Fri 26 Jan 2007
“Bullets and Bubbly” was the theme of a party celebrated by 70 UConn law students last weekend that came in for widespread censure as an apparent episode of white racism. I attended a meeting of students and staff convened by the dean on Thursday to discuss the event. Arrayed at tables of ten in what used to be the law school’s elegant library reading room, the crowd of about 200 heard from the dean and the president of the student bar association and then pursued separate discussions at each table over pizza supplied by the school.
The party on Saturday was a dress-up event, and the theme was hip-hop. As might be expected, some of the get-ups exploited racial stereotypes. What the celebrants didn’t expect was that their photos would show up on the Internet. On the heels of a frankly racist King Day party at a Texas school that made national headlines after it was exposed on the Internet, this event created a stir.
The dean was harsh. The party, to his mind, created a “tear in the fabric of our community.” He was unsympathetic to the plea that no offense was intended. The costumes spoke for themselves, and some were blatantly mocking and exploitative. At best, the students’ conduct was unprofessional and created perceptions that reflect unfavorably on the school and the community. The student leader wasn’t among the 70 who attended, but he knows them all, and he condemned the event as insensitive without condemning any of his friends.
At my table were six students who attended the event, a faculty member, and two who didn’t go. I told them I would write about the meeting but that I wouldn’t identify any of them or quote anybody, and I believe they spoke freely. One student who didn’t go to the party may have been non-Caucasian, but it looked like a table of white people.
The consensus among those who attended was that the whole thing was blown out of proportion. The party was a tribute to hip-hop, which they love, and not a mockery of anything. It occurred to none of them, during or after the party, that anybody might be offended. They acknowledged that there is racial separation at the school, but they tended to blame the other race for that.
They did all admit that somebody might be justified in taking offense, even though none of them meant any, and they agreed that the theme chosen for the party might not have been the best idea a law student ever got.
I told them I was at the meeting because it was the first inkling I’d ever had of racial tension at UConn Law School, which I attended 30 years ago. In those days, there weren’t many non-Caucasians enrolled, but there was no tolerance of bigotry and, consonant with respect for the rule of law, there was a studied reverence for civil rights and a general appreciation for the plight of racial minorities. I wondered whether that atmosphere had changed. They assured me it hadn’t, but their indignation suggested otherwise.
I practice law in a community of UConn grads, and I number people I met at UConn Law among my dearest friends, and I don’t want to hear that bigotry or any other right-wing fad is catching on there. I suggested to the students that the theme of their next party (do parties really need themes?) be lawyers. They can dress like lawyers, drink what lawyers drink, and talk about the things lawyers talk about, like sports and suicide.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Thanks for some very insightful comments, Steve, and a very detailed description of the discussions in which you participated.
Honestly, I read about this event in the Courant but it wasn’t until I saw the photos that had been posted on the web that I got a real sense of the character of it. This isn’t one or two people showing up at a party in outfits that are in bad taste . . . many of the law students who attended the party carefully assembled outfits that were intended to reflect racist stereotypes and mock hip hop culture. And given that these kinds of events at various colleges around the country have received media attention in the past, I can’t really believe that a group of law students would be oblivious to the fact that many people of color would find these representations highly offensive.
However, as I was a UConn law student somewhat more recently than you, Steve — class of 1995 to be precise — I have a slightly different perception of this event as it relates to law school culture. I can easily imagine many of the white students with whom I attended law school participating in a party like this one — and also expressing bafflement at the idea that anyone (that mattered) might be offended.
So when these students say that they had no idea that this was racist or offensive, that it was all in fun, that they actually like hip hop culture and are not mocking it, and that anyway the reaction of the media is “out of proportion” I am not surprised.
This is the reaction that is expressed time and again by those who are quite comfortable in their privilege but are aware (noblesse oblige, I suppose) that it is appropriate for them to display “sensitivity” to the concerns of “minorities.” The analogy that comes to mind is the parent who is caught by a child swearing or smoking a cigarette . . . he or she knows that the appropriate thing to do is express that, yes, this is a bad thing to do because that’s how you set a good example. But of course the parent doesn’t really think the behavior is wrong — just that the child is unable to grasp the relativities of adult life.
