“some students threw a birthday party for a friend.”
And this is the key. Private party. The two students who happen to be part of student government participated, not as the government reps but as students. Other students can now take that into consideration when deciding whether they want to vote for these guys next time, just like we can all decide if we want to vote for Candidate A who might swear in public or Candidate B who might waste water and not recycle.
“white fraternity hosting a St. Patricks Day party or an Octoberfest party is NOT THE SAME as a black fraternity doing it by encouraging attendees to “put your white on” or “bring a Ginger.””
I don’t get this sentence. Are you saying a black fraternity saying “bring a Ginger” is bad?
I’m not a redhead, but I think the theme of “bring a Ginger” (bring a red headed friend) is quite amusing, actually, whoever puts it on. And if people took to wearing obviously fake red was as part of the fun to “pass” as gingers, I’d think that’s an appropriately sophomoric party theme - silly, sure, but that’s part of the fun.
Separately, I wonder what the reaction today would be if the Village People - with their costumes - were a new music group on the scene. Oh, the protests!
I thought I’d made my views pretty clear, but perhaps not. No, I think the administrators should educate the kids that it is rude to wear the sombreros, because doing that is viewed as offensive by Mexicans. I don’t think students should be punished for speech at all (with a few exceptions laid out in Constitutional law), so I don’t think the administration should stop an offensive art display. I think it would be appropriate for the administration to educate students on why it is offensive. Is wearing a sombrero at a tequila party “speech?” Well, it’s expressive behavior.
But I think “hate speech” is protected.
Well, I think the issue should be whether wearing a mini sombrero at a tequilla party would be viewed as offensive by an objective person of Mexican descent. The problem with a number of these silly issues on campuses is that the standard is not objective but subjective. In other words, as long as someone of the designated group expresses offense, that offense is validated. It means that there are no rational guide posts for others to follow, and you have a situation where virtually everything can be problematic. Such a system serves no educational purpose whatsoever. It is just an expression of power.
Exactly. When many Mexicans living in Mexico choose to wear sombreros as an expression of national pride at sporting events like the World Cup, then does the opinion of one US college student overrule that standard?
Then why did the school set out sombreros at a school-organized alumni event last year, as props to be worn in a photo booth?
Because normal people get that themes aren’t necessarily mocking!
Maybe there should be purity tests whereby if a student proves sufficient ethnic ancestry he can wear a sombrero or other ethnic garb. That wouldn’t be racist at all.
These arguments don’t apply here because it’s more than one student objecting. It’s many students, in fact the majority of the student government (enough to pass a resolution condemning it and asking the school to take action, which they did): http://bowdoinorient.com/article/10990
Also, predictably, the whole thing is being reported in certain media in such a way to mainly generate clicks and outrage. As I said earlier, the situation is more complex than “tiny hats” and it’s likely that we, as Bowdoin outsiders, will not ever really understand it all. But if we want to try to, reading Bowdoin’s own newspapers, social media, etc is probably better than reading Breitbart.
Snopes too this on already: http://www.snopes.com/bowdoin-mini-sombrero-controversy/
It’s only a matter of time until the only thing it will be safe to dress up as on Halloween will be yourself. And I’m not even sure about THAT…what if somebody … (gasp) complains!
I don’t think there can be an objective standard for what is offensive, unless by that one means that there is some critical mass of people that have to be offended before anybody else is obligated to take note of it. I know it’s old-fashioned to suggest such a thing, but I think people should avoid doing things that offend others out of simple good manners and kindness. I don’t think my God-given, constitutional right to wear a mini-sombrero is more important, ethically, than the fact that somebody else is offended by it. And since I’m proposing a rule of good manners and kindness, of course it has subjective elements, and there will be times you will have a good reason to do something that offends others–like protest, for example.
I’ll give an example–somebody mentioned the artwork by Serrano, which was a crucifix in a vial of urine. Did the artist do this because he was making a highly critical statement about religion, or did he do it because he was a jerk who wanted to get a rise out of people? That matters to me–not in terms of whether he should be prohibited from doing it, but in terms of whether his actions were morally defensible or not.
Well, I was a little offended that you thought we should all obey the wishes of that guy because he went to Harvard and Columbia. When we are not busy mocking minorities, do you think we are just sitting around waiting for Ivy Leaguers to tell us how to act?
People who don’t recognize humor are, indeed, more likely to be offended than other people.
Hunt #110 - a thousand likes
For several days, as I’ve been reading along, I’ve wondered if anyone else was thinking it was just common sense good manners to try to avoid offending people if at all possible.
If I feel it necessary to offend someone, I prefer to do it very deliberately and thoughtfully, not through ignorance. Frequently I do offend through ignorance, and when I figure it out just try to apologize the best I can.
