<p>I’ve been hesitating to jump into this thread because of mixed feelings about it. I didn’t think the Princeton piece was that funny and parts of it left a really bad taste in my mouth, but the basic idea of turning around the Jiang Li lawsuit I thought had great potential as a parody. So why is *The Producers *okay, and *Borat *maybe okay, but this is not? I agree with the board that this one crossed the line, but I feel like we ought to be able to make fun of ethnic stereotypes, but is it only okay if you make fun of your own ethnicity? Am I condemned to only be able to tell WASP jokes. (Speaking of which - my favorite: How many WASPs does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: One.)</p>
<p>Mathmom-- come to think of it, I’ve never heard anyone complain about a WASP joke!
Also, this is obviously off topic, but after the DaVinci Code movie came out, I recall reading an article about how a relatively small group of people – those with albinism-- were sick and tired of being stereotyped as sinister bad guys. Thinking back to a number of movies, they definitely had a point.</p>
<p>Someone should listen to the song “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist.” Now that’s smart satire. It uses broken English…among a bunch of other stereotypes. Yet I find it far from remotely offensive. </p>
<p>My biggest problem with the Princeton article is that it fails in its satire. As many others have commented, it’s really not that funny. MOWC, you do seem to be in the minority. </p>
<p>Throughout the thread, many posters have commented that its okay for one to tell a black joke or Latino joke (etc.) if they are of that race but since this was not the case with the Princetonian article, it’s unacceptable. I hope everyone is aware that the authors of the joke column included Asians-more specifically, someone of Chinese descent. I’m not saying that this condition excuses the article, but I’m just pointing out a fact that seems to have been lost on many in this heated discussion. </p>
<p>To the poster who pasted parts of the Yale article, I must say that I find that piece to be MORE offensive than the Princetonian article, not least because of the elevated derogatory tone that is not really as pronounced in the “Lian-Ji” op-ed. </p>
<p>As someone who is a staff member on a college newspaper, I’m not convinced of the prospect of having administrators or advisors breathing down on every op-ed and article published. For one thing, it would be extremely time-consuming. More importantly, it risks censorship; a case in point would be the recent USC debacle. However, we do have a grad. board that oversees the newspaper- though they are hardly involved with our day-to-day operations. </p>
<p>With all that said, as an Asian (funny that this simple conditional clarification would result in my post read differently), I didn’t necessarily find the piece overtly offensive…though it certainly wasn’t very good satire. </p>
<p>I’m curious, what do people think of Carlos Mencia’s humor?</p>
<p>I was shocked to see your response to the Princetonian article, where you indicate that you circulated the article for comment among your co workers and possibly subordinates, and also did not see anything particularly of concern about the Princetonian article. As the ethics officer of a large company (as am I), you should be “purer than Caesar’s wife”–setting an example and driving “tone from the top” as to what is ethically and morally appropriate. In my company, ordinary employees and managers have been disciplined and even terminated for doing what you appear to have done. For the ethics officer herself to be circulating a potentially racist article among co workers and subordinates, even if done in a neutral way, sends exactly the wrong signal to the company as to what is acceptable. How would an Asian employee who finds the article to be offensive react if he/she knows that the ethics officer herself has countenanced–indeed, promulgated further–the offensive article? By being neutral on a matter which is already known not to be seen as neutral, you are signalling your own position–which as your blog shows, in fact is supportive of the Princetonian article. (The fact that people tell you to your face that the article is not offensive is naive–of course they would do so, given your position of authority.) I would not be surprised if your company ombudsman receives complaints about your conduct. Shame on you.</p>
<p>what Shoshi said</p>
<p>Shoshi- I disagree with everything you posted. First of all, I don’t have a “blog”. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Secondly, if I choose to ask fellow lawyers for an opinion, that in no way violates my duties as an ethics officer. If fact, I regarded it as PART of my duties so that I could ascertain whether this article was, in fact, offensive to a majority of people. Sending it to friends outside the company also did not violate any of my duties.<br>
This is a parody of a person who put themselves in the public light and also makes fun of stereotypes. As was pointed out, it was co-written by at least one member of that ethnic group.<br>
In fact, you just gave me a great idea. Perhaps we could use this article as one of our case studies, which we distribute several times a year to all our facilities. We can have discussion about whether the distribution of this ARTICLE from a NEWSPAPER aimed at COLLEGE kids violates our company’s ethical standards.<br>
I think a lot of you take yourselves WAY too seriously. This is a friggin’ JOKE issue!</p>
<p>I think you have shown a “tin ear” to setting the appropriate tone at the top. Compliance should be “taken seriously”, most of all by leaders and ethics officers at a company. Using this matter as a case study may be a good way for you to characterize and rehabilitate–as I think you must-- your prior conduct and messaging to those in your company who may already be troubled by what you have done. </p>
