is an incident that is fairly obscure. However, the Man Show incident I saw tonight was even MORE obscure and more egregious due to its national cable audience.

Neither of these incidents occured where one group actually wanted to belittle the other.

However, the aim of these protests was for the BSA to belittle PKA and make them face consequences that are pretty ridiculous.

I find the BSA's actions to be FAR more intolerant unfair than either of the incedents I mentioned above. Their actions are only pouring gasoline on the fire. They are only fueling intolerance, their righteous indignation is causing their cause more harm than good -- at least in my eyes.

I first thought the Pikes had done a very dumb thing. However, when compared with the actions of these leftist, racially charged student groups, the Pikes' actions seem very insignificant.

The action simply did not warrant the response.

Kevin,
it is not up to you to determine who is outraged by what and how they respond.

Very few people even tried to defend this. We all saw it as a racially insensitive act whether they meant it or not. Nobody defended that minus a fool here or there. Some defended other rights that all groups have which I felt warranted protection.

-Rudey
--This has nothing to do with anything but GA Tech won so let's all celebrate

I hate it when people do this. Jimmy Kimmel dressing up as Karl Malone, in FULL makeup (which was not blackface), is Jimmy Kimmel picking at KARL MALONE, not at EVERY African American. The students at the university who dressed up in black face did so in the fashion of the old minstrel shows which stereotyped ALL African Americans as charcoal black, ignorant, with nappy hair and pink lips, and were HIGHLY offensive. You can't possibly think these two instances are the same and that they should warrant the same outrage..

You seriously think the PKAs that did this used CHARCOAL? Wow.

They were dressing up as rappers. More than likely, they probably had no idea what a minstrel show was.

One story I read said that the 2 guys were only there for a short while and were going to wash it off.

I know that I am going to get flack for posting this but whatever...
I think that certain AA org members (note: I DID NOT SAY ALL) will use situtations like this to create trouble.

In different instances, one org is being blamed for every bit of evil acts done to AAs since Africa was created. Yet, when the AAs are called down for their offensive action which may be worse than the original "crime", they get more hot and say that those that are complaining are racist.

Objecting to someone's offensive behavior does not always = racism. Just because I don't like someone's "ethnic" outfit, hairstyle, language, whatever doesn't mean I am racist, it is just that my tastes in fashion, food, whatever is different.

I did find it amusing when an AA man wrote a letter to the editor saying that if he went to a party with a blonde wig, big boobs and a distinctive costume, why isn't there the same outcry from Swedes/Norwegians, etc. that he is a racist for wearing such a getup.

uhm, it's moe.ron, and I'm not South African. I live here. I'm also pretty tall for an Asian.

My reply did not say that PKA's used charcoal. And ignorance of history is no excuse.

OOPs, My Bad ARYA, thought you were a short pygmy for sure!:D

Question, moe_ron, what color do you bleed when cut and what color is the money that you spend?

Guess to me, that is the true colors for all races!:cool:

Ain't that a fact...

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

"First to fight, first to die... we will defend to the the death the right to be misinformed!" Sign in the combat journalist office in Full Metal Jacket.

Just want to toss this out there. Someone said they were "mimicking rappers" Sooooo all rappers are Dark Skinned? Not just Dark, but Black As All Hell?

Just wondering? Perhaps my TV is out of focus, but I could have sworn Ludacris had a whole "mochachino" thing going on.

They could have been rappers without being in Black Face. Besides, why anyone would want to mimick a rapper is BEYOND me.

Anywhoodiliny....

That's something my mother would say right before she blamed me for making her racist by discussing race relations with her and taking a different stance than hers.

No problemo.

sometime, the two party are yelling at each other. They should be listening to each other. Maybe, just maybe, they have more in common then they think.

It's all about spreading the good vibe man.

The university's decision is that Pi Kappa Alpha will be suspended until December 19, 2004. There will also be restrictions on the chapter's alcohol use for a longer time period. Additional requirements are community service, a written apology, and workshops on alcohol and code of conduct issues.

