It happened again...

[ZChi4Life]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Calling someone a derogatory name is one thing while wearing clothing that is not in good taste and in this case it not being a clear effort to incite violence... it's two different things.

You can use your own reasoning to say that they're the same. In the end though neither interpretation really matters.

Ok, I know you've been reading what has been going on here b/c you've been posting. So I ask this: Since when was the clothing that this man was wearing the issue??? I believe you left out the fact that this man was wearing blackface. And if you feel that wearing blackface and calling someone a derogatory word are COMPLETELY different, then fine. We'll just agree to disagree.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by ZChi4Life


Ok, I know you've been reading what has been going on here b/c you've been posting. So I ask this: Since when was the clothing that this man was wearing the issue??? I believe you left out the fact that this man was wearing blackface. And if you feel that wearing blackface and calling someone a derogatory word are COMPLETELY different, then fine. We'll just agree to disagree.

Because the clothing sets the context in which he was wearing the blackface.

Wearing blackface in the context that it was used by some AGR's at Oklahoma State a few months ago (KKK outfits and nooses were present) and dressing up as Louis Armstrong are in very different categories.

And I might bend on saying that they are completely different... But they're also not completely the same.

And agreeing to disagree.. I'm happy with that.

[IvySpice]

Regarding first amendment rights...

Racist messages are protected by the first amendment unless they are plausible threats or foreseeable incitement to riot. It would be hard to argue that this costume posed an immediate threat to public safety.

That being said, all speech is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, and even a public university is entitled to set standards for discourse on campus. If you wanted to publish a sexually explicit short story in a campus magazine, for example, the school could set rules about where it can be distributed, how it must be labeled, etc. Similarly, if you want to announce to the campus, "I'm an ignorant redneck with no respect for myself or my fellow students" (which is the verbal version of wearing blackface on Halloween), there are appropriate ways to communicate that idea. As I read the law, it would not be unconstitutional for the university to require students to express themselves -- regardless of the message -- in a civil manner. If they don't enforce those rules, in fact, they may be legally complicit in the racial harrassment of black students.

No matter what the university does, though, the fraternity is a private organization which can evaluate whether this kind of behavior is in accord with the values they hold. If it were up to me, I'd pull this guy's badge before you could say "Stepin Fetchit." The very best thing you can say about him is that he has no common sense, and brothers with no common sense are inevitably going to embarrass the organization.

Ivy, J.D.

[cash78mere]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
Dressing in blackface is offensive and should be punished. It is offensive to those of African descent and other ethnicities as much as dressing a Nazi uniform would be to those of the Jewish faith!!!

you are absolutely right. 100%. dressing in nazi uniform is horrible and heinous. as is dressing in blackface horrible. but should we arrest people or punish them if they dress in a nazi uniform? not unless they start murdering or harming people. as a german, i take great offense to the whole hitler atrocity, even though i am not jewish. while i would be offended and outraged, i don't think someone who dresses in a nazi uniform should be punished. just the public humiliation and shame would do the job.
***********************************************
things like this are very hard to digest. i personally am highly offended by people on this site calling white people "white folks". why? i don't know, i just don't like it. i would never call black people "black folks". it just doesn't sit well with me.

[lovelyivy84]

Well Said!

and cash78mere, that is just a figure of speech. It is not just whites who are referred to as "folks". Take a look at the AKA or DST forums and you can see that we say black folks too. Just an expression rising from black english.

Originally posted by IvySpice
Regarding first amendment rights...

Racist messages are protected by the first amendment unless they are plausible threats or foreseeable incitement to riot. It would be hard to argue that this costume posed an immediate threat to public safety.

That being said, all speech is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, and even a public university is entitled to set standards for discourse on campus. If you wanted to publish a sexually explicit short story in a campus magazine, for example, the school could set rules about where it can be distributed, how it must be labeled, etc. Similarly, if you want to announce to the campus, "I'm an ignorant redneck with no respect for myself or my fellow students" (which is the verbal version of wearing blackface on Halloween), there are appropriate ways to communicate that idea. As I read the law, it would not be unconstitutional for the university to require students to express themselves -- regardless of the message -- in a civil manner. If they don't enforce those rules, in fact, they may be legally complicit in the racial harrassment of black students.

No matter what the university does, though, the fraternity is a private organization which can evaluate whether this kind of behavior is in accord with the values they hold. If it were up to me, I'd pull this guy's badge before you could say "Stepin Fetchit." The very best thing you can say about him is that he has no common sense, and brothers with no common sense are inevitably going to embarrass the organization.

Ivy, J.D.

