Trackbacks & Pings

1. Yo Quiero Taco Bell!! « The Blog and the Bullet on 28 Feb 2007 at 8:22 pm

   […] by Jack Stephens on February 28th, 2007 Carmen Van Kerckhove posts a blog on Racialicious about a “Latino party:” The latest racist campus party comes to […]

2. ALAG « Outside In . . . And Back Again on 30 Mar 2007 at 12:53 pm

   […] http://www.racialicious.com/2007/02/22/santa-clara-university-students-mock-latinos-with-south-of-th… I apologize if I’m coming off as an over-sensitive, uptight bee-yotch with no sense of fun, but I felt like I had to say something here.  I know that we at the Evans School generally strive to be “politically correct, culturally competent, and sensitive to diversity” in our day-to-day lives……is being so such a burden? […]

Comments

1. Brad wrote:

   I’d said it once, Ill say it again. The students need to be expelled. This is inexcusable. Many of these students are going to school to be professionals. Also does anyone else find it a bit odd that all these white students on all these campuses just up and decided one day “gee let’s a throw racist themed part!” does any one know if there was some communication between these students and campuses? Or are they all just copycat parties?

   Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 11:06 am ¶

2. mike wrote:

   Sigh. I predict the response to be:

   “It wasn’t racist! We aren’t racists!”

   … racism must be the only place where the offender tries to define the limits and intentions of his or her own transgression against the victim.

   Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 4:43 pm ¶

3. merq wrote:

   Heh, Mike. Just came in here to predict the inevitable stunned “But we had no idea anyone would be offended” response.

   Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 6:58 pm ¶

4. Colin wrote:

   No fair, you took em already…I can’t even call “It was just a party” or “It was meant to be funny”, can I?

   Can I get “our Latino friends thought it was okay”, though?

   Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 7:27 pm ¶

5. Danni wrote:

   I firmly don’t believe that this students should be subject to expulsion, here at Macalester, I’m fighting for NO disciplinary action to be taken AT ALL. I really don’t think that impeding on people’s freedom of speech will be at all beneficial; I worry that it will do nothing more than to create more backlash and create an even more hostile environment for students of color nationally.

   I think that this is a national trend. I don’t think that these kids should be punished for growing up and inhabiting a world where this kind of activity is allowed and seen as “fun,” and that’s the issue that we — as people seeking justice– should be hoping to acheive and fighting for. No body is in the “wrong,” for being products of the society that they are; we need to seek to educate these children– many of whom are probably older than myself– because we’re living in a developmentally STILTED world, and they’re doing nothing more than embodying that which they have been taught, through various media, to be funny.

   I really want to see this trend end. But it won’t. And I don’t know what I can do about it anymore. It’s frustrating. I’ve actually been literally having nightmares about it….lovely.

   Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 7:44 pm ¶

6. Sewere wrote:

   Merq,

   Spot on with the intent argument, since we all now intent is what matters the most…

   Oh and let’s not leave out the folks who are always more than happy to remind us to not “take this so seriously” and of course, to “get a life.”

   They should be appearing anytime now…

   Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 9:18 pm ¶

7. Amanda wrote:

   I agree with Brad, they should be expelled. These students know exactly what they’re doing and it’s time universities acted.

   Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 10:27 pm ¶

8. merq wrote:

   I’m with Danni on this one. One thing I’ve said for years is how the PC movement has created an ever-swelling undercurrent of racist vitrol, borne of not just ignorance and hate, but frustration at being “stifled.”

   Looks like the pot is boiling over now.

   What’s good, SeWere? I’m expecting “get a life” anytime now. It’s shown up on a couple of other threads in the last two days, and I’ve got money on this being next. [c’mon, big money, no whammy…]

   Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 11:43 pm ¶

9. Brad wrote:

   Thank You Amanda! This is the only way I can see in dealing with degenerates who knowingly go out of their way in offending people. These are not ignorant naive kids. They did this on purpose to offend. I as a white person am sick and tired of these little rich white punks pulling this type of garbage and then getting slapped on the wrist for it and to top all it off. That leaves every non-white think that is representive of all white people. And they have every right to. The enforcement of rules and regulations on college campuses is an absolute joke. And it is not just these white kids, you have far-left student groups terrorizing those they don’t agree with and the leadership doesn’t do anything about it. These schools get what they ask by their overly permissive attitude towards bad behavior, and now it has come home to roost.

   Posted 23 Feb 2007 at 1:17 am ¶

10. gatamala wrote:

    Danni

    I really don’t think that impeding on people’s freedom of speech will be at all beneficial. Civics 101: This is not a free speech issue. “CONGRESS shall make no LAW abridging the freedom of speech.” So disciplinary action (even short of expulsion) impinges on their Constitutional rights????

    I worry that it will do nothing more than to create more backlash and create an even more hostile environment for students of color nationally. Soooo disciplinary action is unwarranted because it will give the offenders a reason to offend?? Blame the victim.

    I don’t think that these kids should be punished for growing up Racism is a rite of passage?? First day at school, first communion, first kiss, first heartbreak, first job, first time…..first time dressing as a pregnant welfare mom who can’na speaka da englizh and who wears black lipliner…

    and inhabiting a world where this kind of activity is allowed and seen as “fun,” It’s not their fault, they’re are products of society. Scratch that…these kids are the REAL victims of society. It’s hard on those Santa Clara University streets.

    and that’s the issue that we — as people seeking justice– should be hoping to acheive and fighting for. We?? You’ve managed to include yourself into those who are against racism - AFTER you downplayed, excused or otherwise ignored the culpability of those who willfully engaged in this behavior (No body is in the “wrong,” for being products of the society that they are) Seriously, you’ve taken moral relativism to an extreme. If you can’t find anything wrong with their beliefs and actions, then you need to take the words “we - as people seeking justice” out of your mouth.

    we’re living in a developmentally STILTED world

    and they’re doing nothing more than embodying that which they have been taught, through various media, to be funny. Would that be the liberal media? Perhaps mom & dad et al. would have something to do with what they are taught. Perhaps the myraid of ways humans disseminate informaton to one another is comprised of/guided by human thoughts and actions. The media isn’t an independent being unto itself. Perhaps what’s considered funny is a product of hatred, fear and supremacy.

    Posted 23 Feb 2007 at 9:11 am ¶

11. Amanda wrote:

    I’ve no doubt that these incidents were borne of a vitriolic hatred. They’re daring the Universities, their peers and wider society to find them in contempt. I frankly couldn’t care less if they feel stifled. They should be punished because they should be held accountable for their actions.

    Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to act with impunity. If these young adults want to lash out at feeling stifled by mocking and denigrating other ethnic groups then they are free to do so. In return, the people and institutions that surround them are also free to respond by taking whatever steps the law grants them — and that includes expulsion.

    Hiding behind a plethora of grievances and excuses just doesn’t cut it. They are of voting age and should take full responsibility for what they’ve done.

    Posted 23 Feb 2007 at 11:18 am ¶

12. Kai wrote:

    I’m with Danni on this one. One thing I’ve said for years is how the PC movement has created an ever-swelling undercurrent of racist vitrol, borne of not just ignorance and hate, but frustration at being “stifled.”

    Hehe, so after hundreds of years of the most brutally violent oppressive white supremacy imaginable, people of color are at fault for “stifling” the right of white folks to mock people of color. That’s some tight reasoning right there! ;-P

    Okay once more: The Greatest Cliché: The Unexamined Propaganda of “Political Correctness”.

    Posted 23 Feb 2007 at 11:42 am ¶

13. ren wrote:

    Thank you Gatamala, finally someone points out what the constitution states in regards to one’s freedom of expression. Freedom of expression restricts interference from the government on matters of speaking out, an issue our rebellious little forefathers held in high regard in promoting a free and democratic republic. I want to vomit when I see people try and defend their stupid remarks and decisions as a exercise of their constitutional right. I’m sure the founding forefathers who wanted freedom of expression to keep the common man from facing reprisal from a corrupt/tyrannical government are rolling in their graves at the thought that freedom of expression is regarded as the right to dress in blackface or mockingly stereotype other ethnicities.

    Before you say it’s not beneficial to impede on their freedom of speech you should ask yourself what about their freedom of speech was of such benefit that it needs undue protection from the constitution? Yes, certain vitriolic racial material (Turner Diaries, Protocols, Mein Kampf) are defended under the first amendment — with REASON. Defending them from censorship isn’t based on a defense that we have this immunity to say whatever we wish. These books encompass a historical or psychological perspective that can be learned from, an account of history where shitty ideas were regarded as good ones, a tangible product of ideology developing over the ages. What significance, what flow of information and ideas, do these ghetto parties provide that makes them worthy of being defended constitutionally?

    I’m not too worried about backlash, considering nothing was done to evoke this behavior in the first place. The idea that minorities complaining is justification for hostility is a bit absurd, like chastising the kid who just got punched for no reason to stop crying because he’s giving someone a reason to punch them.

    Please these are not kids. They aren’t that much older than I am, don’t offend me. Only in a Christian Nation where at the age of 8 you reach the “Age of Reason”, where you are now consciously able to follow the dictates of a supreme morally objective power that will ultimately determine eternal salvation or damnation, but at the age of 18-22 you can’t figure out throwing this type of party is idiotic? Someone needs to write an addendum to the Bible.

    I don’t deny the impact of media, the impact of the environment and the culture we live in. But the extent that it forces us to behave in a particular way is questionable. Many of us have gone to shitty schools, been in poverty, held shitty dead-end jobs, some of us have all the justification in the world to be idiotic and cruel… but some of us don’t conform our behavior to reflect the lowest instances of the society we live in — I think that’s called maturity?

    Posted 23 Feb 2007 at 12:35 pm ¶

14. Colin wrote:

    I keep thinking that merq was being sarcastic, or at least was trying to be matter-of-fact about how many whites may see race relations in America, misguided as they may be.

    I cannot imagine that merq would really think that such an attitude (that the criticisms of white supremacy are responsible for more white hostility toward minorities) would be justified, however. I just think merq feels that it’s how it is. Criticisms of white racism have evoked a mountain of vitriol and hysteria from many, many white people in the form of being “politically incorrect”.

    Posted 23 Feb 2007 at 1:04 pm ¶

15. Y. Carrington wrote:

    Kai, I was gonna challenge Merq too, but you got there first.

    Hehe, so after hundreds of years of the most brutally violent oppressive white supremacy imaginable, people of color are at fault for “stifling” the right of white folks to mock people of color.

    My thoughts exactly. Merq, I can’t believe you used the term “PC movement” with a straight face.

    Posted 23 Feb 2007 at 4:56 pm ¶

16. deb wrote:

    NYU’s College Republicans planned to play a game called Find the Illegal Immigrant. The game was intended to foster discussions about the issue of illegal immigrants. College Republicans president Sarah Chambers said, “It’s not a racist event, first and foremost. Just because we don’t want illegal immigrant being able to completely disregard the laws of our country doesn’t make us racist.”

    And on Valentine’s Day NYU’s Asian Heritage Club protested a band named The Ching Chong Song scheduled to perform that evening. Of course band members said they didn’t know it was a racist slur. One member in particular said the following: “I am mad that I was asked to back out, just another way the small-scale mirrors the large-scale of “shut-your-mouth-you’re-scaring-me” tactics are infiltrating our f’d up sweet spunky youth. By the way, “ching chang chong” is what people in Germany call the game rock paper scissors, and stupid petty retards is what I’m calling you.”

    Okaaaay….. It’s never about race, is it?

    Anyway, I’m still waiting for these privileged kids to start throwing white trash/trailer park parties lest they cry foul at being called elitists, too.

    Posted 23 Feb 2007 at 5:07 pm ¶

17. merq wrote:

    Colin, Glad to see at least one person understood my point.

    Kai & Y. Carrington:
    I guess I should’ve thrown up the quotation marks a few more times, but I figured that would be like one of those people who do the “rabbit-ear” thing at the “weirdest,” and most arbitrary “moments.”

    Posted 23 Feb 2007 at 6:59 pm ¶

18. Danni wrote:

    OK, so these kids get expelled. Then what? Really? Freedom of Speech is a constitutional amendment because it is the basis of what our founding “fathers” saw as being just.

    People have a legal and moral right to represent stereotypes, if that’s what they want to do. I’m willing to defend people’s right to freedom of speech to the death, regardless of what it is they choose to express, because in fighting for their right to offend the HELL out of me, I’m also defending my own right to speak out against injustices.

    The idea of just expelling the students who were involved in these situations, I said, and will say again, is just not justifiable in my mind. I also don’t think that it will be helpful to individual campuses’ multicultual climates. If one kid got expelled, others, who didn’t understand the implications of the original action, will just take the offensiveness to another level creating an even more hostile environment for societally marginalized students.

    Expulsion is reactionary. Schools need to go to the root of the problem rather than just turning a blind eye at the smaller incidents that occur on a daily baisis which lead up to these larger more widely offensive gatherings. Expulsion, my friends, won’t change shit. People will just get mad and culture wars will escalate.

