A Multicultural Sorority?
 

A group of American Indian students plans to file a discrimination complaint with UND’s affirmative action office Monday about a Gamma Phi Beta sorority party in November during which students dressed up in American Indian costumes and slathered their faces and bodies with red makeup.

Rest of the abstract here, but you must purchase the article.

Opinion piece here.

wow. I'm really surprised a national sorority would do that.

sarcasm much?

no sarcasm was intended. i just really was surprised. with all of the stories we've heard about with fraternities/sororities hosting offending mixers/parties/whatever, i just would have thought by now people would have learned their lessons and learned not to do something like this.

Every year that I was in grad school, some fraternity would get in trouble because members would show up in black face for the Halloween parties. *shrugs shoulders*

Okay, I am going to get flamed for this but I just want to throw out there for all to discuss:

Was it is private party? Can people not do what they want to do in private?

I totally understand the whole PC argument and I know that this sorority wants to avoid doing anything unkind, or ruin their reputation,etc, but I have to say, that unless they were parading down Main Street, isn't this a personal choice at a private party?

Some people chose to dress up as Indians and that caracature(sp) was offensive to some. I understand. Where is the outrage over "pimps and ho's" or "redneck" parties?

Let the flaming begin...:)

From the sounds of it, it was a mixer type party (or date party), so the sorority's name is attached to it.

If you want to have a get together at your apartment and have people dress up in a way that offends other people, hey, more power to you, but WHY would you have an official event, and do that with your sorority's name attached to it?

Like the columnist said:
I find it hard to believe that she had "no control" over how people dressed. She could have easily sent out a memo or something? She herself even had pictures of herself dressed like that up for the world to see on the internet.

Like I said, if you're going to do it on your own free time, whatever, but why would you do something like that and attach your sorority's name to it?

I think that this question is beside the point. Sure people can do what they want, I guess. But such choices belie claims of cultural sensitivity and respect.

For the record, Sensuret posted this in an obvious attempt to get at me.

Yes, three members of the sorority made an ill-advised costume choice - although I find it ironic that it is at the University of North Dakota - home of the Fighting Sioux (!).http://images.publicradio.org/conten...ingsioux_2.jpg


But that is hardly reason to believe that the entire membership is therefore insensitive. The sorority's response is here http://www.gammaphibeta.org/news/pre..._CATEGORY_ID=5
I'm sure Sensuret meant to post it, but just forgot.

If the sorority just shrugged their shoulders and said, "Eh", then Sensuret would have a point. But I am proud of the way it was handled, and the good to come out of it is that many more people are now aware of the need for cultural sensitivity in terms of social party themes and costuming. It's a process - and there will be missteps on the way. But the important thing is to strive to improve, to encourage and educate our members to be culturally aware.

I have long hated the "pimps and ho" and "redneck" type themes - I don't even like the "wedding mixers" because I think it is disrespectful to take something that is considered by some to be a sacrament and use it for a party theme. There's a fine line to be walked - for example, a Cinco de Mayo party can be fun, but all it would take is one insensitive person to dress in a serape and hat and talk like the Frito Bandito to make it a culturally offensive event.

Blackface is something which has its own sordid history. We know why that's offensive.

"Redface" has no such history. I don't think portraying the physical characteristics of another race is per se offensive. We need to all be a little less touchy about things. The action the natives are bringing is apparently a "discrimination" action. Who was discriminated against? Did they have a sign at the door which read "People of native ancestry not welcome!" No. Of course not.

This discrimination suit is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by some idiots to use the law to punish thought-crime.

I guess the next time anyone holds a toga party, greek/italian student organizations need to stage a protest, right?

...

Why does it matter if it was offensive? What is it of their business?

I don't get it. How were their rights hurt in any way?

American Indians would disagree with you. Putting on red facial paint, or "war paint" may not have the same history as blackface, but American Indians have, as a people, been abused, slaughtered, lied to, practically enslaved, forced off their land, forced to abandon their heritage, and forced to live in poverty throughout history.
Treating a race of people as if they are a Halloween costume is more than ignorant immaturity.

You should know better than to play word games with the name of the action. If the "discrimination action" definition includes that of their complaint, such as the creation of a hostile environment, then they were in face "discriminated against" by the technical definition.

