Just to confirm, Auburn University is definitely a state-run institution:
Demand to be heard? We are talking about a private Halloween party.
…and if you must know, I do think that if we want the yokels to tolerate people they find different and strange, then we need to look the other way when they get obnoxious at their own party.
That’s just it. They weren’t kicked out for violating the code of conduct, they were kicked out because of possible future reactions by others to their conduct.
Hello???
I would be upset if I saw this, and I’m as cracker white as they come. That doesn’t mean I have some right not to be offended by someone else’s Halloween costume.
Shoot, if we were not allowed to do anything that might upset others, it would be a pretty bland country.
piling on erislover’s bandwagon
Hell yes it is the same.
If your mom got sliced up by some sicko rapist with a knife, then I could see how a lady in a costume with her blood and guts hanging out could offend you.
But that is what Halloween is all about when you are an adult. We don’t get free candy so in protest we dress up really strange.
When Halloween was approaching, I dreaded seeing people dressed as Osama. It didn’t scare me, but it really pissed me off. I didn’t see it as a matter to be joked about.
I didn’t see anybody dressed as a terrorist, but I heard of a bunch of terrorist costumes that I found funny. Now that we are a little further off from 9/11 and it looks like we are kicking their ass, I feel like I was just uptight.
I see what you are saying. However, I don’t think trying to devine the intent behind a costume is the proper way to determine if we should boot someone out of a state college.
Since we have established that this is a State run school, does the First Amendment apply?
Freedom, they made photos and a web site about their activities that night. It is no longer a ‘private party’.
Ah, the old “poses an immediate threat to the well being of the University,” as interpreted by the President. I think in this case, the President could make a fairly decent case that the actions of these students, especially since the photos went up on a website and thus had a national audience, are harmful to the University. Prospective students, faculty, and donors might say “Ugh, I have no interest in this school any longer.” There’s no way to prove this, but one could make a reasonable argument. The rule doesn’t seem to require a realization of the threat, merely that a threat is present.
A little bit like a Presidential “don’t be a jerk” tool.
The private party issue is also a little tricky. I’m not sure how private the party was. Although fraternities are independent of their universities, there is a perception that the fraternity and the college have a close relationship. There may also be an actual relationship – fraternities may be able to apply for University funds for student activities, might advertise their events on campus, and may include compliance with university rules in their own charters. I’m not sure if any of these are the case at Auburn, but these things are fairly common. I’d also wonder if the websites where these pictures were posted were housed on the university’s servers.
College rules and regulations aside, I would like to respond to erislover’s about the difference, or lack of difference, between representations of generic death and gore, and representatins of lynching. One idea associated with lynching is that the lynchers often select the victim because the victim has a reputation for speaking up, in bolder terms, the black victim is often targeted because he protests the racist agenda embraced by the Klan, or the posse, or whoever is doing the lynching. He is a target because he is “uppity.” A representation of a lynching has a subtext that can be seen as threatening to those students (of all races, but perhaps with a particular significance to black students) who wish to speak out in protest of the Halloween party antics. Now, I do not for a minute think that these fraternity members thought about this aspect of lynching (according to the students themselves, they weren’t thinking about much of anything), nor do I think it would be either correct or possible to institutionalize regulations about subtexts, but I wanted to share why I personally find a lynching costume at a frat party extremely distasteful while I wouldn’t be bothered by a generic hangman’s costume.
If you think colleges these days advocate diversity and tolerance you’re sadly mistaken.
Marc
delphica, are you suggesting that people would look to a costume as a threat of future violence when it was a lynching costume, but not when it was a hangman’s costume or other violent get-up? That seems to be the thrust of the nay-sayers in general, but I am not quite sure I understand why. People really believe in, for example, the devil. I’m sure there are some who believe in vampires somewhere (though most are probably the “I wanna be a vamp” type and not suitable for this method of inspection). Everyone believes that the wounds often portrayed in Halloween costumes result in death. Why is this particular statement of death so scrutinized?
Hey, I don’t think people are rational or would realize what seems to be in my opinion a groundless double-standard, and if they really thought that I guess I have nothing to say other than: “Wow. You really think that?” I would personally be hurt myself if I wore such a costume with a friend and had people accuse me of fostering racism. It is simply such a double standard.
Halloween costumes are often seen to laugh at what they represent. They are like the Op-Ed political cartoons: charicatures of popular images. As such, a lynching costume would be in the state of mockery, not exemplification. Maybe I celebrate Halloween differently. I admit such a thing is possible.
But… I think people in this forum should be able to recognize a double standard when we see one and admit it.
Maybe it’s just easier for you to laugh at stuff like that because you’re white.
Not quite.
I’m trying to be brief, because the meat of this debate is about the appropriate response from the institution, and not what I personally think about lynching costumes (clearly IMHO territory).
Because many victims of lynch mobs were vocal dissenters, the concept of wearing a lynching themed costume also sends a message of “people who disagree with us won’t be tolerated.” I agree this does get into that never-ending loop of how much intolerance can a reasonable person/institution/society tolerate, which is a more complex situation than your basic double standard scenario.
