Ok. So in no way do I think the costumes were appropriate.
I do think things have gotten just a little bit out of hand. When you step back and LOOK at what happened here, it was just a bunch of guys dressing up for a private Halloween party. As far as I can tell, the Klan guys didn’t walk around and intimidate people, and what’s with suspending the 10 guys in blackface and afro wigs? It’s not my definition of a good costume, but it doesn’t seem all that over the top to me.
So it seems to me that these students are being kicked out because of possible future actions and reactions from OTHER students. What’s up with that?
Since when have we started punishing people because of OTHER people’s actions?
I don’t want to compare these dolts to people who have stood up for important civil rights and causes, but isn’t college all about tolerating other views? I’m sure the college will institute a thousand new diversity courses and cram them down the throats of the remaining fraternity members, all the while never seeing the hypocrisy in their actions.
This school is not advocating diversity and tolerance, it is demanding that it’s students adhere to some vague politically correct viewpoint.
As far as I can tell, Auburn is a private school, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. However, this is way overboard and counterproductive IMHO.
Please put down your coffee cup, juice glass, etc and swallow the liquid contents in your mouth.
.
.
.
Done?
.
.
I did warn you.
.
.
But what about vagina boy?
A 17 year old male is suspended from school when he borrows his mother’s Halloween costume and wears it to school.
Freedom, I understand that you are trying to make a point, but it seems to me that you ignored one of the central points of the whole story :
I should think that given motif of violence against blacks it would be easy to see where “the continued presence of the student(s) on the campus shall disrupt the university.”
Face it, in this day and age dressing up as a KKK member is bad enough, but to also represent the violence against blacks (or women, or whoever) is just beyond the pall.
I am curious how you think that allowing people to depict violence against anybody would be advocating diversity? “I am a violent, racist-American, and I demand to be heard”. Is this what you mean?
The school has a code of cunduct and it was violated. And if you can’t see where the black students on campus would be upset…
In general, I support the decision by the two national Fraternities to dump the chapters on that campus. A bunch of idiots bringing in really bad publicity needs a public response to keep the larger organization from being harmed in their recruitment drives.
Following that logic, one could argue that the university has the right to take action that will distance the institution from any appearance of supporting that sort of offensive behavior for the same reason.
Of course, the excuse actually used by the university is stupid, as there is no indication that anyone was actually harrassed by the drunks. (It might be argued that the lynching scenario by the smaller of the two groups was a form of intimidation, but the reports all seem to indicate that there were no actual threats implied and that the actual behavior was a demonstration of massive stupidity, rather than hatred.)
I think the suspensions are OK, based on the “don’t give us bad publicity” angle, but that the purported reason for the suspensions, given that there are no reports of actual harrassment is stupid and a clear violation of the notion of free speech.
I also think that the threats of dismissal are out of line. Had they actually gotten in the faces of any black students and made (even joking) threats, I’d say that the university would have the right to throw them out on their collective ears, but displaying drunken stupidity at a private party is a rite of college. The fact that they managed to attract national attention requires that the university make some response. It does not require a public execution.
No. Why? Do you see a specific connection or an equivalence between a private message board and a publicly funded university?
I’m not sure what you’re really trying to ask.
If you’re trying to draw some “free speech” parallel, you will note that I only addressed the notion of free speech, not the First Amendment. In addition, I accept the discipline only from the perspective of harm to the institution, and reject it on the grounds that they set forth (which does wander into the arena of speech and rights).
There has not been anything to contradict this, so I was asking why you would think that free speech (or the notion of free speech) should apply there but not here.
[sarcasm ON]I dunno, I can see how implied racial violence is far worse than axes sticking out of people’s heads.[sarcasm OFF]
Halloween costumes typically symbolize death, and lately often graphic death. Shut down the whole friggin’ holiday if we’re so sensative. Heck, if it stops just one kid from having a nightmare we’ve done something good.
[shit, is this thing still on?? SLAM sarcasm OFF]
If it is a private school I think they were probably well within their rights to kill the constumes. And I would be well within mine to disagree.
I went to a party where I saw exactly the same costumes. Pepper and I just didn’t say anything, but we were troubled. I think the people wearing the costumes wanted to be outrageously un-PC, but to me knowing that you’re being over the top is not excuse.
OTOH, I don’t think this behavior merits expulsion – but it does demand something.
So a graphic representation of death is equal to a graphic representation of lynching?
Forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea what “land grant college” means. I went to their site and had not seen anything that indicated it was a public school, until your link.
One of my co-workers showed up for work dressed as Osama Bin Ledan on Halloween. He also carried a large manila envelope filled with baby powder that he would sprinkle on people.
He was reprimanded.
This violence is closer time wise than lynchings in the south. Does this fall under freedom of speech as well?
Personnaly I just wanted to pop him one in the nose for being so gross but I just ignored him instead.
Unless there is something I don’t know about lynching I think axe-in-head and noose-around-neck both result in, and display, death.
As far as “graphic” goes I don’t see that wearing a noose around your neck is particularly graphic, no matter what color you paint your face.
Next time I watch Friday the 13th I’ll remember to tell myself, “Those poor kids, but thank Eris it isn’t racially motivated.” I’m sure it would comfort IRL deaths, too.
Sorry. I simply assumed that the term was more widely known. A Land Grant College (or university) is a school that is built on publicly donated land (or, as in the case of Auburn, a private school later donated to the public). The Land Grant Colleges were the backbone of the 19th century effort to establish a publicly supported system of higher education in the U.S. Any Land Grant school is, therefore, a public school. As far as I know, each is a state-run institution. (“Public” following the U.S., not U.K. usage, and meaning state supported or operated.)
Perhaps I am coming off as insensitive, but lets just consider this for a moment. Halloween costumes often portray the worst of the worst. Two constumes that made me laugh my ass off were what most would consider sick costumes. One guy was Greg Lougenis (sp, sorry) and the costume was an aspirin bottle labled “AZT” and one pair of bikini briefs. then there was the postal worker with a bomb strapped to his chest…
Other common costumes? Death aka the Grim Reaper aka the Angel of Death. Jason, a fictional supernatural serial killer. Michael Meyers, a fictional real serial killer (who I suppose later had supernatural qualities). Dead people with assorted wounds. Vampires. Devil constumes.
They all glorify and symbolize death and violence. As does a lynching. I am simply interested in why portraying death and violence is OK as long as it is arbitrary. It seems woefully inconsistent.
And to me it isn’t even a freedom of speech issue. Its a frickin’ constume. “Gee, Ed, why’d ya have to go and wear that costume? Couldn’t you have just put a spike through your head or something nice?” Do you see what I’m saying?
I know it’s insensitive-but can I just admit to laughing when I read this?
(I would be pissed if the baby powder stained my costume!)
FWIW, it seems like the KKK costumes were pretty nasty. It also might be offensive to people perhaps who know others, relatives, or even themselves-who were victims of racial attacks? Or maybe it simply frightened people?
A private property owner ain’t Congress. If I own a plot of land, I can abridge the freedom of speech (or of the press) of anybody on that land just as much as I darned well please.
then there was the postal worker with a bomb strapped to his chest…