What Lisa said, with an addendum: I’ve attended public universities that plainly stated in their student codes of conduct that the University reserved the right to discipline me for off-campus activities. I was put on disciplinary probation for winter quarter by Ohio University after spending the night in the drunk due to an off-campus binge.
Unfortunately, the MS SQL worm seems to be killing the A&M servers, so I can’t get to their student handbooks.
As for the dumbasses involved, fuck 'em. If they (or j_kat, for that matter) are too dumb see how such an activity could possibly be construed as offensive, they don’t fucking deserve to be in college, anyway.
I’m all for affirmative action, as long as it weeds out the idiot white people.
Every party I’m at I drink a 40 oz or two, smoke about a whole pack of Kools, so really it’s a ghetto party wherever I am, baby! And if they’re grillin’, you know I got some pork shoulder steaks up on that flizzame, homes.
Bit of a generalization, but people in the “ghetto” are poor (like college students) and to some extent really know how to have a good time (like college students) since you don’t have the money to buy all your entertainment. So other than actually calling it a ghetto party on MLK day, it’s pretty much just another day in the life of a college student.
Oh fucking please. Get off your high horse. Rhum Runner has a completely legitimate beef with the university, and since it has to do with this topic he’s perfectly in line to post it here. This happens all the time, and you know it.
The students are the ones in the wrong, and deserve whatever they get. This has nothing to do with free speech, the students can do whatever ignorant fucking thing they want to, they just need to realise that speech comes with consequences.
I agree that the party is wrong; I think I said that at least once before. Further, I agree that speech should have consequences; social stigma, counter protest, evil glares from fellow student, outrage in the school paper etc. are all appropriate responses. I disagree with you rather strongly that the government (through a state run school) be allowed to go after people for what they do off campus and on their own time. How would you feel if A&M ‘investigated’ students for participating in, or planning, an anti-war protest off campus? IMHO the 1st Amendment is particularly intended to protect unpopular speech, no matter how distasteful it may be.
Minty apparently doesn’t see the irony that a group’s civil rights would be violated on a day set aside to honor our nation’s greatest civil rights leader.
Maybe he has a legitimate beef. But unless he establishes facts capable of supporting said sirloin, he’s just speculating in the middle of somebody else’s complaint.
The really funny thing is that for Morehouse or Grambling to really do a “suburb party” right, they’d have to have a few disaffected rap poseurs. Kind of like these guys.
The KKK or Matt Hale or another white supremacist group comes to town to hold a rally or meeting or whatever they call them. They advertise on on campus. The university takes the stance “You better not even THINK of going.”
Is this ok? Is it ok for the university to imply that they’re going to discipline you for a legal act you, an adult, are going to be a part of off campus?
I’m not particularly saying the party was ok, I just don’t believe the university has any reason to get involved here. Maybe taking down the fliers or something if they have a rule against that sort of thing. Anything past that, though, I don’t think they have a case.
I admit that the facts are a bit unclear, with some sites claiming that written reprimands have been given, and others claiming that the university is still investigating, but this is my attempt at finding sirloin. (I’m a ribeye man myself, but to each his own) The English prof is clearly out in left field somewhere way beyond the bleachers, and a total idiot to boot, but I thought I’d throw his $0.02 in just for fun.
What if a white fraternity decided to have an “Austin Powers/Undercover Brother” party, where people could come as characters from the movies? And some whites dressed as the Undercover Brother?
NAh, I’ve done blackface (I was al jolson, doing Swanee River for a talent show in Kindergarten) and I find it uncomfortable.
This is just a matter of over sensitivity.
It’s perfectly ok for an “Urban” movie to make a ton of fun of white people and the disparity of black and white cultures… but if a bunch of white kids try to engage in a bit of fun that has any sort of tinge of “racism”, they are scourged and chastised.
The double standard has to stop. It, in my opinion, is unacceptable.
Excellent analogy, excellent point. Where to draw the line becomes a hazy issue, and one I don’t think any university really wants to become involved in. After all, the ACLU has a nice history of turning the tables on a group thinking to uphold PC values, and nobody wants to end up on the wrong side of their actions.
Very interesting editorial! Having read some of the comments, I have been reconsidering my original rant. I find it a little ironic that it was Walton Hall that got in trouble. A few of my high school friends actually lived in that hall. I went to another college, but I did go to a Walton Hall party back in the 80’s. Just a modest off campus apartment party, but very fun. I haven’t read the professors comment yet.
However, the party does seem to have a definite campus sponsor. Keep in mind Texas A&M has very unique traditions that people from other colleges would find unusual to downright weird. Walton Hall is very active in campus affairs. Very much like an on campus fraternity would be. Having spent the night in Walton (back in the 80’s), it is truly a dorm that you have to have a sense of belonging, as the building is a total dump without air-conditioning (sorry Walton residents).
The editorial clearly states that this was a Walton Hall function, thus the university does have a say.
The administration may have gone too far, but keep in mind that Texas A&M does have a reputation for being “less than accomodating” to minorities and liberals. So I can see the administration going a little more out of its way to halt such a party.
BTW, Texas A&M, from an academic standing, is 1st or 2nd tier. A well respected academic institution.
The University press release said that the party was “being planned off campus by students of a residence hall.” I suppose it somewhat depends on how the party was advertised (e.g. “Texas A&M University’s Walton Hall presents the Annual Racist Party!” vs. “Annual Racist Party, sponsored by Sal Whitfield and Nomen Clature” (where S.W. and N.C. just happen to live in the hall)).
So you’re saying that if me and one or two other guys from my dorm got together to plan a party (or chess game night, or Monopoly tournament, or whatever) off campus, it’s all of a sudden the University’s call whether it’s appropriate or acceptable for people to go?
Case in point: There are several people on campus here who put together “shows” or whatever featuring local bands at local (off campus) bars, clubs, whatever. They advertise on campus. Sometimes alcohol is served, but the university is a dry campus (no alcohol allowed on campus except in a few limited situations, even for students of age). Should the University be able to issue blanket threats to students (“the administration immediately issued written warnings to all Walton residents” – from the editorial, bolding mine) warning against going to these shows?