Associated Press story:

http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/G...FFF94B662F.asp

The 2 individuals that put it on were also expelled for 1 year.

while they might not know what a minstrel show is, unless they were in a coma the last 3 years, everyone heard about the Auburn case and the subsequent cases around the country of white fraternity members dressed up in blackface. in all the cases, negative publicity followed for the fraternity and the school. the obvious lesson would be-hey, don't dress up in blackface. it's a bad idea. but, in the south theses guys have the idea that they are untouchable. that daddy will hire a lawyer and make it go away.

some even try to invoke the constitution to protect their insensitivity. but when you attend a publically funded school and seek membership in organizations that have anti-discrimination clauses, you voluntarily forfeit some of those rights.

Only those rates in terms of your membership with that organization. As far as the school goes, these guys would have a pretty decent civil rights case against the school for this.

I've seen some pretty damned offensive speech get overlooked at public institutions. It just depends on how much it irks the administration and/or other students.

This case is a pretty good example of this. I think what the BSA chose to do -- posting pictures depicting these PKA's in KKK outfits with nooses around their necks was just as racially insensative -- if not more because of the fact that it was intentional.

From what I was able to read, the school essentially ignored the offensive actions of the BSA while coming down hard on the PKA's. One Pike's testimony stated that he had to surround himself with friends when he was on campus to avoid being physically assaulted. Based on that kind of testimony, one could make a pretty strong case that those flyers were "fighting words".

If a school is going to be against racially offensive speech, they should definitely be even-handed.

LOL@ktsnake. I'm sorry but I have read too much of your apologetic rhetoric for these people and none of the arguments make any sense. The BSA students, although had I been a member I would have argued against posting such posters, were depicting those idividuals as KKK members because it was blackface that the kkk and their friends, supporters, etc etc etc. did to mock and belittle black people, when, I might add, the people couldn't do anything about it. WELL, now something can be done about it and I DO NOT think there would be a strong civil rights case that could be made in those peoples' defense. I believe that the civil rights defense case would, instead, be made on behalf of the black students who had to experience such actions on the PUBLIC university campus. This is one of the intended purposes of all of the civil rights laws that have come down throughout this nation's history including the Fourteenth Amendment: to protect previously oppressed people and those that have been discriminated against from people JUST LIKE THIS.


There is a case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927 where the repondents approached the issue from the same standpoint that you are trying to present and it was put down. I will try to find it...it was Shelly v. ??? You will get even more of a basis for why I feel your side of the argument is faulty and wouldn't stand in the eyes of a civil rights sensitive court.

It's Shelly v. Kraemer. I couldn't find a link, but you're grown, I'm sure you can do that leg work :)

If I were not a frequenter of this site i would not have known about the Auburn Case or the other ones. Nor would I have know the significance in the way we are using it here.

Be wary of assuming that other people know things that you find obvious because those things are important to you.

I make that mistake all the time.

I also think this is bullshit.

I am anything but racist but seriously... These ralleys, demands, etc are rediculous.

The fraternity apologized for the two members; everybody makes mistakes and as a result of those mistakes, the members were punished. Should be end of story, but it isn't.

They have to go drag it out, having rallys and making rediculous demands... I'm seeing this as either a cry for attention or a lack of something better to do.
All I can say is wow. "predominantly white Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity" Is this absolutely necessary to say? Who is writing this article? Jeez. The university is 1/3 african american, a minority, so obviously the majority of its members will be just that... A majority. There's nothing racist about that... It is statistics and it is common sense. Sorry, that comment just kind of stood out to me.

Anyway, the point is that yes, two people messed up.. They've been punished and have apologized. With all due sympathy and compassion, get over it.

-Matt

My issue is this.

Why is the entire chapter being punished for the actions of 2 members? The 2 members were suspended and at the event they washed it off. It's not like the fraternity was holding a "Blackface Party" and all of them showed up that way.

It's akin to if my organization holds a Halloween party and 2 members decided to show up as Venus and Serena Willaims, complete with Tennis outfits, dread wigs and blackface. I had no knowledge they were going to show up that way, neither did the majority of the organization. Why punish the rest of us, just because we have 2 morons in our midst?

I'm sure every chapter out there has had a member or 2 do something that you find irreprehensible. I don't have full time control over my brothers and neither do y'all.

So, the offending members have paid their price. Don't punish the rest of the brothers.

