Meanwhile at UCLA, Sig Ep and Alpha Phi do Kanye & Kardashians

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

So, in other words, they were really stretching it and the connection failed.

No, in other words, the Afrikan org making the (apparently) false allegations of students in blackface and assumptions about gold-mining dirt was really stretching it and should have failed.

Unfortunately, the admin, in their rush to cya and appear politically correct, slapped sanctions on the party-goers with no evidence whatsoever -- and prior to investigating -- therefore implying guilt and exacerbating the damage to the Greek orgs and innocent individuals within these orgs.

Unless the policy of the university is that damaging sanctions are levied on orgs based on allegations alone, the admin responsible for the damage via their knee-jerk punishment should be fired. And the students who made the false allegations should be dismissed, as should those who intimidate any of the students in either GLO.

Hope the GLOs lawyer-up on this one.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

Hope the GLOs lawyer-up on this one.

It's easy money where UCLA is concerned. The school might as well just get ready to write an apology and a check.

Not to mention they possibly have a hell of a libel suit against this Afrikan group. Especially if that group continued to push this agenda of hysteria after they would reasonably have known there was no blackface here. Our organizations don't really have a history of being litigious, but here is where there needs to be a huge exception to the rule.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's easy money where UCLA is concerned. The school might as well just get ready to write an apology and a check.

Not to mention they possibly have a hell of a libel suit against this Afrikan group. Especially if that group continued to push this agenda of hysteria after they would reasonably have known there was no blackface here. Our organizations don't really have a history of being litigious, but here is where there needs to be a huge exception to the rule.

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?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

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

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.

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

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

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

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.

[Gdimom1]

I thought it was a marvelous play on words. On the West in Kanyes nane and on the Gold Digger song. If there was a white C and W singer with that last name who was one of our biggest celebrities and had a song with that title no one would have objected. The objectors didn't even stop to wonder what those girls were dressed up as. They just freaked out. They made a mistake and should admit it.

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by Gdimom1

They made a mistake and should admit it.

Nothing will happen.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Gdimom1

They made a mistake and should admit it.

Sigmadiva is a fine example of what you're going to find here. As wrong as you can demonstrate her to be, she would never ever admit she made a mistake.

[Gdimom1]

@ 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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

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.

[AOE-7]

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Is it inherently racist to use a famous PoC as a theme for your event?

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.

[Sciencewoman]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

*I'm still thinking about this one. It's not consciously racist, but do chapters have parties named after white men?

For what it is worth, my chapter had a "Starring Val and his Leading Gals" (Val Kilmer) party hah.

But, and let's make this perfectly clear, in this particular case the man in question is literally the biggest celebrity figure in the media and has been for many, many years now. The only figure possibly bigger than him is his wife, a white woman, who was also very clearly a focal part of this event.

If this was, say, a "Master P Make Em Say UGHHHHH" party, it'd be very clear we'd have a problematic focus on race. Also, this particular party cannot stand alone...I understand that GLOs have a long history of offensive ethnic parties.

But to say a party focused around a black and white couple, who are literally the most famous, mocked (in media), covered celebrities on the planet was based off of race and not off of the fame is stretching. I'll need way more proof.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

The only figure possibly bigger than him is his wife, a white woman, who was also very clearly a focal part of this event.

I think Kim identifies as mixed-race.

In any case, something doesn't have to be "racially motivated" to be racist. But in a general sense, people can be racist without trying or meaning to be racist, whether or not that's the case here.

I'm not comfortable with the theme, but I'm also not comfortable condemning it.