    I just don’t see a point to it.

    Posted 27 Feb 2007 at 4:09 pm ¶

19. Danni wrote:

    gatamala, thanks for taking almost everything I said out of context, great.

    a) I never said anything about a constitutional right to free speech.

    b) Schools are accountable on three levels:
    i. Their business. Colleges and Universities need to maintain viability as an instution. This means that they need to take care of recruitment, and insuring that the instution maintain a level of funding with which it is able to operate.
    ii. The alumni. This plays into the business aspect, again. Schools need money. People need money. It’s a way of life, and unless you’re a full fledges socialist (like me….) you need to accept that.
    iii. The students. Students are the primary recruitment tool for any college. Whether they be current students, or former students, because it is from the students that the shcool gains it’s most important recognition. When alumni achieve something, the school likes to be credited.

    Considering the colateral that students of color hold at many instutions, with “multiculturalism” being among the things that students look for in colleges, it’s vital that these schools take into consideration the effect of disciplinary action on individual students of color. I’ve gotten into so many heated debates with people I would otherwise consider to be my friends because of the “Politically Incorrect” party that happened over a month ago now, I’m not sure what I would have done if the students involved in the party had been expelled. The antagonism would have increased exponentially, and the few safe spaces that I still have on campus, I’m sure, would disappear.

    That said, I think all of this plays into a much larger national trend that can’t, and won’t, be addressed by simply saying “this is wrong.” Offensive is becoming the same as funny. People will argue that there is a time and a place for many of the representations that are being embodied at these parties, but I really don’t think I can believe that.

    We live in a world with a legacy of hatred. That’s just how it is. The holocaust isn’t funny, slavery isn’t funny, lynching isn’t funny, rape isn’t funny, racist representations of longstanding (painful) stereotypes IS NOT FUNNY.

    Unless people are willing to sit down and you know, acknowledge what kind of message they are trying to get across with these embodiments of hatred, other than a laugh, it’s going to be painful.

    Education is the only way to truly remedy these campus climates, and it’s up to each individual school to figure out how to do that.

    It terrifies me that many of these kids going to these parties are the future leaders of this country, but if they are forced into punishment without any kind of anti-oppression “rehabilitation,” NOTHING BUT HOSTILITY WILL BE ACHIEVED.

    Posted 27 Feb 2007 at 4:28 pm ¶

20. Danni wrote:

    I think I could go on and on and on about this issue. It’s a lived experience for me, now. However, I have one more point to make:

    It’s unreasonable to expect teenagers to already have a defined idea of what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” in the way of stereotypes. If they turn on comedy central or MTV or VH1, they are being force fed the idea that these images are funny without being exposed to critical thought surrounding the issues.

    This, I’m suggesting,is what the colleges should aim to do, rather than take out disciplinary action against individuals who are victims of the media. (And not being fortunate enough to have parents who were regular visitors to the Anti-Racist Parent Blog….)

    Individually, I don’t watch shit like Flava Flav or I Love New York, or Mind of Mencia, or a whole slew of other shows because I don’t feel that they are appropriate or entertaining. An initial aim would be to estabilish more diversity in among the media CEOs, demanding to see representative numbers of the people watching the networks.

    That would be nice.

    The media are controlled by the majority. The majority has less of a sense of “moral responsibility” because they are less exposed to the consequences of the negative images that they are promoting. Ignorance is at the root of this problem. Education is the only way out.

    Posted 27 Feb 2007 at 4:42 pm ¶

21. Brad wrote:

    Freedom Of Expression, speech Etc are all things I hold dear. Several members of my family have sacrificed much in the armed forces for that cause. I fly old glory in my room for good reason. But the constitution isn’t a shield for bad behavior. The founding fathers intended the constitution to give us all rights to use with responsibility. There are those who feel these rights grant them imunity to do whatever they want to. I’am here to say that, they are WRONG. The Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of speech are all rights given to us to express grievances and feelings in a responsible manner. Society and institutions have rights too, under the constitution we can punish people who have incited acts of violence and passionate feelings using their words and conduct. Many klan members and neo-nazis have been brought to criminal and civil trial for doing just that. So this idea that these students can’t be punished for throwing this abomination is wrong. The university would be well within their discression to throw these bums out of school. These students (in my view) clearly intended to INCITE people (not just white people) But any person of any ethnicity to passion and anger.

    PS: Even on internet forums we don’t have the right to say WHATEVER we want to, Carmen and others can block any posts or messages they deem offensive or intent to incite. Peace

    Posted 27 Feb 2007 at 10:43 pm ¶

22. Colin wrote:

    Danni:

    I agree that schools trying to “solve” these problems with racially-themed parties only with expulsion of the offending students won’t really help the problem and would engender hostility, however, I doubt your claim that it’s the ABSOLUTELY wrong way to go. I do think it’s probably little more than a band-aid on a much larger problem, and it does validate many of the cries of conservatives who advocate implicitly for students and faculty and anyone and everyone else to be as offensive and nasty and hateful as possible as a sort of “revolutionary” culture to what they say is the PC establishment. In that way, I kind of agree with you.

    I don’t agree on all or even most points with you however, for whatever it’s worth.

    Education of different ethnic/racial groups, as I (and I bet you) have seen, can help quite a bit at keeping the more vulgar and overt acts of racism at bay, but many of the prevalent racist structures in our society persist (housing, judicial, law and order, media depictions/representations, etc.) and many whites are still hostile against just the education of other groups. Just look at how many people object to still “celebrating” Black History Month, for a great example.

    I think you missed the mark completely when you said students who are part of these parties are not culpable because they were part of a greater racist, hateful society.

    That sort of ideology forgives the society as a group of unwillingly racist individuals for their prejudices. You go on to talk about the evil media moguls who run this racist culture; I’d ask you what of their capitalistic need to cater to their customers’ wants? That is to say, why couldn’t one defend racist media with a defense that says, “That’s what the customer wants. That gets more ratings…” and similar things of that vein.

    Looked at in that way, this seems more like a self-sustaining racist cycle that cannot be broken with apologism, but with strident anti-racist action.

    I also do not agree with your thoughts on the media and the relationship with university/college actions with regard to students, because to me, there really is none. Schools, from what I know, do not really influence what kids see on MTV and Comedy Central very much, but they can influence, if they want to, the climate on their campus through other means.