[starang21]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
I"m not saying they should be punished, but I wouldn't be surprised if they get their @$$es handed to them. They are fighting words. The difference between that and the KKK is that "hate speach" is still protected. You can say "i hate all N-words" and still be protected, but you can't walk up to some one and call him that and still be protected by the U.S. constitution.

true, but i'd be more worried about the protecting said person's face after someone thoroughly whupped his behind.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
Then I have to say, "Dwight Yoakam is a great muscian too, but do you see me coming outta a trailer park, with a tow hitch and spitting tobacco to prove such a feeling for his music???"

Uh, gee whiz.

I kinda like some country music.

But I've never lived in a trailer park. (I did carry newspapers in one once) Nor have I ever chewed tobacco. And I don't have a pickup truck, let alone a trailer hitch. Never been divorced. Get along with my mother-in-law. Not crazy about trains. Don't wear a cowboy hat or boots. Have most of my teeth.

Just pointing out that stereotypes are easy to fall into -- and some country music fans might take offense.

That doesn't make any part of wearing blackface OK in any way. And I don't think there is any question that these guys will be punished.

Even though this is probably a case of being dumb as opposed to being mean spirited.

[VirtuousErudite]

Do you all honestly believe that these guys had no idea what they were doing was wrong???? I'm sorry but UT is not in the middle of some one horse town. There are black people at the University and in the city of Knoxville. Unless they live in a bubble then they have come into contact with African Americans at some point. Many of the members of the Kappa Sig chapter on UT's campus are from Memphis, a city with a very large African American population.

I just find it hard to believe that college educated adults would be that dense. I am 99% sure that they did know that what they were doing was at least offensive by the fact that they had prior knowledge of the Auburn incident. Let's just get real and stop making excuses for these people.




[QUOTE]Originally posted by DeltAlum


Even though this is probably a case of being dumb as opposed to being mean spirited. [/QUOTE:

[librasoul22]

@ ktsnake...well we wouldn't want to limit your rights to think racist thoughts! You should be able to do it when you please, where you please, and how you please!

I do not disagree with you. How can one punish a thought?

An ACTION, however, is quite different. These guys were not simply dressing up. If they had just put on a costume, carried an instrument, and sang in a low gravelly voice about a wonderful world, I would have been able to tell instantly that they were Louis Armstrong. HOWEVER, they took it a step further and put on blackface, an ACT they clearly knew could potentially cause a conflict, as explained by Virtuous.

Now, who should punish them? That is where the gray area is. To me, it just doesn't matter. Either they will get punished by the university, by their org., or they will walk down the wrong street at the wrong time.

Blackface and the N-word are virtually the same in my book. They carry the same connotations, the same history, and the same desired effect.

ktsnake, no one is disagreeing that THOUGHTS or BELIEFS should be punishable. It is when these thoughts and beliefs are imposed on others that they become subject to scrutiny. If you truly stand behind your convictions, then you can don blackface or use the N-word whenever you please. Why not? You certainly wouldn't deserve punishment.

[Kevin]

@ ktsnake...well we wouldn't want to limit your rights to think racist thoughts! You should be able to do it when you please, where you please, and how you please!

Please don't use the word "you". I don't personally believe that I have racist thoughts or beliefs. I'd appreciate it if you'd replace the 'you' with 'someone' and try not to make it a personal attack and I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

I'm simply defending someone's right to express these beliefs. Even though I don't agree with them if you'll listen to what I'm saying I simply don't think it's the place of law enforcement or a publicly funded universtiy to punish someone for ANY sort of expression.

Why don't we punish all the people in the next gay pride parade because the Bible says it's an abomination? That for some religious folks is just as dire a transgression as blackface. Perhaps not in your frame of reference but why is it only your frame of reference that matters? The current liberal culture however doesn't see it as such.

I'm sick of people preaching tolerance as long as the tolerance i supporting THEIR views. This is America and we (and by we in this case I am not referring to private organizations because they can do whatever they want) do not punish people for expression. If they had wanted to crossdress and march down mainstreet declaring their pride it's their right so much as wearing blackface or burning crosses.

[librasoul22]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Why don't we punish all the people in the next gay pride parade because the Bible says it's an abomination? That for some religious folks is just as dire a transgression as blackface. Perhaps not in your frame of reference but why is it only your frame of reference that matters? The current liberal culture however doesn't see it as such.

I'm sick of people preaching tolerance as long as the tolerance i supporting THEIR views. This is America and we (and by we in this case I am not referring to private organizations because they can do whatever they want) do not punish people for expression. If they had wanted to crossdress and march down mainstreet declaring their pride it's their right so much as wearing blackface or burning crosses.

First off, who said my view is the right one? I didn't. We are all entitled to our own opinions here.

Second of all, you are really skewing the concept of tolerance to fit your argument. Gay people having a parade is the same thing as someone wearing blackface? Can you please break that one down for me? Is there some sordid history of people putting on gayface in order to mock and belittle religious people? Help me out.

