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

[Munchkin03]

So, basically--you can't make fun or light of the antics of an especially ridiculous celebrity if that celebrity is a person of color.

Got it.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

So, basically--you can't make fun or light of the antics of an especially ridiculous celebrity if that celebrity is a person of color.

Got it.

Its the context.

In this case for Alpha Phi it was:

1. 'Kanye Western' party
2. Dress like old time gold diggers, smear charcoal on face.
3. Charcoal on face is interpreted as actually being 'blackface', and not just dirt.
4. History of historically white GLOs having blackface / ethnic themed parties.


If the 'Kanye Western' party was done by any other group, then this backlash may not have even come up.

Given that about a year ago the historically white GLO fraternity in Oklahoma was caught on camera singing a song using the N-word, plus all of the recent protests over police killings and beatings of Black people, then that leaves any other incident after all this as suspect.

I'm sure the APhis meant their party to be innocent fun, but their actions are being judged and viewed through all of these recent social happenings.

People outside of GLOs are not going to ponder and debate what is blackface and what isn't. The way it is being seen by the public is this is just another group of white people making fun of Blacks because Kanye West is Black.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Given that about a year ago the historically white GLO fraternity in Oklahoma was caught on camera singing a song using the N-word, plus all of the recent protests over police killings and beatings of Black people, then that leaves any other incident after all this as suspect.

Wow - I don't even know how to process that. Any other incident is already suspect? That's quite a broad brush.

You said upthread that the treatment these women are receiving is comparable to that of those who are unjustly incarcerated. I find the comparison faulty, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think should happen when those unjustly incarcerated people are found to have done nothing wrong? Do you think those responsible for the incarceration/damage to reputation owe the incarcerated person an apology? If so, what do you think these women are owed in response to their undeserved condemnation?

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Welcome to the reality of every unjustly incarcerated (who are mostly people of color) people.

Permanent life altering decisions based on rash interpretations and preconceived notions.

So then you must be at least partially aware of how absurdly hypocritical your stance on this issue is. You are about one connection away from realizing what everybody else is trying to tell you. Make the leap.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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

My issue is not the theme. You can protest the theme. What you can't do is defiantly label a group of people as doing a specific heinous act, publicly shame theme and drag their names through the mud, when there is actually no proof it ever happened (and in fact, abundant proof to the contrary).

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Given that about a year ago the historically white GLO fraternity in Oklahoma was caught on camera singing a song using the N-word, plus all of the recent protests over police killings and beatings of Black people, then that leaves any other incident after all this as suspect.

Yes, which was awful. And I wholeheartedly protested that and think the chapter deserved everything that happened to them. I also understand that actions like this will cause the offended group to be especially cautious of the institution as a whole. And yet...

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I'm sure the APhis meant their party to be innocent fun, but their actions are being judged and viewed through all of these recent social happenings.

If a person of privilege makes an uninformed assumption and unlawful accusation based on a stereotype, I have no doubt you would protest it (so would I). We must think critically about these things. That has to extend to both sides. If you are going to protest a heinous act and name names, you need to make DAMN WELL SURE it actually happened. The SAE racist chant absolutely happened without a doubt. There is video. There are witnesses. Same for when alumna at an SEC school (blanking on which one) blocked the pledging of a black woman.

In this case there is no evidence. In fact, it is blatantly clear to all who spend more than 5 seconds looking at the photo that it was not blackface. Nobody did their research here. Nobody thought critically. People jumped on a trope of "racist sorority" and ran with it without ever examining the evidence, you included based on your earlier posts where you clearly didn't even know what specifically the women were dressed as and clearly had not even seen the photos in question.

It used to be innocent until proven guilty. Our culture has shifted to guilty until proven innocent. You are arguing one step farther...you are actually arguing "GUILTY EVEN THOUGH PROVEN INNOCENT". How can you not see this???

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

So then you must be at least partially aware of how absurdly hypocritical your stance on this issue is. You are about one connection away from realizing what everybody else is trying to tell you. Make the leap.



My issue is not the theme. You can protest the theme. What you can't do is defiantly label a group of people as doing a specific heinous act, publicly shame theme and drag their names through the mud, when there is actually no proof it ever happened (and in fact, abundant proof to the contrary).



Yes, which was awful. And I wholeheartedly protested that and think the chapter deserved everything that happened to them. I also understand that actions like this will cause the offended group to be especially cautious of the institution as a whole. And yet...



If a person of privilege makes an uninformed assumption and unlawful accusation based on a stereotype, I have no doubt you would protest it (so would I). We must think critically about these things. That has to extend to both sides. If you are going to protest a heinous act and name names, you need to make DAMN WELL SURE it actually happened. The SAE racist chant absolutely happened without a doubt. There is video. There are witnesses. Same for when alumna at an SEC school (blanking on which one) blocked the pledging of a black woman.

In this case there is no evidence. In fact, it is blatantly clear to all who spend more than 5 seconds looking at the photo that it was not blackface. Nobody did their research here. Nobody thought critically. People jumped on a trope of "racist sorority" and ran with it without ever examining the evidence, you included based on your earlier posts where you clearly didn't even know what specifically the women were dressed as and clearly had not even seen the photos in question.

It used to be innocent until proven guilty. Our culture has shifted to guilty until proven innocent. You are arguing one step farther...you are actually arguing "GUILTY EVEN THOUGH PROVEN INNOCENT". How can you not see this???