Does anyone have a link to the pictures? I came across them in the last couple weeks but now I can't find them. (very annoying) What I remember is that based on what I had read I was expecting people with their faces painted red (like black face). But what I saw were red hand prints and a variety of colors being used. At first I was very much "this is what's causing the problem?" After thinking about I can understand if Native Americans are offended by the photos. However, I think it's the type of image that a lot of people grew up with and so don't think it could be offensive. I firmly believe that the participants didn't intend offense. Which I think is something to be considered.

Eh...stop blatantly trying to play devil's advocate, people. ;)

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

Most of us aren't shocked about this situation. These things have always happened and are just getting more attention over the past 10 years.

I also dislike it when sports fans dress up in "red face" and wear Native American gear. This is one of the only (if not, the only) group of people that it is found acceptable to openly mock. Yes, it is a mockery rather than an appreciation.

And it doesn't matter if "some Native Americans do it"/"...say it's okay"/"...do rain dances at the football games...." That doesn't make it STRUCTURALLY appropriate just because some INDIVIDUALS condone it (even if they condone it in their silence).

Very good points made on both sides of this issue so far...and I agree that being sensitive to cultural differences is an important aspect of societal harmony...
but, I think the same argument about oppression, injustice, negative images unfairly perpetuated can be made about almost any subgroup.

Backwoods, redneck, hick - can be very offensive to the hardworking, blue collar laborer who puts food on your tables, drives goods and services cross country,etc. These people were often exploited, uneducated, and misused and are one of the reasons we have labor laws, etc. Yet, we love a good hoedown/Sadie Hawkins/white trash party...

I agree that the intent of the mixer was not to offend anyone and I agree that the irony of this occurring in one of the Dakotas is not lost on most.

So, while I agree there is reason to be aware that this type of behavior can go too far and be offensive in some extremes, we can't, for example, freak out every time a kindergarten class has an interactive Thanksgiving celebration where the "Indians" (in traditional garb which usually includes facepaint) have dinner with the "pilgrims."

The intent isn't important.

We usually can't prove ill intentions. Even the idiots who wore black face and gold chains claimed not to have ill intentions. So there's no need to debate intent. We can, however, prove the outcomes and that's what the resulting offense and whatever harms caused are based on.

And toga parties depict Greeks and Romans in a negative light as well. Are they not entitled to the same sort of protections?

I don't really need an education on how natives have been treated in this country. I live a state where our culture and politics feature native issues very prominently.

Blackface in itself was one thing. War paint is quite another. There is no comparison between the two except that a select group of indians who pretend to speak for the whole are acting all butt hurt over something people did at a private party.

War paint does no more to treat a race of people as "Halloween costumes" than dressing up in a toga, or as a viking, or whatever. The party seems more geared at depicting the cowboys and indians of old western films.

If these folks weren't in the "hostile environment," then they lack standing. If this complaint is actionable under the school's policy, then that school's policy is likely not constitutional. Schools try to force students to adopt these ridiculous PC standards of conduct sometimes. This seems to be some massive overstepping of what the school should or should not be engaged in.

This goes back to historical context and the social significance of negative portrayals beyond people's feelings just being hurt.

If a group of Greeks and Romans came together to protest toga parties, pulling from the historical context of negative portrayals that extended to social exclusion, then YES they are entitled to the same sort of protections.

Just something to consider:

WASHINGTON (UMNS) - The head of the United Methodist agency for social action and advocacy has written to the Washington Redskins asking that the football team change its name.
"The name is offensive and hurtful to the many Native Americans who are citizens of this nation and to all people who reject racial stereotypes and bigotry as socially acceptable," writes the Rev. Thom White Wolf Fassett, top executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society.

Fassett acknowledges the difficulty of such a change and the need to involve both the National Football League and the club's fans. The term "redskins" has been derogatory from its start, he says, and by embodying a history of degradation and slaughter, it demeans the team as well as Native Americans.