<p>However, the communications surrounding any case study rollout must be done with the correct messaging to make it clear that you are NOT countenancing this. Otherwise you could further aggravate the impact which your conduct may have already begun to generate inside your company. The last thing you want to do is to yourself become the subject of ombuds complaints or even media attention.</p>
<p>
Careful shoshi, criticizing MOWC for something you did, too ain’t a good thing. </p>
<p>I think that you should be watching your own backside from complaints of Asian parents and educators and counselors at your kids’ schools, don’t you? ;)</p>
<p>Petty distinctions are sure to follow , but hey…I don’t want to see you fall off your high horse. ;)</p>
<p>Gee, I almost forgot,
There. That sums it up quite nicely. ;)</p>
<p>Thank you, shoshi. I don’t need you to tell me how to do my job. I am quite experienced and quite highly regarded. I have no need to rehabilitate myself, and my staff and I know how to do case studies.</p>
<p>My engineer husband’s take on this discussion is that this forum must be a very non-representative subset of the population. He is my polar opposite in many ways, and also can not understand your indignation. It is certainly understandable that some people would be offended by this article- people are offended by much of today’s humor. But to go THIS over the top- just don’t get it.<br>
(Shoshi- I suspect your kids don’t like the taste of alcohol…)</p>
<p>Sorry curmudgeon but it’s not a petty distinction at all. Please notice that I did not criticize or comment on MOWC’s decision to pass the article on to people outside of her work place. This is purely a reaction to the obligations of her position. If she’d not made a point of being an ethics officer at a large company while distributing the article to co-workers and subordinates (paralegals), I’d have made a simple comment to indicate my disagreement and that would have been the end of it.</p>
<p>Publishing is publishing shoshi. So it’s O.K. to publish racist crap at your kids’ schools but not at the office? You are only a figure of authority or at least influence at the workplace not at your kids’ school? Is that really what you are arguing? I know that my lawyer suit follows me everywhere I go. A successful adult with a job like yours? I think it would be similar if not the same. Remember at MOWC’s work these are fully formed adults. You were bringing the distasteful matter to children still forming their opinions. I have to say that one group is more susceptible to influence than the other. Guess which one.</p>
<p>This quote from an Asian’s blog:</p>
<p>this hypersensitivity is starting to get old. as a person of asian descent, i officially take no offense. this is a funny article. the kid is a toolbox. asians are wonderful and nice people who have a stereotype about them much like every other ethnic group in the entire world. Jews? Big noses. Arabs? Crazy suicide bombers. Indians? They all talk funny. Southerners? stupid. come on, people.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, did you think I sent this to the school newspaper for publication? I did not. </p>
<p>I can assure you that my word carries no weight at my kids’ school and my identity is all but unknown. I would hope that there would be a distinct difference between the role I fill at my workplace where I am a figure of authority and where I must live up to the demands of that role and the role I fill as a parent at a school where I hold no professional position and where my role is one of a background figure at best.</p>
<p>I guess I’ll wade in here but before I do let me say the first lawyer that comes in here and tells me “shame on you” will get the flame war to end all flame wars. ;)</p>
<p>I found it un-funny. It also didn’t pass my “wince” test. I winced. Usually means I think something is not right somewhere. In this case it seemed to me like the authors were ballet dancers, but they were driving a bulldozer . A dull blade with little imagination or skill. Artfully handled it would have worked. Maybe. </p>
<p>But at the same time I defend the editors and authors right to publish . In fact, I think the “system” is working quite well. </p>
<p>1.) People felt free to publish “crap”.
2.) People now feel just as free to criticize the “crap” and the process that got it published
3.) Many different sides are finding a place to get their views published.
4.) The public is engaged. </p>
<p>Hey- that’s what should happen in a free society. Let’s not turn this into something it is not.</p>
<p>Shoshi- maybe you said this somewhere, but are you Asian? Are you a lawyer?</p>
<p>shoshi, you are a professional adult in a high profile job in what I believe you described as being with a national corporation. When you talk at your kids’ school with 15 year olds about issues you feel were presented by that article - kids listen. Don’t fool yourself. They’ll listen to you sometimes more than their own parents who may not have the same background. I know if I were to tell kids my views on curfews (like those passed by city councils) those views would be considered by the students to whom I published those views.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon: Agreed.</p>
<p>I think I wasn’t clear about this. I did not talk to the kids. I didn’t even talk to the adults. The article was sent on via my dd to provoke a discussion at the newspaper. I had no role in this.</p>
<p>I have been patiently waiting for Post #194.</p>
<p>An advantage to a free society which includes freedom to publish unpopular views, controversial topics, etc. is that it allows offensive material to get aired, and exposes stereotyping, bigotry, inaccuracies, tastelessness, etc. It engages people in important debate about these bigger issues such as Should Ethnic Humor Be A Socially Acceptable Form of Humor? When is ethnic parody humorous, when offensive? (Etc.)</p>
<p>I believe you said you passed it on to students and others at the school to get their feedback (or reaction). I’m assuming that happened. Do you know how that “roll-out” was handled by your kid? As has been pointed out that presentment can send a lot of messages. Knowing that it concerned you enough to take action was some indicator.</p>