To the red - that is a subjective statement. Since this situation has caused an uproar, it is not clear to all. Obviously, some saw the picture and thought, 'hey, that's cute', while others saw it as offensive.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

My issue is not the theme. You can protest the theme. What you can't do is defiantly label a group of people as doing a specific heinous act, publicly shame theme and drag their names through the mud, when there is actually no proof it ever happened (and in fact, abundant proof to the contrary).

After seeing the news about the fake-baby-bump shower for Kim, I think the matter is settled in my mind. Mocking these two is a-okay.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

After seeing the news about the fake-baby-bump shower for Kim, I think the matter is settled in my mind. Mocking these two is a-okay.

Wait, what?

[navane]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

After seeing the news about the fake-baby-bump shower for Kim, I think the matter is settled in my mind. Mocking these two is a-okay.

Originally Posted by 33girl

Wait, what?

It wasn't even a baby shower, it was a surprise 35th birthday party!! And, yes, Kanye invited guests to stuff things in their shirts in order to look pregnant. The cake read "Happy Pregnant Birthday Kim".

See here: http://www.elle.com/culture/celebrit...irthday-party/


And.......is it just me, or does it look like Kylie Jenner jokingly stuffed her BUTT in this picture?? If so, that would be a bit ironic given the topic of this thread........

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Wow - I don't even know how to process that. Any other incident is already suspect? That's quite a broad brush.

Unfortunately, yes. That is why you had the response from the Afrikan Student Organization and the University.

Had there not been the recent incidents I listed, then this party from APhi would not even register as a blip on anyone's radar. BUT, since there have been all of these racially involved incidents, then *any*thing that even hints of negative racial involvement is magnified.

You said upthread that the treatment these women are receiving is comparable to that of those who are unjustly incarcerated. I find the comparison faulty, but for the sake of discussion, what do you think should happen when those unjustly incarcerated people are found to have done nothing wrong? Do you think those responsible for the incarceration/damage to reputation owe the incarcerated person an apology? If so, what do you think these women are owed in response to their undeserved condemnation?

These women would be owed an apology. But if the evidence hangs on the picture of the chapter members that was posted, it would not be hard for someone to try to connect their appearance in the photo with other photos of white people in blackface. It is too close for comfort. And as I told DTDAlum, interpretation of the photo is completely subjective.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

These women would be owed an apology. But if the evidence hangs on the picture of the chapter members that was posted, it would not be hard for someone to try to connect their appearance in the photo with other photos of white people in blackface. It is too close for comfort. And as I told DTDAlum, interpretation of the photo is completely subjective.

The gold-mining costumes in the photo were probably the most benign costumes at the party. As far as context, the CALIFORNIA Gold Rush shouldn't be a context so remote -- especially for students at a university in CALIFORNIA.

To soft-peddle what the Afrikan org and the University did as a "response" is grossly minimalizing what they actually did -- which was incite hysteria and punish based on nothing whatsoever. The students in the orgs unjustly attacked and punished absolutely deserve an apology and at the very least an official statement to clear the reputation of their orgs.

I doubt the official statement/correction would get the attention that the original accusations and "response" did, but it should. The UC Davis student newspaper further embellished the false accusations with its own version of events as if these were fact. I wouldn't want articles like this hanging out there about my org when the accusation is just not true:

Imagine that you’re at a party. Music is playing, alcohol is flowing and suddenly, some people arrive in blackface. The other members of the party continue about their business, seemingly unfazed. No one speaks up; no one asks for the blackface to be removed. Some people might even laugh.

This might sound like a scene straight out of the 1920s, but it happened just last week, when the UCLA chapters of the Sigma Phi Epsilon (SigEp) fraternity and the Alpha Phi sorority made headlines after photos emerged of members wearing blackface, dressed up in chains and oversized clothing at a “Kanye-Western” themed party.

http://www.theaggie.org/2015/10/14/racist-offenses-embarrass-uc-system/

[Hartofsec]

Question for those in the know:

Have the sanctions on these orgs yet been lifted? It seems like this is a long time (at least 10 days now?) to punish these orgs with no evidence of the accusations.

Perhaps the admin is waiting and praying that a blackface photo actually does surface?

Question for the legal expertise on the thread:

Can an entity or org independent of the GLOs file a complaint or legal action against the university (regarding violation of 1st Amendment rights) without the endorsement/cooperation of the GLOs?

***ETA link to interesting article on the topic:

The Anti-Free-Speech Movement at UCLA

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/the-anti-free-speech-movement-at-ucla/410638/

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

These women would be owed an apology. But if the evidence hangs on the picture of the chapter members that was posted, it would not be hard for someone to try to connect their appearance in the photo with other photos of white people in blackface. It is too close for comfort. And as I told DTDAlum, interpretation of the photo is completely subjective.

No, it is absolutely damn well not subjective. A first reaction to a photo? Yes, subjective. A general sense of unease or offense over a party? Sure, yes. To declare it as "blackface" when it is not? No. Not subjective. At all. Disgusting.

This is not a gray area. The photo was either blackface, or it was not. While the men and women are entitled to feel uncomfortable about a theme, and even speak out on that theme, they needed to sit down, THINK CRITICALLY, like adults, before making a rash and 100% incorrect accusation and taking it so publicly. They did not just protest to say they were uncomfortable, they specifically said people were dressed in blackface. That never happened. That is not open for interpretation. They can decide to be offended, but they cannot claim something happened (especially that damning) that never did.

It's clear we don't agree. I just think your stance on this is egregiously unfair, completely ignorant, and cold.