He cites the denomination's act of repentance for racism on May 4, as well as a resolution in the church's current Book of Resolutions that is "a call for repentance for the church's role in the dehumanization and colonization of our Native American sisters and brothers."


http://gbgm-umc.org/usa/umns062200jpmw.stm


ETA: To the topic itself....there were questions as to whether or not it was a private affair etc and so forth...ladies and gentlemen...let us all remember (sorry if I preach to the choir but I think we are missing this) that what we do in the privacy of our own homes and residence, halls etc are just that....but when it is done advertising your org. regardless of what it is....at that point, what people see people will take at face value. You are your organization's face. People who see any type of activity will make a baseline judgement from those activities. It's not based on the individual(s). So when you hear that Joe Shmoe, Jane Shmore of XYZ org did ABC event that got whatever attention in the news...what part do you think people pay attention to more?

Common sense should dictate, if you are going to do something that may be questionable to your org...

1. THINK
2. If you really decide that you are going to do it...disassociate yourself beforehand because once pix pops up and they see you doing something questionable and letters involved...it's YOUR ORG that comes under question not you. and that image will make more of a lasting impression....


Beta Theta Pi at Aurburn imitating Omega Psi Phi (in black face even) anyone.....?

I have to respectfully disagree about intent not being important. Someone who unthinkingly acts in a culturally insensitive way can be educated. Someone who does it with malice would probably not. 18 - 22 year olds do stupid things - one advantage to going to college and being in a GLO is that you hope they will grow, learn and mature. The programming of NPC sororities is geared to help their members in the process.

eta - and it is my understanding that the problem began with pictures posted on Facebook. FYI.

Anyone can be educated, intent or unintent. But most people with a grain of brain will claim to not know that they were potentially being offensive.

Many of these incidents have prompted campus forums on tolerance and diversity. But that doesn't stop the university or the nhq from handing down sanctions. People learn best when education is mixed with a sanction because now they see the consequences of their actions.

Now if these were 5 year olds we are talking about, then I'd truly believe they were clueless.

I respectfully disagree. I think intent is important to how the situation should be handled. I don't think intent invalidates the results though.

The chapter is on social probation.

Sanctioned for not being politically correct. Might as well just tear up the Constitution.

It must be an oxymoron that some of the dumbest things such as these, happens on college campuses.


Just because you are in college doesn't mean you are 'smart'.

Socially or bookwise.

Do you honestly believe that they thought "I know this is offensive, but I don't care?". No one, of course, can know for sure, but if they knew it was offensive and chose to do it anyway I don't think they would have happily posed for pictures, and then posted them on facebook. Insensitive means they didn't consider others feelings - it doesn't have to mean that they considered them, and then said it didn't matter.

There have been comparisons between black face and this, and I think the difference is that because of the association with sports teams "redface" has been seen and accepted by some in a way that blackface is not. That is not to say that it is not wrong, but that there is not the overwhelming agreement on the topic that you have with blackface. Turn on your TV and you can see sports fans whooping away, tomahawk chopping, etc. There is a very active debate on the matter, and it still has shades of gray that, not to be punny, you don't have when discussing blackface.

eta - so, to get past the point where we argue back and forth over something we can't know (whether or not they meant to be offensive), what do you think the appropriate response should be?

Exactly why intent doesn't matter.

I honestly don't care what they thought. ;) I deal with outcomes. Some outcomes come from more deliberate and intentional actions than others. But that is be based on more than "we didn't know."

The speculation and semantics ("insensitive" versus "clueless") game is a waste of time. After all of these incidents that have been in the media, no college student with a head as distinct from their ass should claim they aren't aware of the potential for offense.

Regarding taking photos: An analogy are the photos of black face that dumb college students took--imagine them happily posing for photos in deliberate black faced costumes and pretending that they don't know that black face is offensive. Perhaps more overt than in the article for this thread, but the "didn't know" defense is all the same. Even if these idiots claimed they "didn't know," the outfits were very crafted and intentionally black face. But if they "didn't know," that says a lot about this society.

And if they truly didn't know, NOW THEY DO and will be handled accordingly. :)

Now that they do know?

The university doesn't have the power to compel you to not offend racial groups. If their organization wants to sanction them, fine. The university has no business doing anything here, except maybe to issue a statement saying that they don't approve, but there's nothing they can do.

The fact that the university legally doesn't have the power to sanction this group preempts this entire argument as to whether it's offensive (which is still an argument).

The university has waaaay overstepped its bounds here and I hope someone sues them for it.