White, middle class liberals (a Connecticut cottage industry and maybe the only thing we produce more of than aircraft engines and insurance policies) are prepared to give lip service to respect for cultural differences, sure. They understand that it’s what is expected. But the underlying assumption is always that the need to affirm diversity, respect, etc. is a matter of placating the overly sensitive and unsophisticated minorities NOT of taking responsibility for or changing one’s own behavior.
And this is equally true whether the behavior being challenged is the mocking of hip hop culture, the dismissal of gay marriage as a “fringe” issue, condescension toward white working people as trailer trash and rednecks, or jokes about sexual harassment of women.
Now, I think that these students may very well be genuinely sorry that they dressed as they did. But not because of any ability to acknowledge their racism. They’re sorry because (surprise!) some white folks in positions of authority expressed disapproval (and some praise is due to those UConn faculty and administrators who actually took this seriously).
It will be up to law students of color and their white allies to decide whether or how to move the discussion forward at UConn law school. But I predict that they will find that if the discussion is raised when Teacher is out of the room that many of the students who are apologizing today will be defensive and angry because they were called on the carpet for something that they *thought* they would be allowed to get away with.
January 26th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Peter writes: “But the underlying assumption is always that the need to affirm diversity, respect, etc. is a matter of placating the overly sensitive and unsophisticated minorities NOT of taking responsibility for or changing one’s own behavior.”
I see this to be very present in my own students. I get the sense that any “political correctness” expressed is more often coming from a place of “that’s what I’m supposed to do” or “If I don’t, my crazy hairy-legged feminazi teacher will chuck my sorry ass out of this classroom.” And in a place where that white, middle-class (or upper-class) are even more white than Congress is, what is their incentive to behave, to empathize, or to even understand why they’d be asked to look outside of themselves?
January 26th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Exactly, and I would take it a step further. In the context of “professional” environments such as (but certainly not limited to) law school, even those pressures that are brought to bear on people of privilege to be sensitive or show respect are often a part of the same overall spirit of condescenscion toward the non-privileged and tend to reinforce racism and oppression.
When something like the “Bullets and Bubbly” incident comes up, people in positions of authority may very well chide their underlings for their behavior. But not because they regard the behavior as racist or are even willing to accede to it being described as racist. The criticism is for the underlings’ failure to “act like professionals” or “respect other peoples’ opinions.”
There is no room in such a discussion to actually get to the question of whether the behavior really is racist or whether there really is a reason to regard it as offensive. The important thing is to remember that as “professionals” we are supposed to listen politely and nod agreeably no matter what outrageous things are said to us. Which merely reinforces the tendency toward condescension and patronizing attitudes.
January 28th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Peter, as a UConn Law alum, I could not agree with you more. The fact that there were only 5 black partners at ANY firm in the entire state of Connecticut last year and the fact that there has NEVER been a single black person on UConn’s student member selected Law Review, speaks volumes about the amount of racial segregation in Connecticut and at UConn Law.
January 28th, 2007 at 9:39 am
And here is another perspective on the issue.
January 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Thanks for the post, Kerri. While I think some BLSA students should have just stayed there to show face, I can completely understand why someone would decide to cut the meeting short and leave early. I have seen the way UConn works on these things–they throw a brownbag lunch, professors or staff who are concerned about their image show up, people talk defensively and hope that everyone can just get along, and then nothing is ever done from there. The administration just wants it on the record that they had an “open dialogue” about the incident so they can all move forward, sweep the ugly issue under the rug, and hope that it doesn’t affect their alumni giving or US News and World Report rankings.
The real problem, as you have mentioned, Kerri, is that anyone who brings up any issue of racism is dismissed as an oversensitive minority or a screaming irrational liberal. Somewhere in between overly sensitive and screaming liberal is a rational concern about race and the perpetuation of negative stereotypes, and sadly, that issue never gets discussed.
