A Multicultural Sorority?

[SWTXBelle]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I have to respectfully disagree about intent not being important. Someone who unthinkingly acts in a culturally insensitive way can be educated.

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

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?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

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.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

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.

Perhaps they knew and just didn't care? To me, it doesn't matter if something I does happens to offend a few hippies or native american activists or whatnot.

Heck.. me opening my trap to defend these girls has probably shaved a year off of someone's life already. I guess I should wait for the process server to serve me those papers since I clearly "discriminated" against someone.

I can think of any number of themed parties, e.g. white trash, gangsta & ho, or toga (alert the Greco-Roman anti defamation league!) which happen routinely all over the country, rarely drawing any criticism whatsoever. This is no different than any of those cases except the connection to a race of people and the relevance of stereotypes is probably even more tenuous than usual.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Perhaps they knew and just didn't care? To me, it doesn't matter if something I does happens to offend a few hippies or native american activists or whatnot.

It doesn't matter if it matters to you.

As I always say, there are policies in effect because every individual isn't capable of monitoring her/himself.

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is no different than any of those cases except the connection to a race of people and the relevance of stereotypes is probably even more tenuous than usual.

How profound of you, Kevin.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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

With the widespread availability of photos/etc, it is all the more reason to NOT act in such a way that could possibly come back to bite you at a later date.

Take those Rho Chis being discussed in the Risk mgmt forum for another example.

[SWTXBelle]

Don't I know it - that's why I posted the fyi.

[breathesgelatin]

1983 is a long way from 2008.

There's no way in heck Kevin will ever get what he wants because Gamma Phi is NOT going to sue the school. They would be insane to do so, even if they would win. It would just be a disaster for them.

The chapter will not sue because Gamma Phi HQ will surely not support them. If the chapter were to sue without HQ's permission, they would surely have their charter revoked.

So Kevin - your point is useless. No one is going to sue.

Actually, I'm less disgusted by the Gamma Phi party than I am by the event in question in the 1983 court case you cited. An "Ugly Woman Party"? Wow.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

1983 is a long way from 2008.

So do you think the Constitutional allowance for free speech is now less than it was back then?

So Kevin - your point is useless. No one is going to sue.

It's an academic point. Schools don't have the legitimate power to do jack squat to organizations who (omg) offend people.

Actually, I'm less disgusted by the Gamma Phi party than I am by the event in question in the 1983 court case you cited. An "Ugly Woman Party"? Wow.

Actually, the Sigma Chi thing was waaaay more extreme -- this was a contest where brothers did skits dressed up as unpleasing females. Here's a quote from the factual statement of the court:

"He was painted black and wore stringy, black hair decorated with curlers, and his outfit was stuffed with pillows to exaggerate a woman's breasts and buttocks. He spoke in slang to parody African-Americans."

-- if this is permissible, surely a little war paint at a party works. This case was in 1992. If you're referring to 42 U.S.C. 1983 is the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (it's been amended and expanded since then). It forbids anyone, under color of state law (a university) from depriving people of constitutional rights. Here, the University has clearly violated the terms of that Act.

But I guess to some, being PC is more important than the Constitution. Shameful.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So do you think the Constitutional allowance for free speech is now less than it was back then?



It's an academic point. Schools don't have the legitimate power to do jack squat to organizations who (omg) offend people.



Actually, the Sigma Chi thing was waaaay more extreme -- this was a contest where brothers did skits dressed up as unpleasing females. Here's a quote from the factual statement of the court:

"He was painted black and wore stringy, black hair decorated with curlers, and his outfit was stuffed with pillows to exaggerate a woman's breasts and buttocks. He spoke in slang to parody African-Americans."

-- if this is permissible, surely a little war paint at a party works. This case was in 1992. If you're referring to 42 U.S.C. 1983 is the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (it's been amended and expanded since then). It forbids anyone, under color of state law (a university) from depriving people of constitutional rights. Here, the University has clearly violated the terms of that Act.

But I guess to some, being PC is more important than the Constitution. Shameful.

if you do something that offends a group, don't get mad when that groups says something. just as much as you have a right to offend, they have a right to say something about it. if you don't like the controversy that comes along, why do it in the first place?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starang21

if you do something that offends a group, don't get mad when that groups says something. just as much as you have a right to offend, they have a right to say something about it. if you don't like the controversy that comes along, why do it in the first place?

I fully support the Native American students' right to protest and condemn Gamma Phi Beta for their actions. That's their right. Speech is and should be a two way street.

It seems that the school and the Native American groups would disagree.

What they don't get to do is use the machinery of the state to accomplish their mission. At least not legally. Gamma Phi Beta, admittedly is letting them get away with that though.