If the GLO is a student organization on the University's campus they can hold the GLO responsible as they could any other student organization. While they could not rescind the charter, they can stop recognizing the chapter on the campus or impose any other level of consequences as provided by their rules on student organizations.

I'm not seeing where the University actually did anything to the chapter except say that they would review the whole affair. And there is a provision for a chapter to be brought up in front of a Judicial Board if they hold an event that is considered questionable.

LOL.

University policies override many organization policies, as long as the organization hopes to be recognized and in good standing with the University.

They can sue all they want but the point has been made that the University CAN and it DID. :D

Those of you who think this is just about being politically correct, OKAY. That's why this stuff will keep happening and Universities and nhqs will keep handing out the sanctions.

ETA: Did the University do something beyond review the situation or has the nhq handed down the sanction?

hmm, that sounds about right. :mad: and cosign on the underlined.

No they can't. The University cannot abridge your Constitutional rights and call it "University policy." It simply isn't within their power.

The chapter has been put on social probation by the University. I'll bet they did all of this without even so much as a hearing. At public schools, you're entitled to certain things. Just because the school ignores the law, doesn't make the school right.

Quick research brought me to a case wherein Sigma Chi was sanctioned by George Mason University for having an "ugly woman" contest. In one of the skits, a fraternity member dressed up in "an offensive caricature of a black woman." The sanctioning was done because the fraternity's conduct was offensive and created a hostile environment to blacks and women (sound familiar?). The fraternity was given social probation for the rest of the semester and was put on probation for two years.

The fraternity sued under 42 U.S. 1983 (the Civil Rights Act) alleging that they had been deprived of Constitutional rights under the color of state law.

The 4th Circuit held that "[t]he University certainly has a substantial interest in maintaining an educational environment free of discrimination and racism, and in providing gender-neutral education. Yet it seems equally apparent that it has available numerous alternatives to imposing punishment on students based on the viewpoints they express. We agree wholeheartedly that it is the University officials' responsibility, even their obligation, to achieve the goals they have set. On the other hand, a public university has many constitutionally permissible means to protect female and minority students. We must emphasize, as have other courts, that “the manner of [its action] cannot consist of selective limitations upon speech.”

This is of course not binding on the N.D. courts, but it'd be extremely persuasive as this is almost exactly the same sort of situation.

The citation is 993 F.2d 386, (4th Cir., 1993) if anyone cares.

See my post above.. 42. U.S.C. 1983 says the school can't [legally] do this.

BOOOOO...HISSSSSSSSSSSS.....

Where was it said that the University put the chapter on social probation? The only mention of probation that I saw was in this thread and it was a passive sentence, no mention if HQ did it or if the University did.

And you just contradicted your post following this one. Technically the law does not, as of now, prohibit it unless a court rules since the previous precedent is not binding. "Persuasive" perhaps, but "illegal" is just an opinion at this point.

The student newspaper says that the group was placed on social suspension.

http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/m...-3289876.shtml

I doesn't contradict my argument at all to acknowledge that situations such as this rarely come up, so this would be a matter of first impression for the North Dakota courts. I've found the only federally reported case wherein a public school sanctioned a fraternity for offensive conduct. The law here is pretty simple. That's why these cases don't go to the federal courts. It's very likely that the university will back down after a call from a lawyer. If not, they're going to risk hundreds of thousands in attorney's fees (the school pays the plaintiff's fees plus whatever else if it loses). They'll back down considering the only law on the books heavily favors Gamma Phi Beta.

The article doesn't say who placed them on suspension which is my question. Gotta hate the passive voice.
ETA: rereading it looks like it is a prohibition from holding events with other organizations. (And probably university imposed) Does that suspension differ significantly from the one imposed in the case you cited? Would including potential punishments for events that are considered inappropriate in the student organization charter make a difference? What about the PHC Judicial Board review?

And while it may be true that the law favors the GLO, would it have to be HQ that fights it or the chapter? Either way, it is unclear that either chapter or HQ would be interested in fighting a "it's ok for us to wear warpaint" case.
I only object to calling the University's actions, if it was the university, illegal since it appears it is questionable, but would likely require a ruling to clarify.

Given the years of controversary about the symbolization of Native Americans, especially at UND, I find it hard to believe that these young ladies did not know it would be offensive.