The one student’s concerns about this being a small community (both the legal community in CT and the even smaller one at the school itself) is a true one. As a student from that small school, I know more about some people’s personal lives than I care to know, and can’t help but have those thoughts briefly race through my mind when I see them. Professors talk, students gossip, and people are blacklisted by reputation. Blind grading isn’t blind, and it’s no coincidence that friends of people on prestigious student-run groups seem to be accepted on those teams when their buddies are in the positions of selecting new members. So, for a student thinking long-term, I can’t blame her for choosing a path that might best ultimately suit her career goals, as opposed to trying to fight a losing battle with a school that has no intention of changing.
It is disheartening to see that my generation has become so complacent with regard to discrimination. There is a general belief among privileged suburban whites that the Civil Rights Movement is over and we’re all on the same ground now, when clearly that isn’t even close to true.
January 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
As a partygoer, I am shocked by the response to this event. While some students call it a ‘hip hop’ theme, the actual theme was “gangster rap.” Why mock gangster rap? Maybe because it’s degrading to women, condones violence and promotes illegal drug use. Did my classmates engage in stereotypes? Of course they did. They stereotyped a culture created by rap artists who sell their story to the mainstream media every day. I was fortunate to not have been in the photos that were released, but that is likely because I am an African American. That’s right - the “mostly white” crowd at the party had several minority students. While I don’t want my photo in the paper, I do wish that I could’ve received equal representation. If white students are racist for planning this, black students are racist for attending, too. Frankly, I am most disappointed that the offended parties didn’t handle this issue outside of the media. For all the students who were offended by the party, more have been offended by the reaction. The racial divide has turned from a gully into a canyon. I only hope that an apology for that will be made and the personal attacks on partygoers will stop.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“If white students are racist for planning this, black students are racist for attending, too.”
Sure, why not? People who buy into a stereotype and mock how they perceive a certain culture shouldn’t be exempt from criticism just because they happen to belong to that race.
And, while this particular event did garner quite a lot of media coverage, there have also been numerous racially motivated incidents, of which I am personally aware, that were never brought to the media. Instead, these incidents were discussed among faculty, deans and the affected students. In those cases, the students chose to keep things quiet, so they could continue their legal careers without prejudice of being “an oversensitive minority,” escape being hounded by the media, and to spare the school negative publicity.
The racial divide at UConn Law has never been a gully–it’s always been a canyon and this incident is just bringing attention to a large and pre-existing problem.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Toes–by your very logic, those people who “bought into” the stereotype that this party was mocking a particular race are the people that are racist rather than those at the party who saw nothing inherently “black” within their rap costumes.
Everyday, I become more and more amazed at how far members of BLSA are taking this event. At first all they wanted was an acknowledgement that feelings had been hurt and that as lawyers we should all strive to be more sensitive. Now, they are pushing for all student leaders present at the party to step down (just how far this insane demand will go, I don’t know. Will all members of the “racist” journals who were present be asked to resign as well? Will 2/3 of the SBA be run out of their positions?) Instead of leading such a public movement for punishment and revenge, I challenge my colleagues to listen to those at the party and talk to us directly about why this behavior hurt so badly. Some of us partygoers really do want to learn and apologize.
January 28th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I want to point out that I am not surprised that “student” is shocked by the response to the bullets and bubbly party. I find it amusing that “student” has tried hard to minimize the fact that the party was racist by saying that as an Afro-American who was invited and attended the party, it was not racist. I guess the mere presence of an Afro-American legitimized it. Well I know this much about you “student”: BLSA members are not your friends, fellow students or anything because your always make it a point to look down or away when you see them. How do I know it, because I’ve seen it. You are, perhaps for the second time in your life, using your “blackness” to legitimize your white friends. That’s sad!
I am not suggesting that having friends of all races is bad. What I am saying though is that standing up and defending them when their actions are wrong is insulting. The outrage is not because the party was in so-called bad taste, the outrage is because people don’t understand why it was wrong. It’s not about being PC its about knowing that as future attorneys we will be working with all kinds of people and if we cannot check our own biases we will not be effective advocates. Also, some of us will be clerking and writing decisions. How can we do so correctly when we mock those whose fate we will be decising? Some of us might end up in government drafting legislation. How can we effectively do it when we will blantanly ignore and minimize the positions of one or more sides? People, that’s how we end up with laws that put lower sentences on those caught with cocaine and higher ones for those caught with crack.