    Lastly, I do not think that the hostility engendered by the expulsion of racist students is really going to cause any more of an upward shift of racist incidents than allowing such actions to continue unhindered. If schools allow these things to go on or all they do when racist incidents “pop up” are hold token town hall meetings the next day or two, multiple things, I would think, would happen.

    1. Less minorities would feel inspired to go to a school that gives white racists a slap on the wrist.
    2. More white closet racists, the ones who offhandedly or privately use racial jokes and epithets, those who like to push people of color to see how much racism they can take, will have their own ghetto parties and immigrant parties and you’ll start to see some yellowface and redface parties as well, probably.
    3. Some minority students and faculty already at the school will leave the racist climate brewing.

    To me, this signals an unhealthy climate for minorities and is no different, if not worse than a climate where a couple students are expelled for spewing racial hatred in party form.
    ——————————–
    Let me try to summarize a bit so it doesn’t seem so discombobulated to all of you. (hey I spelled it right! Cool!)

    *I agree that expulsion alone is problematic and shows a lack of foresight or really any care on the part of the institution for anything more than PR control

    *I do not agree that education of white people would be a great end-all solution like you say.

    *I think students holding racist parties should be in someway held accountable, even if expulsion was not an option. Possibly having to take an ethnic studies course, or being part of a panel on race relations on campus or something. Those students are part of the racist society and so they like the media moguls and the politicians and power-wielders need to have their feet held to the fire. (Even though many of these people don’t either…sheesh this is hard)

    *Colleges can only do what’s in THEIR power to change their campus climate, and so affecting the hirings in the media and whatnot, for those schools, is just about out of the question.

    *I feel not taking some strong action, whether establishing a new policy with regards to prejudicial harassment, or trying harder to appeal to minority students or something more than just these seemingly happenstance one-day or two-day meetings where students talk about racist incidents, not doing something strong would lead to more dangerous consequences for minority students than disciplinary action. I just don’t know what actions should be taken is all.

    NOTE: If that doesn’t make sense, just say so. I’m going stream-of-consciousness, kind of…

    Posted 28 Feb 2007 at 2:32 am ¶

23. ren wrote:

    I shouldn’t even respond to this, but I feel compelled to take you out of context Danni.

    You’re the one that stated their freedom of speech was being impeded, thus implying a right and connecting it to the Constitution of which becomes the basis for this right. So yes, we are talking about the constitutional right to free speech (expression).

    “Freedom of Speech is a constitutional amendment because it is the basis of what our founding “fathers” saw as being just.”

    I’m curious which one of our founding dad’s thought that simply utilizing the freedom of speech makes you “just” (right, lawful, moral, fair, truthful, reasonable). I didn’t realize those Skokie IL Nazi’s were so benevolent. Gatamala is correct, the First Amendment is ultimately there to place limits on the power of the federal government out of regard for the liberty of the citizens. It’s used as the LEGAL BASIS for defending your personal civil liberties but it does not expressly protect your rights to freedom of speech of the individual. If the founding fathers found it so “just” there wouldn’t have been a fight in Congress to get the Bill of Rights ADDED to the originally submitted U.S. Constitution.

    This is the problem with people who are free speech absolutists, they imbue the act with a moral rightness without taking account what ideas are put forth. It’s not an untouchable doctrine of inherent goodness, the first amendment (technically the 14th) is brought under scrutiny all the time. The author of the first amendment, Madison, felt that freedom of speech insured a “marketplace of Ideas” by which the truth could be revealed. There is nothing ennobling simply by speaking out, it’s what you contribute by speaking out. I doubt Madison would view ghetto parties as an expression that serves the needs of a democratic society.

    Since we’re dealing with negative stereotypes, unfair to the Hispanic minorities that attend Santa Clara, I’d love to hear your legal/moral defense of negative stereotypes. Be specific too and don’t cower under the blanket defense of freedom of speech. I want to know technically, how one would promote negative stereotypes as moral and legally defensible? Before you claim anything protected by the first amendment, first visualize yourself in front of a court judge making the case on a legal basis, which is what the constitution upholds.

    Your willingness to defend their freedom of speech is very admirable, who isn’t moved to tears by (supposedly) Voltaire’s noble defense of non-censorship. The problem with this line of thinking is that it dichotomizes the issue of free speech into a false dilemma. If you don’t protect the right of some idiot to say idiotic things, you won’t possibly be able to express your most earnest and sincere truth. That discrediting the most reviled of speech, puts unwarranted strain on speech that has purpose. Chastising someone’s expressed “truth” consequently and diminishes the claims of Truth everywhere in the world. To discredit one is to discredit all, thus forcing one to accept all the idiocy that is spoken as equally worthwhile. I find that kind of silly, because it doesn’t speak of the greatness of freedom of speech, it only speaks to our fear of seeing it diminish. Nothing like establishing truth in negation. Your ability to speak out against “injustices” is no way dependent on the injustices that people put forth.

    You’re not even technically defending their freedom of speech, because no one has denied them, in fact they’ve already expressed what they wanted to. Nobody is taking that away from them after the fact, it’s the consequences that are being called forth. And you, are offering a defense against the consequences of their actions. There is no absolute freedom of speech, there are repercussions for what you do. You can’t go exercising the freedom to say whatever you want to the Courts and then not expect to be arrested for perjury.

    You claim:
    “It’s unreasonable to expect teenagers to already have a defined idea of what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” in the way of stereotypes. ”

    Here’s an instance of Liberalism and Conservative Christian idiocy colliding. This claim carries the faint whiff of the Religious Right’s argument that if you don’t teach everyone Christianity humankind will lose all sense of morality, right and wrong won’t have any meaning without God as a precursor. I guess those “teens” between 18-22 years of age, cannot comprehend the stereotypes they see on Comedy Central or MTV without invoking the almighty Bell Hooks (insert any critical thinking deity) to expose the underlying issue. It doesn’t work for Christians, it doesn’t work in this regard, this claim and “victims of media” excuse are unworthy of refuting.

    Schools might as well toss their student handbook, why bother with any rules of conduct if the blame can be attributed to something else? Theft, vandalism, sexual harassment, cheating, any of this can be blamed on the media, a disinterested culture, the ignorance of “youth”, a low GPA could be the result of mommy not showing an adequate amount of love necessary to achieve high grades. I’m sure we can all conceive of something that will contribute to our being victims. And it seems as long as you can prove victimhood, there is no justification that could ever have you expelled. But why defend these fools? Why not defend the rights of other minority students, who are granted the right by their school to live, work, and study in a non-hostile environment that is conducive to learning. When did the rights of idiots supersede the rights of anyone else?