You are either totally missing the point or choosing to ignore it.

To put on blackface, NO MATTER THE INTENTION, is to deliberately degrade an entire culture. If you don't know the history, check the links I gave. If someone else doesn't know the history and chooses to do it, that is just plain ignorance. But when kids that KNOW of the background (or at least know that it has caused much controversy in the past, i.e. their knowledge of the Auburn incident) is downright STUPID.

Also the fact that you don't believe you have racist thoughts doesn't mean you do not. I did mean YOU, and if it hit close to home, then maybe you should do some introspection. It wasn't meant to be an insult, just my point of view.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by VirtuousErudite
Do you all honestly believe that these guys had no idea what they were doing was wrong???? I'm sorry but UT is not in the middle of some one horse town. There are black people at the University and in the city of Knoxville. Unless they live in a bubble then they have come into contact with African Americans at some point. Many of the members of the Kappa Sig chapter on UT's campus are from Memphis, a city with a very large African American population.

I think that much, if not most, of what you said is absolutely true.

I do, however, think it's entirely possible that these guys walked into this situation in blissfull ignorance that they were doing anything to offend anyone.

To put it bluntly, sometimes people are just remarkably unaware of how something they do affects other people. A lot of people would call it being stupid. Don't you know anyone like that? Someone that you look at and just can't help but shake your head in wonder?

I do. In all ages and all walks of life. (I've probably done a few stupid things myself over the course of the years) I had an employee once -- a television director and college graduate -- who offended people daily, and had absolutely no idea he was doing it. He was simply oblivious.

I don't know any of the people involved, but by nature I'm inclined to usually give the benefit of the doubt until I know for sure that an action was pre-meditated.

Having said that, I will repeat what I've said earlier in a number of threads -- there has been enough negative reaction to other blackface incidents that you would expect this to be nipped in the bud by others, even if the participants didn't understand the ramifications.

If this was purposeful, these guys should be punished accordingly. If they were just walking around unaware, hopefully this situation, including whatever punishment is applicable, will give them a wakeup call.

[James]

I need to ask for some clarification of the argument(s).

So please consider this post carefully and give me a thoughtful reply.

There seem to be to arguments here, one leading from the other:

1. Is the issue of the offensive nature of "blackface".

2. What should be done, if anything, in punishment. And by Whom. (I'll adress point 2 in a subsquent post. )

Starting with 1.

The reason I asked for the historical antecedents of "blackface" is to clarify what blackface actually is, and give a hint why its such a sore topic in the argument of Racism.

Now here is some of my thoughts as a neutral reader.

These cases aren't in the historical vein of the traditional "blackface". Neither the intention or the actual make-up design is there.

That forced me to redefine the argument in my mind and say that darkening the face in an effort to ridicule or create a situation of riducule of Blacks was in the spirirt of "blackface" and therefore bad.

Clearly Auburn, from the facts presented, would fall into this category. The whole noose around the neck and clan motiff looks kind of bad for those fellows. So in this case almost everyone seemed to be united on the fact that it was BAD, but disagreed about punishment (argument 2 above).

Tennessee doesn't seem to be the same at all, however people are equally offended.

So I am forced to redefine the argument in my head again and come out with a new rule to understand people's positions:

Any, darkening (lightening) or changing of the appearance of the face or body, to mimic a different ethinicity, for whatever purpose, good or bad, in whatever context, entertainment notwithstanding, is INHERENTLY BAD and is both unacceptable and inexcusable.

Would that be a fair representation of the argument against Blackface?

Because that is the only argument that I can see that fits the position that seems to be failry common on here, that darkening of the face in these contexts are automatically a negative.

Thank you.

[librasoul22]

James, first of all, you cannot WHITEN your face with blackface.

Second of all, you cannot dress up someone's intentions or motivations by saying that they don't know what the significance of something is when THEY CLEARLY DO. Get it?

So to answer your question, and in an effort to clean up the run-on sentence that it spawned:

BLACKFACE IS BAD. DO NOT DO IT. PERIOD.

If you have any further questions, please do some research into the history of blackface. Then ask your self why someone might be offended by ANY sort of direct relation to it.

THESE PEOPLE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS WRONG. Viruous pointed it out, but you all are ignoring that for some reason.

1. They had recently held a seminar at UofT explaining why blackface was bad.

2. The men in question said they did not want another "Auburn incident" and lied about their fraternal membership to someone who questioned them.

THEY KNEW. PERIOD.

Who should punish them? What should be their punishment?

This is the only thing really up for debate.

WHO KNOWS? QUESTION MARK.

[ZTAMiami]

I agree with LibraSoul 100%
BTW, I need my brain back