So “student” check yourself and think about your biases because it seems that privilege (and yeah, having an education is a privilege) has skewed your perspective just a bit.
January 28th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
3L, thanks for your candor and willingness to discuss.
With regard to the people who “saw nothing inherently ‘black’ within their costumes,” I think this demonstrates that people can do things which have a racially insenstive effect, but don’t necessarily rise to the level of overt and obvious, conscious racism as say, the people at the party in Texas that were dressed like Aunt Jemima and posed next to fried chicken. It still doesn’t make the prior behavior right, however. It just gives me slightly more optimism that the type of people who didn’t realize how offensive their actions came off might be more apt to be aware in the future and not repeat such behaviors…as opposed to the girl in the kerchief holding the syrup, who gives me very little hope at all.
The problem with people using the “hip hop/rapper/ghetto-fabulous” defense is that there is a negative stereotype and a link to black culture, even though there are people of varying races who might embrace that style of clothing and music on a daily basis. Rappers like Eminem, Vanilla Ice, and (gag) Kevin Federline, are a few that immediately come to mind. But it should also be noted that when these hip hop artists make the mainstream, they’re frequently accused of “acting black” or being “posers,” which just reinforces the stereotypic connection between a certain music/style/appearance with a subset of a particular race. And, while some attendees chose to depict particular rappers, like the girl who I assume wanted to look like Eve, with the chest tattoos, there were others that just seemed to dress as a mockery of their interpretation of black ghetto life in general, like the faux pregnant girl holding the beer.
Also, and I am very curious about this since I’m not on campus, but do you believe that only the members of BLSA are upset or offended by the recent events that have transpired? Or are they just the ones that are most vocal? I would take a guess that it’s not just members of BLSA who are offended, but rather, they have been the obvious target for interviews by the Courant, etc., and responses have been expected of them.
With response to what should happen to those who went to the party, I honestly don’t know. I think there were varying degrees of offensiveness at the party which warrant different degrees of response. But I will note that I don’t think classifying peoples’ suggestions as “insane demands” will help to bridge the gap any time soon. “Racist” is an ugly word, and no one wants to be labelled as one. If this incident could be looked at more objectively by its effect in perpetuating racial stereotypes, instead of labeling people as racist or not racist, then maybe it would be easier to find a common ground from which to build upon.
Seeing the pictures and knowing some of the people in them, my heart was broken. I held a couple of those people in very high regard, and to see them in such a light was a true disappointment. While I sincerely don’t think that those guys meant any harm, I do think they should have known better and a little light should have gone on in their heads about how this could have been construed as improper and racially insensitive.
From the bottom of my heart, I hope that this discourse does not turn into a modern day witch hunt geared solely at punishment and revenge. I’m unsure how effective a dialogue can be achieved when things are so polarized and no direct contact can be made until people can speak openly and candidly about this face-to-face. And I can understand how partygoers would not want to openly come forward and speak about this, admitting they were there, for fear of the backlash. It will be very interesting to see how this all unfolds in the upcoming weeks and months.
January 28th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Just to echo — I was also at the party. I dressed up, and I in no way meant to offend anyone. I have offered my deepest and sincerest apologies to anyone who would listen. I would love it if BLSA and any other offended students would discuss with those of us who did go exactly why it offended them, and what possible direction we can all take from this. Obviously, I can’t speak for every single person at the party, but I do know that my friends and myself simply received an invite to a party where we were told to dress like gangsta rappers. That’s it. It seemed like everyone was going, so we went. We had no preconcieved notions of racism at all — we just thought it would be fun to dress up like the hip hop stars that many of us listen to on the regular.
I will be in attendance for tomorrow evening’s event. I certainly hope that those offended will show up as well, so that we can attempt to work this out.
January 28th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I agree with Peter’s original comment on how privilege is played out in the ways people react when they get busted doing something they know they shouldn’t have done.
There are a couple thing that need to be recognized though in any sustained discussion of race if we are to really try to understand each other.