    And this claim of a more hostile environment if these morons are expelled, I’m not sure how you prove that the antagonism would increase exponentially. The claims being made by other schools that dealt with the ghetto party problem was that it brought the school together. I guess if you view yourself as a “marginalized” minority on campus then everything is potentially hostile. I can’t say I’m too impressed by the level of assertiveness among minorities. What’s going to happen? Unwarranted ridiculing of minorities if they speak up? You’re a minority in the US, good a time as any to finally grow a pair. The sexist pig in me assures you that was said metaphorically.

    You say:
    “Unless people are willing to sit down and you know, acknowledge what kind of message they are trying to get across with these embodiments of hatred, other than a laugh, it’s going to be painful. Education is the only way to truly remedy these campus climates, and it’s up to each individual school to figure out how to do that.”

    This is a cop-out. So what the school needs to do is create a forum for these idiots to get their message across, because their message requires deciphering, and the solution is educational rehabilitation, the means of which you can’t even explain because it’s that absurd. That’s so very politico, “As President I will feed all the hungry” — uh ok, how will you go about doing that? “I’ll leave that up to when I’m elected, to figure out how.” Honestly, if “getting to the root of the problem” when dealing with these students is through education, your solution to this scenario is a bit vague.

    Do they need educated, yes, fine, but that’s a declaration not a solution. I could say the world would be better off if the aim of humanity was to stop hating each other and walk hand in hand across the rainbow, it’s a gratifying statement but it offers no insight as to how that would be accomplished thus nothing of significance has been said. Your solution is the obvious action one ought to undertake to result in the best possible world, but it’s not a suggestion to act on.

    Assuming you institute this educational rehabilitation, who funds it? Who teaches it? What do they teach? Is it a full course or a one day seminar? If it’s a required class and does that impact their credits and their course load? Can you fail out of this course — and if so what happens to the individual then? How do they quantifiably prove you learned anything in this course? Do only the offenders take it or will everyone be required to take it, won’t forcing everyone to take it relegate it as punishment for the undeserving? If it’s only for the offenders, why should the school waste money to hire a teacher exclusively to teach these morons how not to be idiotic when that money could go to the greater body of students that don’t face disciplinary action?

    Even if you could answer all of that, what makes you think you’ll even get them to attend this rehabilitation? If what they did isn’t wrong in the instance of free speech, then this is unnecessary punishment that infringes upon their rights as students to express themselves without reprisal. If what they said, by your account, isn’t deemed necessary to punish, then what recourse would they have to attend rehabilitation, which amounts to a lame form of disciplinary action. If I were them, I’d use your free speech defense to argue why I shouldn’t have to attend any type of race seminar or sensitivity class. So by your method, nothing is achieved and nothing changes… that won’t even get people mad. A shame, because I like the hostility of the culture war — keeps me interested in life.

    Apart from the few of us that would like to see these fools expelled, they face no dire threat. Name one individual that was expelled in any of the ghetto party cases that have appeared in the national spotlight? Has any of these individuals faced anything even akin to disciplinary action? You want to defend these individuals from an unfair reprisal by the school… but I don’t recall a single instance where anyone faced major consequences for their actions. You’re concerned the response will be reactionary, I’m still trying to identify a reaction. So I’m not sure what’s keeping you up at night.

    Posted 28 Feb 2007 at 3:22 am ¶

24. Lighten Up wrote:

    People make fun of my race all the time. Why is that acceptable? It’s not? Then why don’t you complain about that too? Double standards?

    Posted 03 Mar 2007 at 7:40 am ¶

25. eric daniels wrote:

    What is your race Lighten Up ? since Carmen is going to throw me off for saying what I truly feel about people like you who are racist trying to justify behavior. I would rather if you are going to throw one of those ‘ethnic parties’ in the main student quad where everyone gathers “All in the name of ‘Free Speech”. And Danni, when you come on a college campus you don’t have the right to total free speech. Nobody in any sense has that where they work because they represent that school even off- campus. I don’t even have the right on my job to say something racist or insenstive outside of my capacity in an(that pesky morals clause) interview or I will be fired for making my employer have to sweat charges of racism.

    Nobody really has freedom of speech in America, you right to be insesntive, boorish, and a jerkoff begins where mine’s end.

    Posted 03 Mar 2007 at 11:42 am ¶

26. Crash wrote:

    “Photographs taken at the private, off-campus party and splashed on Internet sites reveal a crude and narrow portrayal of Latino life. ”

    Maybe this “crude and narrow portrayal of Latino life” was the result of the party goers never having seen any other examples of Latino life.

    If minority celebrities can make fun of their people using sterotypes then why can’t whitey?

    Carlos Mencia does this routinely and I have yet to here any outrage concerning him.

    Posted 05 Mar 2007 at 9:52 am ¶

27. Aziza wrote:

    Ridiculous. I can’t believe I just heard of this. As a SCU alum and black woman, I know what type of hostile environment these types of assholes create for students of color on campus. I went as a non-traditional student, so I was prepared to not interact with them. But, I know so many young Black women who were traumatized by their experience there. Well, I suggest those students hold that party in East San Jose or Salinas. There should be a rule: If you are going to have a ghetto fabulous party or south of the border party, you gotta hold it in the community that you are mocking. Let’s see what happens when those privileged little fuckers interact with people of color in their own communities. Most of them are too scared to deal with us anyways.

    Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 2:38 am ¶

28. michael wrote:

    REN wrote: “This is the problem with people who are free speech absolutists, they imbue the act with a moral rightness without taking account what ideas are put forth…”

    ———————————————————-

    Ren,

    Let me dissect your premise, negate it, and thus eliminate your argument for regulating free speech based upon what is “offensive” to another group.

    I notice you cite Madison, and ask the question of whether the “content” of the free speech can determine whether or not it is allow to be spoken.

    Care to show us where the Courts have sided with offensive speech being prohibited? Maybe Flynt vs. Falwell? heh

    Your idealistic approach—- that if the content of the speech does not serve a “public good” then it should be prohibited… I wonder how Code Pink, Moveon.org, Al Gore (environmentals) etc.. would respond to that?

    Maybe YOU could be the chairperson on a liberal committee who gets to decide what IS appropriate speech! yep, you could ban entire WORDS from the dictionary.. you know.. like cottonpicker (not the actual definition- only the stereotype, cracker (not the food), chink (not in armor)…

    You can go about and ban all words and then PUNISH those who say them… of course we know that YOU are not guilty of holding any stereotypes, but just in case you are SUBCONSIOUSLY guilty, we will put you through some government mandated sensitivity courses, and if you fail to subject yourself to the Politically correct will of the Latino’s, whites, blacks, asians etc… then you will lose your job, and be subjected to electro-shock therapy.

