<p>I think WHY someone is offended is important. If you put me down because of something I cannot change…because my skin is brown, because I am gay, because I have a disability…I think you will find most in ‘the audience’ will find that offensive. It’s disingenuous to lump this experience with that of someone whose sensibilities are offended by curse words or crude sexual humor. </p>
<p>I think the litmus test as to what is right and what is wrong IS the audience as you say. But put the ‘joke’ out there for all to see and then you’ll get the real answer. When the audience of the SCU party was confined to those in the private home, the answer was quite different than when the audience became facebook and the world. I’m quite sure most of these student knew that from the beginning.</p>
But what is a “put down” to one person may not be seen as a “put down” by another. Spamalot made light of Jews and gays. But was is a “put down”? If so, the play wouldnt have been as successful as it was. </p>
<p>The SCU party probably didn’t mean to have its audience changed… but… oops… with cellphone cameras and youtube and facebook…it did, and the fallout began. I suspect this was not the inintended consequence. Maybe people are offended moreso when the “parody” is behind closed doors. I just dont really know. I am asking rhetorical questions. My religion was made fun of in Spamalot, but it wasn’t offensive. There were a lot of gays in the audience, and I didn’t get then sense anyone was overtly offended. I think it is easier to laugh at ourselves and poke fun at ourselves or each other if it is clearly not with malice aforethought, as they say. Does it matter if there was no clear intent to be hurtful?? Just because someone doesn’t intend to be hurtful can’t guarantee that someone won’t be hurt or offended. I don’t have the answers… just a lot of questions… To be perfectly honest, I think we should work on that middle ground. I do feel people need to be more enlightened and sensitive to the feeligns of others. Onthe other hand, I do think the PC stuff has gone a bit too far. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>Jym - I’m curious. What are some examples of how your religion was mocked in the movie? Maybe it would serve a purpose to take this out of the context of Hispanic community and place it elsewhere. I’m not sure what your religion is, but for example, I’m trying to envision a party of white Gentiles whipping out every possible derogatory Jewish stereotype for entertainment value going over very well. I just don’t think it would.</p>
<p>My feeling is that there is an unfortunate potential for the passage of time to to move us from persecuted, to indifferent bystander to persecutor, unless there is a conscious effort to stay ‘enlightened and sensitive’ as you say. It’s been two hundred years since my Scottish Presbyterian ancestors were considered ethnic and religious lowlifes and run out of Scotland and then Northern Ireland…and frankly I wouldn’t have had a clue unless I had studied the history. There just isn’t much victimization of the Presbyterians these days. I know I’m not a persecutor, but I’m not sure I’m not an indifferent bystander… as my spouting off on a message board doesn’t really qualify as taking a stand and making a difference.</p>
<p>ldmom-
I am not sure what you are asking for. I didn’t see a movie-- I saw a Broadway-style play making fun of Broadway plays. And to go into great detail to describe the dpecifics of the songs and scenes about gays and Jews is beyond the scope of this forum. Their songs and characters and dances and lines arefrequently parodies of many other plays, and they always throw something contemporary in it-- relating in part to the city they are in and in part to some current event (today they made fun of Brittney Spears in the line about the Betty Ford clinic). I guess the difference is, I don’t see the words “victimization” or “persecutor” having relevance to this play. Maybe I don’t follow your comments, and I apologize if we are talking about different things.</p>
<p>I still don’t see why the incident is being compared with an art form (parody), even if poorly executed, or with political free speech. This was neither. It was a bunch of drunken students having “fun” by ridiculing the life experience of others whom they do not know.</p>
<p>Speaking for myself, I am not comparing the incident to an art form. I have been trying to address the difficulty delineating humor from insult, parody from ridicule, funny from offensive, etc.</p>
<p>“How do the posters here suggest that university officials police party themes for off campus events over which they have no control?”</p>
<p>They can’t, it would be illegal. Moving the sororities and fraternities off campus at SCU may not have been the best move IMO. On campus chapters with a national organization behind them have very strict behavior codes.</p>