First, race is a social construction. The categories of black, white, red, yellow, etc. in which we place each other and ourselves are not natural categories. Now, I know everybody will say “no kidding”, but rarely does that recognition saturate deeper thoughts about race and racism. At no point can one identify where one race ends and another begins. And being a particualr race does not really make anyone do or be anything per se. Any perceived causality must be examined closer and are likely due to something else (see the third point below)
Second, It’s important to know that the racial categories we now recognize and reproduce in our everyday talk historically were created for the purposes of making distinctions among human beings, placing these distinctions in a hierarchy, and then treating people accordingly. So the racial categories we know and use today were created to mark differences among people based on physically visible characteristics and treat each other poorly. These categories were largely created by white, europeans (maybe like myself or maybe not, it doesn’t matter) with a few temporary exceptions (e.g, irish, italians who actually “became” white over a couple generations) who have never really experienced what life is like when you’re part of a discriminated, stigmatized, and often easily visible group. This is one of the ways privilege develops, can go conveniently unnoticed while reproducing iteself.
Third, if racism were only “feelings” towards people of a perceived racial group then that’d be one thing, but it’s more. Racism is institutionalized. Racism is institutionalized in that virtually every institution, when doing the things that it’s supposed to do (like distribute and control welfare, educate, police, offer health care, run the economy, media, state, etc.), do so in a way that consistently discriminates, neglects, and at times controls people of color. It’s in the institution’s everyday behavior and manifested in its outcomes/products. Many of the institutions we have today were developed by, are controlled by and reflect the interests of mostly white men, and they do this while neglecting and controlling people of color, and often benefiting off their continued stigmatization (such is the case for grangster rap on TV and magazines, real estate practices, and political policies). It doesn’t matter if you’re Mother Teresa, if you’re part of these institutions like almost all of us are, then we’re contributing to a larger and more damning form of racism. This form of racism plays out in our decisions to use police in Hartford’s neighborhoods to handle social problems that arise due to poorly available resources and opportunities. It plays out in that we use police to handle situations in black and hispanic Hartford that would perhaps involve the medical field in the white suburbs. It plays out in how we cut back on the number of voting booths allocated to highly black/hispanic and urban areas so that voting lines are too long and not conducive to people who must work or take care of family. It plays out in how we connect our property taxes to local education budgets so that in the white suburbs where there are fewer people per individual home more dollars are spent per pupil than is the case in Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, New Britain and other cities. It plays out in how we create laws that are based on racist media images and the public fear of the strange black male that they mobilize. These are just a few examples.
Bigotry better describes the difference in individual attitudes, but if you don’t recognized institutionalized racism then you’re missing the bigger picture. White folks (and by that I mean mostly men) control the institutionalized postions of power in not only the U.S. but much of the the world as well (think of any country that’s been colonized and see who’s in control of what).
One of the reasons the UConn Law party was so sad was because on numerous sides it reflected a great misunderstanding of race and racism. It’s the kind of misunderstanding that comes with privilege. Future lawyers must know about race and racism, in both its bigoted and institutionalized forms if they are to practice law in a just and honest way and not contribute to existing forms of inequality. The fact that people in this country are so horribly informed about race and racism, although reflecting our education system, is very unfortunate and something we should work to fix.
January 29th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
I’m glad to see that there is discussion happening about this issue. “Student” made it sound as if this event were attended only by students trying to confront the misogyny within gangster rap, but I doubt that this is the case. A few students might have gone into the party with that intention; I’m not sure how imitating that behavior is dealing with the problem of misogyny in any meaningful kind of way. To me, this seems a lot more like the case of a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. There’d be no discussion, no issue, and no awareness of there being a problem if it weren’t for the part about getting caught.