    All thanks to people like you who think that speech sould be regulated based upon its contents. Nevermind that the offensiveness of the contents changes about every 5 years.

    A perfect example is the Democrats, aka Tipper Gore, Al Gore… moved to have “offensive” words prohibited in music albums sold in the USA… of course we all know where that led… every album now must have a “parental” warning on it…

    But now about 15 years later, we have virtually naked women on victorias secret commercials, an elected officials dropping the f-bomb on each other over the airwaves. That used to be offensive, now it is commonplace… so who gets to decide what IS ok and what IS NOT ok, and WHEN is an old offense no longer offensive?!

    Oh yeah, you’ll leave it up to the “amorphous” government to decide based upon public whims .. right?~

    Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 8:03 pm ¶

29. michael wrote:

    There are those who feel these rights grant them imunity to do whatever they want to. I’am here to say that, they are WRONG. The Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of speech are all rights given to us to express grievances and feelings in a responsible manner. Society and institutions have rights too, under the constitution we can punish people who have incited acts of violence and passionate feelings using their words and conduct. Many klan members and neo-nazis have been brought to criminal and civil trial for doing just that. So this idea that these students can’t be punished for throwing this abomination is wrong. The university would be well within their discression to throw these bums out of school. These students (in my view) clearly intended to INCITE people (not just white people) But any person of any ethnicity to passion and anger.
    ——————————————————-

    I can’t believe this nonsense comes from supposed educated persons.

    Care to cite the cases where neo-nazis have been imprisoned/fined because of their speech alone?

    You cite the constitution and said : “The Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of speech are all rights given to us to express grievances and feelings in a responsible manner..”

    No, actually the constitution says and I quote ….

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..”

    Doesn’t say anything about intentions, the only thing the supreme court has ruled on LIMITS actual harrassment, threats etc.. like shouting a false fire claim in a theatre, or saying you ARE GOING to kill someone.

    Saying you’re going to kill someone is NOT free speech, holding a party that latino’s thought were offensive, wrong, hateful etc.. is TOTALLY PROTECTED.

    Being offended does not make you a victim of something… therefore YOU have no right to attempt to prosecute someone who has said something you don’t like.

    If the world did operate like this, then I could have one of the commenters on this message board fired, and prosecuted for using the word “whitey”… or for someone making a snide remark about christians etc.. everyone would be guilty, and be out of a job, and fined by the government, or in jail.

    Posted 06 Mar 2007 at 8:15 pm ¶

30. santa clara mom wrote:

    Talk about Much-a-Do Over Absolutely Nothing!!!

    My daughter attends Santa Clara and informed me that the host of the “south of the border” party is of Mexican heritage and had FUN with the theme idea. Both she and wonder…Has a sense of humor died and gone to hell????

    Let me also add that this about my daughter: She fully appreciates the diversity she experienced growing up in a small agricultural community where over 50% of the students in her high school were of Mexican descent - and is color blind when it comes to human beings.

    Posted 07 Mar 2007 at 2:02 am ¶

31. WOW wrote:

    Did anyone see the Seattle State House speak on NASCAR? They said fans were toothless rednecks and not the kind of people you would want living next to you? But somehow this is OK. Jesse Jackson preaching that Blacks should support Black businesses because they are black-owned is not racist…that’s just helping out. Walk through a Latino neighborhood in LA as a white or black or asian and see if you don’t get hasseled because you’re NOT Latino. The point is that EVERYONE has race issues…not just the white people. These kids are idiots but most kids are. I’m from the South and when someone calls me Redneck or Hillbilly or Cracker, that doesn’t bother me; it just makes me realize what a moron they are. There ARE Mexican gardeners. There ARE Mexican gang-bangers. There ARE Mexican Hoochie-Coochie mama’s. There ARE Mexican illegals. WHO THE F CARES? (except for the illegal part) The point is if these kids want to make fun of something, they just look like idiots but it’s their right to do it. Just because it gets under YOUR skin doesn’t make it evil.

    Posted 07 Mar 2007 at 9:02 am ¶

32. Netdiva wrote:

    http://www.joerogan.net/main.php?archives=1&article=44170

    Upthread, someone invoked Carlos Mencia. Well, he is a complicated example to use as a person of color using stereotypical examples.

    See the link and Joe Rogan’s opinion of Mencia. Joe Rogan essentially believes that Mencia is a plagiarist - but in addition, Mencia isn’t even Mexican. Which is what he proclaims in his comedy act.

    Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 7:52 am ¶

33. scu alum wrote:

    It was just a party! Anyone thinking otherwise is taking this out of hand!
    As an alum of the university and a Hispanic I was not offended. In fact it gave me a new sense of pride in my school.
    One of the many traditions which gets passed down to the students is to challenge your beliefs. Only by challenging ourselves do we grow and find ways to resolve our differences.
    I am against illegal immigration. My grandparents came over the right way..the legal way. I understand the hardships and poverty in Mexico as I have many relatives in Mexico. This does not excuse them from taking illegal actions. If you want to come to the US then do it legally. You will gain more respect from Americans by not taking advantage of the system.
    Finally, I work with people from various countries and I see their upset and disgust as these people freely cross the border while they are struggling trying to get their Green Cards or citizenship. Is this fair to those who follow the rules and have a passion to live here?

    Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 3:01 pm ¶

34. merq wrote:

    SCU Alum:

    Let me use this moment of clarity, as I sit before my keyboard, drunk as a sailor with a middle-finger in the air, to state the following:

    “We don’t believe you, you need more people.”

    To be honest, I could care less if you really are an SCU grad, or if you really are “a Hispanic.” The fact is, you’ve managed to obfuscate the argument in the most cliched way possible.

    I don’t remember even the SCU losers referencing illegal immigration in their minstrelsy, so I find it extra funny that you choose to muddy the waters that way.

    Thus, it’s either you’re intentionally creating a straw man argument or “Illegal Immigrant” just pops into your mind when you think of Latinos.

    So yeah, as I swig from my bottle of the debbil’s mouthwash, I must rethink my stance on whether I give a hairy fuck about you really being Latino.
    For the sake of your potential offspring, I PRAY you have no real affiliation to Latinos and their cultures– self hatred, though cliched, is still a muthafucka to kids.

    Goonie goo goo, bitch.

    Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 10:14 pm ¶

35. ren wrote:

    Michael,

    Just saw your posting. This is going back too far, I usually ignore threads after a couple days. Anyways…

    I’m curious, at what point did I call for the regulation of language or the banning of specific words? Feel free to cite my “argument” for regulating free speech based upon what is offensive to another group. I thought I was advocating for the consequences of what people choose to do or say. Not sure how wanting to see them face disciplinary action for what they did is somehow analogous with banning of words and tossing people into re-education camps… but nevertheless, if that’s what you’ve determined we’ll discuss it. I hope you read over your students papers better than you read over my posts.

    “I notice you cite Madison, and ask the question of whether the “content” of the free speech can determine whether or not it is allow to be spoken.”

    I “asked” that? I cited Madison to counter the claim that merely “speaking out” was the moral precedent in absolutist free speech belief. Whereas Madison believed freedom of expression had a definitive purpose and wasn’t instituted to be wielded without regard for what was said; simply the movement of the mouth isn’t nor makes us moral. I made no claim that Madison’s ideal was a legal mandate that “content” of speech had to be proven. Madison makes no claim as to what speech is allowed or prohibited, only that the purpose of speaking out has a specific goal (promote democracy / marketplace of ideas). This is simply a historical anecdote to how first amendment was perceived by the framers of the Constitution. The fact that you try and build your argument on this foretells eventual collapse. Considering the ACLU, who holds the most absolutist free speech ideas, define their principles on Madison’s ideas of a marketplace of ideas promoting democracy. Are you to claim the ACLU judges “content” of free speech and determines whether or not it is allowed to be spoken? But it seems my citing of Madison has promoted this idea. All defenders of free speech believe it holds a fundamentally utilitarian purpose, what specific issues benefit that purpose is where the squabbling comes in.

    Now IF your claim was my argument, you wouldn’t be negating and eliminating it by offering up a fallacy of negative proof. Care to cite where the Court ruled in favor of offensive speech based on the argument that content and intent are immaterial and that freedom of speech is an immune absolutist principle?

    “heh Your idealistic approach—- that if the content of the speech does not serve a “public good” then it should be prohibited… I wonder how Code Pink, Moveon.org, Al Gore (environmentals) etc.. would respond to that?”

    Considering that Moveon.org and Al Gore environmentalists are contributing to the public good… they probably wouldn’t respond… that question doesn’t make any sense unless you assume I don’t see these groups attributing to the social good of the country?

    “You can go about and ban all words and then PUNISH those who say them… of course we know that YOU are not guilty of holding any stereotypes”

    Professor please, a tu quoque? In that case I’m guilty, I blush at my own criminality. For who hasn’t dressed up in mocking stereotype such that he can pass judgment and cast a stone against another? You can often find my subconscious dressed up as Aunt Jemima and sporting a forty. Spare me the subconscious rhetoric, of how I’m guilty even if consciously I’m not. That’s as lame as religious nut telling me original sin condemns me to hell despite that I’m not religious. I guess police shouldn’t uphold the law because subconsciously they really desire to break it. Despite the ridiculousness of your rant, I am a bit bummed you didn’t bring up Orwellian thought police.

    Subject to the will of the politically correct? Electro-shock therapy? Yes, all thanks to people like me who thinks the school should discipline students who engage in ghetto parties. For what’s in store for those who think this way? Social collapse, a dystopian Mad-Max future, mushroom clouds in the distance, fleeing mighty Lord Humungus with a precious liter of fuel… no need to thank me.

    I’m skeptical to what degree offensiveness changes over time. No doubt there are cases where this is true, however the examples you give don’t illustrate that. Tipper’s labeling of “offensive” words, those words are still regarded as vulgar today, it hasn’t in any way become less vulgar. We’re all familiar with this ethical relativist position — there is no moral grounding by which to judge because our attitudes towards what we consider offensive is never tenable. That’s why you hear the argument of “oh, what these kids are doing isn’t any worse than ____ (BET, MTV, Hip Hop, Heavy Metal, Modern Art). For the lackluster cases you give, you really don’t show that they have become INOFFENSIVE over time, just more prevalent. You seem to suggest that if we can’t pinpoint it, we mustn’t try and define it. I’m all for moral skepticism, but don’t intertwine that with ethical relativism.

    “Oh yeah, you’ll leave it up to the “amorphous” government to decide based upon public whims .. right?”

    Not sure if I want to leave it in the hands of the volatile public whim who can’t fancy what’s offensive because it supposedly changes so drastically. Considering this whole constitutional aspect came up because Danni was using it to defend these idiots and I was attempting to curb the bringing in of the judiciary branch to bear on this issue, I’d say I don’t really want the government to decide either. Probably why I’m calling on the school to take action, whereas Danni wanted absolutely no disciplinary action be it delivered from the school or your amorphous government. I’m deeply impressed by your academic credentials, but I’d be more impressed if you could just read standard text. In no way was I or anyone else for that matter vouching for government involvement. So why you’re envisioning a world of government mandated sensitivity, re-education camps, physical torture and the “banning of all words” is a bit melodramatic. But I’m sure your slippery slope is slick with reason.

    This is academic quibbling. You use the wrapper of “content” (offensive content) to suggest my issue is with tangible objects rather than the real issue which was the context and intent of the party (this realm of ethics, morals, and responsibility that is a lot harder to attack) which you quietly ignore hoping that “content” will encapsulate all. I find it intellectually dishonest to attack it on this “content” issue so you can posit this claim that content changes too quickly to judge, instead of a less volatile ethical standard. Context and intent are not trivial issues on matters of free speech, there has been no first amendment case that did not take these issues into account. If free speech is so absolute as people claim, context would have no purpose to prove what is immutable. Claims against another person’s freedom of speech is limited by the first amendment, not overruled by it.

    These students did something stupid and instead of letting them ‘fess up and apologize for it, people want to play the patriotic game and elevate their stupidity as an exercise of their constitutional rights. Instead of boneheads they’re advocates. I don’t buy that, saying what they did for reasons pertaining to the constitution is an after-the-fact excuse for getting caught. I’m totalitarian that way. I don’t think every piece of crap that flies out of someone’s mouth is a conscious exercise of their constitutional right. You sometimes have a responsibility to consider what you say, and I know this is revolutionary, but sometimes you misspeak, or you say something out of ignorance, or sometimes you say or do something unacceptably stupid because you’re an idiot. It actually happens. And I guess that means I don’t care about the innocence and purity of 20yr old college students. Nobody can be an idiot these days, Coulter can say faggot, but that wasn’t stupid, it was a scathing critique of American cultural semantic totalitarianism. What a wonderful society, where nobody has to admit they fuck up.