Kitso
KS 361

there is absolutely no way that any Greek person in the southeast did not hear about the Auburn incident. perhaps because you are from a different region of the country, you are less aware.

the point i am making is anyone who dresses up in blackface in 2004 knows that it is offensive. there really is no gray area there. it is insensitive. even if there were no black people at GSU, that would be wrong ( not to mention that GSU sits in the middle of atlanta, a city with one of the highest percentages of african-american citizens in country). those men knew what they were doing and if the leadership in the chapter didn't take a strong stand and waited on an outside source to report it, they yes they all deserve to be punished. that is how organizations work.

people don't seem to get that once you join an organization, you take on both the benefits and the responsibilities of membership. leadership isn't doing what is popular, it is doing what is right.

**************

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, is an important civil rights Civil rights are those legal protections granted to citizens under the jurisdiction of the civil law of a state. They are distinguished from human rights in that they may be violated or removed, and they may or may not apply to all individuals living within the borders of that state.
Civil rights may include the right to vote, right to property, right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to privacy, right to associate, etc.
..... Click the link for more information. case decided by Chief Justice Vinson in 1948

Centuries: 19th century - 20th century - 21st century

Decades: 1890s 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s - 1940s - 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Years: 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 - 1948 - 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Events
January 1 - Nationalization of UK railways to form British Railways.
January 4 - Burma gains its independence from the United Kingdom.



The facts: In 1945, a black family by the name of Shelley purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. They did not know, but an agreement -- called a restrictive covenant This article is not about the grammatical concept of a restrictive clause.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A restrictive covenant is a promise made in a deed by the buyer of real estate, especially one not to sell it to any person not of the "White race" or otherwise considered an unacceptable owner, and not to sell it without exacting the same promise from the buyer. In the case of Shelley v. Kraemer,
..... Click the link for more information. -- had been in a part of the deed on the property since 1911. The restrictive covenant barred black or Asian persons from owning that house. The neighbors sued to restrain the Shelleys from taking possession of the property.

(1) Are (race-based) restrictive covenants legal under the Fourteenth Amendment Amendment XIV (the Fourteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and includes the due process and equal protection clauses (Section 1). It was adopted on July 28, 1868.


Interpretation and history
The first section defines who is a citizen of the United States and establishes that no state can enact laws that abridge certain
..... Click the link for more information. of the United States Constitution


Completed on September 17, 1787, and later ratified by special conventions in each of the original thirteen American states, the Constitution for the United States represents the supreme law of the United States of America and is the oldest comprehensive written national constitution still in force. It has served as a model for a number of other nations' constitutions. It created a more unified government in place of what was then a group of independent states operating under the Articles of Confederation.
..... Click the link for more information. ? (2) Can they be enforced by a court of law?

The court held that, technically, restrictive covenants are legal because (at least in 1948) private agreements to exclude persons on the basis of race did not offend the Fourteenth Amendment. The 14th Amendment only prevents public, state-sponsored discrimination.

However, the Supreme Court held that it would be unconstitutional for a court to enforce a restrictive covenant. A court is obviously a public body, and as such, is subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.

This decision brought about common interest developments (CIDs), where residents share in the cost and maintenance of services and amenities held in common. Owners are held to the covenants, contracts, and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the community. It, however, cannot exclude based on race, ethnicity, or gender.

****************

So there is the case, I really don't see how you're thinking this applies to the situation.

The court actually held that it cannot prevent anything except for public, state-sponsored discrimination. That actually would seem to be more in favor for the idiot-blackface-wearers. The school was not committing act, which at the worst is "hate speech" and at best just an idiotic faux pas. The individuals were and the organization was guilty by association.

Offensive does not equal illegal.

Calling what the BSA did "fighting words" would actually hold a helluva lot more water than the case you cited since the BSA's actions actually caused the PKA's to be/feel physically threatened to the point that they had to surround themselves with defenders to be able to safely go from class to class.

The Supremes have actually ruled (even recently) in favor of KKK/white supremist groups as far as their rights to assemble, protest, etc. As offensive as some speech may be, it takes a lot for it to be illegal.