So those students who have apologized or expressed some kind of regret, I have to wonder if it’s because they have seen the light, or if they are just humilated at being caught in the act.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
As a current UConn Law Review member, I wanted to respond to Toes’ comment about the racial makeup of the Law Review. There are two ways in which law students can be selected for membership: (1) by having a top GPA or (2) by participating in a writing competition. Papers submitted for consideration are identified only by a randomly assigned number. Both of these methods are race-blind.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Dear Law Review Member,
I understand how people are chosen for Law Review and know about the 2 methods in which one can be selected for the team. I was simply pointing out that sometimes–not always–friends trying to write-on have told members already on LR the title of their essay, for example, to give them a heads up, to identify themselves. In fact, I wouldn’t have even suspected such unethical behavior had I not overheard one Law Review member tell his/her friend precisely that scheme. To say that this has happened with everyone would ignore the people who do legitimately belong on this group.
January 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Toes:
You address a completely different issue. A write-on participant’s attempt to cheat their way on to the journal does not “speak[] volumes about the amount of racial segregation . . . at UConn Law.” As a member of last year’s editorial board, I can say with authority that ANY attempt to identify oneself in your write on submission is taken very seriously and will disqualify you from the competition. Furthermore, members of the law review have no interest in giving “friends” an extra edge - just as we endured the 2 torturous weeks over 4th of July, we fondly want our younger friends to go through the same.
Relying on, and publicizing, what you “overhear” in order to link it to racism is an injustice to a fine journal, widely read and respected in this country. Member-students work their butts off on that write-on competition (each LR member tirelessly grades between 18 and 30 20pg submissions, and each submission is graded by 6 law review members to ensure fairness) in order to ensure that it is a truly anonymous process.
January 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
So my confidence in the intactness of the liberal tradition at UConn Law is misplaced?
January 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I wasn’t implying that the people that are on, or have been on, LR are incompetent or don’t deserve to be there. UConn is a top school and it hosts some very intelligent people. But being the competitive atmosphere that law school is, and being that this is a highly self-regulated process, it breeds an atmosphere where impropriety, while maybe not the norm, is also not completely unfathomable of a situation.
Your arguments on anonymity and meritocracy of the selection process aside: the issue remains. Why has not a single black person from UConn Law School in all of its history, out of all of its hundreds of black alums, and dozens of current black students–why has not one ever been on Law Review? I don’t believe the members of this team or any other have meetings to discuss how they are going to sustain the racial balance of certain groups. I would suspect,however, that the answer regarding this disparate impact is more subtle and institutionalized, such as Steve described. If a person of color does not see a single person of color on a prestigious team, then what effect does that have? For one, mentoring is incredibly important. I would surmise that a lot of the decisions we make in life, and the chances we take in pursuing certain goals, academic or otherwise, have a lot to do with people encouraging us along the way. If a person of color does not have that sort of encouragement from someone who is on the journal, then perhaps they are less likely to even apply and endure those painful weeks of reading and writing because they don’t see it as an attainable possibility.
Can we at least agree that there is a problem with the disparate impact with regard to race at UConn Law and that it needs to be addressed?
January 29th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
One of the points of privilege is that it exists since the day we’re born, and even before if we consider neonatal care and being fed healthy food. The results of sustained privilege existing since birth play out as we grow older. We can expect to find, and for some experience, privilege in every institution in society, beginning from the day we’re born to the day we die. This is in addition to the everyday personal and impersonal interactions in which some can go easily and conveniently unnoticed. After years of this, especially during our formative adolescence, we will grow to have certain senses of entitlement, like it’s ok to make fun of those who have much less than you and the stereotypical things they do because of this.
Given the way society is set up, the avenues we’ve experienced as people while we age can and will be substantially different. This is one of the reasons why apparently objective tests and other things we use to measure and value people (e.g., standardized tests and exams) are in someways subjective. This is the case regardless of how hard one tries to levy an objective evaluation. Which, I should add many honest people try very hard to achieve. But if the test favors some over others simply because of the assumptions it makes (e.g., through examples, and assumed socialization track, and the institutions place in a larger system) then that’s part of institutionalized racism and discrimination. The tests are designed to favor certain correct answers, which reflect the line of socialization and privilege experienced by their creators and maintainers. Such tests cater to the educational and socialization track that privileged people experience, and in which they are often fluent. This is how privilege reproduces itself. This is also one of the reasons why we don’t see more people of color in greater positions of power. And, it’s also the reason we don’t see many women in those positions either. Both are morally bad and as people in positions of power, especially in the legal field, but also the medical, educational, and political fields, it’s important to use our privilege to fix it.