    As much as you like to parade around the immunity of free speech, Madison’s ideals still hold — the freedom to speak your mind functions as rational debate , so rationally debate this issue. Like I posted earlier, vitriolic material is defended under the first amendment all the time — with reason. It’s not based on immunity, it’s based on making the case. Perhaps your philosophy is that free speech is benevolent and absolute but the constitution isn’t interpreted philosophically, it’s done legally. So make the legal case. Flynt v. Falwell wasn’t about the banning of “words” or offensiveness since that’s very subjectively gauged, it was more about defamation of character and the legal grounds that personal reputation is a “tangible” possession capable of being damaged and by which one can recover money. And yes they dealt with intent, otherwise known as proving malicious intent. Flynt made the case for satire, NYT made the case for editorial opinion, why has what these students done an exercise of their constitutional right and not just ignorance and stupidity? You want to claim its constitutionally protected, give the reasons and the justification.

    And the vague cry of defending free speech is not a compelling argument. Go before a court and tell them you can say or print anything because you’re immune and freedom of speech is absolute, see how far you get. This isn’t purely about “offensive”, though you make that case because it’s the easiest. The Protocols are offensive, but it was shown to have worth, historical, psychological, and sociological worth. That’s how hate literature is upheld by the first amendment. So what benefit did this party have? You keep bringing up the banning of words and “offensive words”, just curious… what exactly are those “offensive words” I supposedly want banned? I can’t even recall wanting to ban anything specific in anything I posted. What did this party supposedly say that resulted in cries of defending the first amendment? Falwell lost because had he won that decision would have been a detriment not just to Flynt but would change the course of all publications. No doubt ghetto parties losing out on constitutional protection would do great harm to the ghetto party industry.

    I did advocate for the school kicking them out. I know it won’t happen, hasn’t happened, but I advocated the right of the school to do so. Frankly I find the re-education aspect of rehabilitation stupid which is why I was criticizing how you’d actually start a program and how exactly would it function, and how you’d get them to actually attend. Questioning and doubting diversity rehabilitation and re-education, very totalitarian of me. The school, a private institution, does not violate their constitutional right by applying academic discipline by virtue of behavior and conduct they find in conflict with the student handbook and the College’s code of conduct. The severity of that punishment is up to the school but from what we’ve seen so far… it accounts to just about nothing. No doubt unflinching severity like that is the building blocks of the gulag.

    Posted 09 Mar 2007 at 9:59 pm ¶

36. Le Sigh wrote:

    Attn everyone. I would like to offer you your very own personalized broom. What’s it for, you ask? That huge honking chip on your shoulder. Go ahead, brush it off.

    I go to SCU. I thought the theme party was creative.

    Posted 10 Mar 2007 at 3:48 am ¶

37. Lyonside wrote:

    ooh, le sigh (is that a pepe le peu reference?), do you really think that your “broom” comment is as clever and creative as the party theme? I hope you don’t have to be a college grad to realize that it’s neither. Creative? A party that follows a stream of similarly themed parties targeting ethnic minorities across the nation? That’s sheer imitation, dude, sans flattery.

    Here’s a clue: trying to chide offended parties saying “you SHOULDN’T be offended” is a tool of a dominant/powerful group towards the less dominant/powerful target. You don’t wanna be a tool, now, do you? (too late)

    What you really mean is that you don’t UNDERSTAND why people could be offended. But rather than admit ignorance and isolation, you demand that everyone else cater to your concept of what is funny or correct. Your reality is the only one that matters. Evidently “creative” in your mind not only means “shameless imitation” but also “arrogance.”

    It’s one of the ways productive discussions regarding race and ethnicity (and other equality issues) are effectively shut down, so as not to make the offender move out of their comfort zone and develop, I dunno, empathy? Compassion? Maturity? Maybe just a spine.

    Posted 10 Mar 2007 at 11:10 am ¶

38. Colin wrote:

    Michael,

    How are you coming up with any of what you said? I mean, for instance, how did you get a legal abridging of free speech from parental notice labels on CDs? How does that work? How do you know the “offensiveness of content changes every 5 years”? Lastly, are you just mad at everyone you consider to be “liberal” or what? If so, maybe you need to just get some therapy for that.

    Posted 10 Mar 2007 at 4:35 pm ¶

39. Eric wrote:

    I attend SCU and this was blown entirely out of proportion. There’s a difference between stupidity and racism. Most college parties like to have themes involved, and it’s difficult to come up with something that hasn’t been done before. I see no harm in dressing up “South of the Border”; some of the students may have taken the opportunity to let out some repressed racial hatred, but the student body and administration is hardly to blame. I feel like some of the above comments are ridiculous. I mean, honestly, being disrespectful towards others when *in private*, should not lead to abortion. This would be no issue if they never put the pictures online. If I curse against African Americans under my breath while writing this, should I be expelled too?

    Posted 14 Mar 2007 at 5:38 pm ¶

40. Eric wrote:

    Woops! If my previous message was approved, could you change the word “abortion” to “expulsion” please? Heh, sorry.

    Posted 14 Mar 2007 at 5:42 pm ¶

41. Mari wrote:

    Before anything else, a huge Thank You! to Merq and Lyonside for bringing intelligent discourse to this dialogue.
    To SCUAlum: Hey Hi-spanic, Nixon called and he wants his fabricated ethnic label back. My grandparents also came over the “right way,” but that does not lead me to join in with those who would dehumanize “these people” who are living and working here. Educate yourself about the U.S. policies that have been in place since the early 1900s, that not only encourage but rely upon the exploitation of “illegal” immigration from Mexico and Latin America for the economy to thrive. Join the Minutemen, Border Patrol, or, to have a real impact, petition your Congresspeople for comprehensive immigration reform.
    I would like to add that I feel these types of “parties” are additionally fueled by notions of classist elitism, as well as by feelings of ethnic/racial superiority.
    What separates these theme parties from run-of-the-mill luas or fiestas is that there is no apparent celebration of the selected culture. Instead, the participants seem to mock, chide, or otherwise denegrate aspects of what they believe to be Mexican or Latino culture. No one would be offended if they were having chips and salsa, taquitos, Mexican sodas or beers, and donned serapes or sombreros…

    Posted 15 Mar 2007 at 2:38 am ¶

42. i agree with Mari wrote:

    I agree with Mari 100%. period.

    Posted 27 Oct 2008 at 1:21 pm ¶

Post a Comment