When the school is allowed determine *which kind* of speech is worthy of expulsion, you may be heading for a very slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be expelling members of a Christian organization off of campus because they condemn the pro-choice movement.

ktsnake, there is a big difference between Legality and Stupidity as you have well pointed out!

What many miss is the point of every Law that is enacted, can mean more restrictions of freedom.:(

While each individual has their own thoughts of what is good and bad, it is when someone decides for us that we run into problems!

For every action, there is a reaction and maybe not for the betterment for ALL!:confused:

I have to run to an event but I WILL be back to explain why cited this case as a defense to my argument. I knew you would rebut this exactly the way that you did and use this line of reasoning.

In short, though, the point in this case is that the Justices found that while it is perfectly legal to think badly about another person, or race, or in the case of the PIKA students, display theire views (whatever they may or may not be) of a black person by wearing blackface, the STATE or institutions/entities spnsored by the state cannot provide its power to the individuals wishing to display such views or discriminate or anything else thay may be found insensitive to a group of people. The State, according to the Court, must refrain from empowering individuals to discriminate or act in anyway that infringes on the rights and freedoms ensured by the Constitution and/or various other civil rights laws by enforcing such acts or offering the protection of the Court. Doing so would be the same as the State itself denying the offended persons (in this case the attendess at the party or the family who was enjoined from buying the house) their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment or other laws. So, a group or person can go and draw up any number of "restrictive covernants" meant to keep people out of their neighborhoods, in the the case of Shelly, or wear as much Black paint on their face as they want, but none of that can be sanctioned by, condoned or supported by the State or State sponsored institutions such as a public university. THIS is the parallel that I saw between this case and this issue. Yes there have been other cases since this one both in agreement with the logic of the Court as well as those who supported the rights on groups like the KKK, et. al.
However, when it all boils down, the court system is very reluctant when it comes to empowering individuals or groups through the protection of the courts or under the Constitution to threaten, discriminate or terrorize people of a previously or historically oppressed people, or any people for that matter. As I said before the 13, 14 & 15 Amendments were ratified for a specific group of people for very specific reasons and that carries more weight in the eyes of the law and the State than the protection of people just out to do others harm.

I'm late now :rolleyes: but I didn't want to lose my train of thought, I'll still be back though in case this wasn't adequate information about why I cited this case to defend my argument.
Also, to AggieSigmaNu, just like our chapters in their entirety get snatched or placed on probation when one, two or a few members haze and do something that is against the charter, illegal or simply studid, this chapter had to deal with the same repercussions for the actions of their members. That's what you agree to when you join an ORGANIZATION.

What you have done here is make my argument for me. Thank you.

The "STATE or institutions/entities sponsored by the state cannot provide its power to the individuals wishing to display such views or discriminate or anything else thay may be found insensitive to a group of people". The BSA's actions offend me. They obviously offended the PKA's that needed bodyguards to safely pass between classes. The state institution gave them power by not stopping their actions. They are just as much an organization as PKA. They used campus property to post those flyers which were aimed at defaming Pi Kappa Alpha.

What the court says here is that the state institution has no right to step in either way. It would support my assertion that the two expelled members would actually have the better civil rights case.

You're right as far as the organization goes. Were these fellas members of my chapter, they'd most likely be ex-members of my chapter based on these actions. As for the school and their actions, I find them to be very out of line.

people want to call others oversensitive when something offensive is done to them. but those same people sure are defensive when they're accused of being bigots and racists.

Perhaps because they're not and they find it offensive that they are being called racists and bigots?

I don't think anyone here believes what these guys did wasn't offensive. However, the notion that you can be expelled from a public school for saying/doing something that the administration disagrees with is actually a pretty frightening proposition.

isn't there such a thing as the honor code or something to that extent at universities?

Many have something like that. The VMI Honor Code comes to mind: "I will not lie, cheat or steal. Nor will I tolerate those who do".

Regardless of what an honor code says, public institutions can and cannot do certain things.

What the court says here is that the state institution has no right to step in either way. It would support my assertion that the two expelled members would actually have the better civil rights case.

I don't think these two individuals would have a stronger civil rights case, still. I also do not think at all that I made your case for you. But if that's how you see it, fine.