<p>And I think that’s fair, but it doesn’t have anything to do with this incident. The participating students clearly didn’t see their behavior as insulting, ridiculing, or offensive (they may now), and that’s the telling point. They were just “having fun”, and the fun was made possible by their ignorance.</p>
<p>And why shouldn’ the media “eat it up”? I can’t see anything better that can happen from this incident than holding it up to the light of day.</p>
<p>“How do the posters here suggest that university officials police party themes for off campus events over which they have no control.”</p>
<p>By writing a very clear code of conduct that they expect students to honor both on and off campus. These are private colleges, and can pretty much do anything they want.</p>
<p>This is from the article. I don’t see where it mentions that this was a sorority or fraternity party. It says a “private party”. It could have been any student, not necessarily the members of the sororities and fraternities that are no longer on campus. BTW…they never had houses on campus…but the did have places in the student center and some university support. But with about 5% of the total student body involved in the Greek system, SCU made a decision to use their resources to support ALL students on the campus, thus withdrawing their financial support and on campus meeting space for these groups. I have not seen a complete article about this incident so perhaps I am wrong and this did take place at one of the Greek houses off campus. If so, I stand corrected. Plus I think this university IS responding to this incident. Students are outraged (according to my DD). This is NOT what most of the students at SCU are about. Yes, they are mostly students who do not come from very diverse backgrounds…but most (like my kid) are happy to be in the greater San Jose area, and feel that their university is trying to help students understand folks who are not as privileged as they are. The Jesuits have a strong tradition over decades of community service to others…and this school is no exception to that. I’m not condoning the poor judgment of the party group…what they did was awful…and putting it all over the internet compounded their already awful judgment. But to say that the whole SCU community is tainted because of this incident is simply not true. Sadly, there are bigoted folks everywhere. It’s sad that this is true, but it is.</p>
<p>Sorry jym…‘Spamalot’ is just not on my radar. I’ll take your word that the play had no really good examples that parallel what occurred at the college party that can be discussed here. </p>
<p>And we most definitely are talking about different things. As mini pointed out, the issue at hand is a college party…primarily affluent Anglo students having a party where the entertainment of the evening is laughing at each other dressed up as Hispanic maids, janitors, unwed mothers and gang members. What if the students were dressed up as Jews or Muslims in a way that illustrates the most negative of stereotypes about these groups? What if the theme was dress up like a handicapped person? Probably wouldn’t happen because most people don’t find anything funny in the negative stereotypes of these groups. So why is is it so darned funny to laugh at Hispanics? And why is anyone who objects considered to be overreacting?</p>
<p>Personally, I think most of the students who host and attend these parties know in the hearts that they are having fun at the expense of others and it isn’t right. What is more disturbing than these kids though are the ones who claim they had no idea these sort of parties were offensive. If true, well that’s a problem.</p>
<p>(I am now making a concerted effort to keep the school name out of my posts because certainly they didn’t invent this theme party nonsense. But I feel the need to point out the irony in the fallout that has school students and alumni now upset because they feel they are being negatively stereotyped as bigots because of the actions of a few. Kind has a familiar ring…like NOT ALL Hispanics are gangsters, unwed mother and uneducated laborers… Yep…definitely a learning experience for all.)</p>
<p>I would no more assume that anybody who dresses up as gardeners hates Hispanics than someone who dreses in classic gangster fashion hates Italians. It was a party and people like to role play sometimes. Thats why naughty nurse outfits are very popular for Halloween. Are they mocking nurses? It’s how you pull off the “look” and get into character that makes it fun. Lighten up Francis. There are real problems out there.</p>
<p>ldmom-
Just to clarify- I didn’t say that Spamalot had no good examples that parallel the college party incident. What I said was that the parodies, the purposeful making fun of groups, etc, is too difficult to explain in this forum. But at the risk of someone again confusing my discussion (see post #206 for clarification) I think we should let this all go. There is a difference between ignorant insults and clever parody.</p>
I know I’m not a persecutor, but I’m not sure I’m not an indifferent bystander… as my spouting off on a message board doesn’t really qualify as taking a stand and making a difference.</p>