The point, @hunt, is that it appears more and more difficult to determine what is or is not offensive. Surely you understand that this can not continue? Look at this example. Apparently, sombreros were perfectly fine a year ago, but now they are doubleplus ungood.
And I am sure you understand what the reasonableness standard is, given our shared profession. There is a reason the law implies a standard of reasonableness, and only uses concepts like the egg shell plaintiff (to stretch all the way back to law school) in certain defined areas. This is because for the most part the law is designed to shape behavior in the aggregate rather than punish a specific individual. The use of objective criteria allows this to occur, and for standards of conduct to develop over time which allow a wide group of people with disparate interests to exist together.
I submit that the same rationale should apply to social issues. If wearing a mini sombrero is offensive to a significant number of Mexicans, or if making inauthentic General Tsao’s chicken is offensive to a significant number of I guess Northern Californians of Chinese descent then use your collective voice to explain why, and over time the great wad will adjust, precisely because for the most part the vast majority of people are both rational and civil.
But instead, we see example after example of “squeaky wheels” objecting to all manner of idiotic things, for no other apparent purpose than to validate the power that particular individual feels is inherent in their make up. Which I guess is fine as far as it goes, but what is the end game? Certainly you are not going to change behavior when there is no way to know what behavior is permitted and what is problematic.
And @Ohiomomof2 I read the snopes piece, and I don’t think it supports the view that the situation is “complex.” Sure, the Orient article says that they are concerned with “cultural appropriation” and not little hats, as does the quote from the President. And of course they would say that, because to say that the cultural appropriation they are concerned about is little sombreros would make them look looney. So yes, the snopes author (who clearly has an agenda of her own if we are counting that type of thing) says that this is not just about the party but the “stream of anonymous threats” afterward. This is complex? Or is it that a bunch of kids had a tequilla party, another group of kids decided to flex their muscles and then got called idiots and other bad names on the internet?
I agree that the General Tso’s chicken complaint was silly. But what I see is people who want a license to be as offensive as they feel like latching onto extreme examples like that to justify rude behavior. It’s all subjective, right? It’s just the complaint of a few “squeaky wheels,” right? People who are offended should just get over it, right?
I think people have to be willing to learn, and to change their behavior. If a substantial number of Mexicans think that it’s rude for non-Mexican people to wear sombreros at a tequila party, well, it’s not a big burden to avoid doing that. I’ve certainly changed what I say in certain situations because I now am more aware that people might be gay, or that they might be married to persons of the same sex.
Who gets to say which people are normal? I used to think I represented normal. I’m not so sure anymore. Maybe I just was part of a majority. I’m pretty sure majority doesn’t necessarily equal normal. What if those “others” are really the “normal” people?
We must be offending someone since Rodeo is in Houston.
We will all be wearing cowboy hats at a company party this evening.
Being a fortune 100 company, I am sure some Harvard lawyer vetted it out fully.
Not sure to what you are referring? Or are you projecting that the “anonymous threats” were examples of rude behavior? If so, then yeah, I agree.
If instead you are saying that people may use the hyper sensitivity on display in situations like this to mask boorish/rude/sexist/racist behavior in other contexts, then sure I think that would be a consequence, and another reason I believe it is a mistake to indulge in and validate these really silly protests. But I haven’t seen anything like that reported here, but really didn’t go looking for it frankly.
In this example, and in the example at Oberlin, Yale, Princeton, etc it certainly appears to be the case.
Said who?
Agreed, that is my point. We change behavior based on our perceptions of how that behavior impacts others who we view as reasonable. You don’t change behavior by over reacting to dumb stuff, because generally speaking the people who you are trying to reach and persuade, if that is in fact the goal, are going to tune you out.
It may not, but I do believe the situation IS complex.
This event followed two others that were widely discussed on campus, and out of which a statement of intent came from the student government. Now, students part of that same government “broke” it and were called out for it. There were anonymous threats, and other stuff going back to at least 2014. So there is context that the ridiculing/clickbait/PC-run-amok coverage is choosing to ignore.
I have never been to Bowdoin nor do I know anyone there, but I saw the internet characterize events at my kid’s college in a similar way last year and according to my kid and her friends, the coverage was completely off base. So I am now going to look at these articles with a more critical eye than most and not leap to “oh those ridiculously touchy minority kids are making the white students who just want to have fun feel bad again”.
And I also agree with @Hunt . If you know something is offensive, maybe don’t do it, unless you have an important point to to make. My S wore a sombrero and poncho one Halloween in middle school, at the time I didn’t think anything of it. I would raise the issue with him if it came up today. I can understand why an ethnic group would prefer not to be a Halloween costume option.