Ah, yes. That must be it. What was I thinking?
delphica, it isn’t that I don’t understand the action of lynching, or what lynching itself implies, or that I don’t understand racism… it is simply that we are talking about a Halloween costume, not a demonstration. The situational context is pretty important here. They weren’t at a KKK rally or other demonstration.
Even at that I think the suspension was harsh. I can certainly understand the motivation of those who would seek to explain to the gentlemen why such a costume probably wouldn’t go over well, and please don’t do this again. Listen guys, some humor just hits a little too close to home. But on its face I don’t see anything wrong with the costume, and I do see something wrong with the suspension.
Actually, think about that for a second.
If they WERE real klan guys at a REAL rally, would they be expelled for their political beliefs?
Not that I think the average KKK dude is heading off to college, but are Klansmen barred from attending state institutions in this country?
Interesting, Freedom.
[li]Arbitrary violence and death: OK[/li][li]Politically motivated racism on a podium: OK[/li][li]Implied racial violence in a humorous or otherwise non-serious context: You’re fucked.[/li]
Something has to be wrong there because that seems so obviously hypocritical and indefensible. Am I making a strawman here? [seriously-- I must be misrepresenting something here to come to such an obvious conclusion, but I can’t see it]
Y’know, eris, I think the problem is partly that you seem to think that most people who disagree with your take on the costume are therefore in favor of the suspension of the students. I don’t think that’s the case. I think that suspension goes too far in this case, although I think the lynching costumes were way way out of line and in tremendously poor taste.
Now, if you are seriously confused about why people would find the lynching costumes more offensive than, say, a costume involving an axe sticking out of some random character’s head, I’m not sure I can help you much with this. It seems really simple and obvious to me: you’re comparing a joking illusion of “generic” violence and murder with a joking illusion of racist violence and murder. It’s not that any kind of real violence and murder is intrinsically funny, it’s simply that it’s much easier to tell someone’s joking about violence and murder than about racism. Obviously, someone at a Halloween party with a fake axe apparently sticking out of their head is not really dead. It is not obvious that someone at a Halloween party dressed as a Klansman at a lynching doesn’t really intend to offend blacks.
So, you say, if it’s the racism that’s the bad part and not the violence, then why is it okay to present racist views in an overtly political forum? That also seems pretty simple to me: a university’s intellectual life and its social life are not the same. Educational institutions erect protected areas in the academic sphere for the free exchange of ideas, because the free exchange of uncensored ideas has a higher priority in that sphere than avoiding offense or promoting racial equality. But that doesn’t mean that you’re free to go around making all the offensive racist remarks you want anywhere on campus in the name of freedom of speech.
And that’s not a dichotomy unique to universities, either. All communities have to balance the competing claims of free speech and civil behavior. For instance, you are perfectly free to write a book full of nasty swear words and publish it or put it on your website, and the government may not censor it. But if you go up to a stranger on the street and start exercising your speech rights by yelling nasty swear words at them, you’ll find the government hauling your butt to jail for disturbing the peace or creating a nuisance or what have you. Similarly, most colleges have both a commitment to academic freedom of speech and some form of “campus civility code” that restricts offensive behavior. There’s usually a pretty gray area between the two, but that doesn’t mean that one invalidates the other.
So yes, you were making a strawman. You weren’t thinking about what was actually involved in the different situations, you were just concentrating on the superficial resemblances between them. I hope this helps clear things up.
Well, Kimstu, I suppose that when I go to a Halloween or other costume party I don’t expect the costumes to make political statements, even if they could be construed as making political statements. Political statements are, generally, not very fun. 
(this forum is exempt from that comment, BTW)
I do allot that my views and experiences could significantly differ from the general population, and it certainly seems that this is one such case. As well, I didn’t mean to equate finding the costume distasteful with suspending the students, but rather equate disagreeing with me and the sentiment that there should be some action taken.
I can at least admit that I can imagine someone wanting to offend blacks and using just such an outlet. Again, my insensitivity sensors are set real low: if I were at a party and saw that, unlike Cal I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable at all. I would have thought to myself, “You know, it would be better if they had an actual black guy instead of a face-painted one, but oh well.” Hell, I know a few blacks who would participate in that.
But thank you for being clear. I do understand why people would be upset about it. I just don’t agree. Won’t be the first time
erl: *Well, Kimstu, I suppose that when I go to a Halloween or other costume party I don’t expect the costumes to make political statements, even if they could be construed as making political statements. Political statements are, generally, not very fun. *
Right! That’s why fun occasions like Halloween parties are not usually treated as protected political forums for free speech.
Remember, this thread is about “Appropriate Response to Insensitive and Offensive Halloween Costumes.” If you don’t find this particular example insensitive or offensive, okay, fine. My point was just that, given that many people do find it offensive, it doesn’t automatically get a free ride on the grounds of free speech.
Well, then—we shouldn’t even be discussing this… I don’t think it is a free speech issue either! LOL 