I don’t know much about LR or a write-on, but this is one way appearances of objective evaluation are often misleading, and institutionalized racism works. This is also true despite the efforts of those inside, even when those efforts are quite sincere, true and serious. It helps explain what Toes is seeing while maintaining respect for the ideas behind the LR and write-on.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:22 am
I heard from a student at Uconn Law that many of the attendees of the party are on the student governing board (can’t recall the name right now). What role is that organization playing in this party’s aftermath? I have not heard anything from them. I wonder if the racial divides extend to student representation. Aren’t these students supposed to be the standard-bearers of the school? It would probably provide a lot of good will if those students made some kind of public statement, unless that statement is something like “piss off!”
January 30th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Student remarked:
“As a partygoer, I am shocked by the response to this event. While some students call it a ‘hip hop’ theme, the actual theme was “gangster rap.” Why mock gangster rap? Maybe because it’s degrading to women, condones violence and promotes illegal drug use.”
C’mon! Do you really for one moment believe that the reason the party organizers chose to hold a “gangster rap” themed party was to mock the misogyny of some of the musicians who create that style of music? I’d be more likely to believe that if I had ever heard of a group of (overwhelmingly white) UConn law students holding a “heavy metal” themed party in order to mock the misogyny often associated with that musical style.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Exactly Peter, no one was mocking the mysogeny of hip hop artists or culture, but I think the point is that maybe we should consider that possibility that no one was “mocking” anything whether it be pop culture, ghetto culture, or african-american culture.
This was just a bunch of students who wanted to dress up in a way that they wouldn’t normally dress to have a good time. Was it in good taste, probably not. Was it appropriate, probably not. But the truth is, and I really believe this, that despite whatever feelings of hurt it caused after, the students who planned and attended the party had no intentions beyond getting together for a party and having a good time.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
one other comment that I feel I should make since it seems there are a number of fellow UConn law students on this board, and I’m surprised no one mentioned this at the meeting last night, but I think another contributing factor to the ever-more apparent community divide at our school is the fact that it is a commuter school. Many students come to campus for class and leave, or get buried in a library carrel - I’m guilty of this too. And all students really need to make an effort for there to be any sense of community at all. It’s not like college where your thrown in a dorm with hundreds of other students, or high school where you’re in classes with the same people all day. It’s hard to have a sense of community when you never see one another (maybe less so for you 1Ls).
I don’t really have a solution - maybe we should all just try to “hang out” in Knight or the cafe more between classes or something, but just recognize that community is something we need to work at at UConn - just something to keep in mind.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Toes:
“Why has not a single black person from UConn Law School in all of its history, out of all of its hundreds of black alums, and dozens of current black students–why has not one ever been on Law Review?”
I was also on last year’s editorial board as well, and I can tell you that this fact is of concern to the membership. The answer, I assure you, however, is not some racist conspiracy.
As my colleague mentioned, the process is totally anonymous. Any breach of anonymity is dealt with swiftly and, moreover, could not single-handidly keep African Americans off the journal.
The difficult, but obvious, answer to your question appears to be that black students simply do not perform well enough to earn their way onto the journal. You might be skeptical of this conclusion, and I am, too. So, let me offer another thought: self selection. For whatever reason, many black students choose not to participate in the competition. (I don’t believe that statistics on the racial composition of participants of the write-on legally may be gathered, but we informally have learned that apparently-qualified black students often choose not to compete.)
This is where the law review–and the university–should do better: convincing black students that they would be welcomed by their peers onto the journal. That said, I believe that part of what dissuades many from trying are bald and baseless accusations of racism, such as yours.
There are other factors, of course. For example, many of our best black students are paying their way through school, and the demands of a job in addition to both school and journal work would be too onerous. The solution to this problem, however, would not be to reduce the demands on law review members, but rather to provide better financial assistance to minority students.
The point is that the answer to your question is not as simple as you suggest, and it is hurtful to accuse a hard-working and bright group of students–many of whom have researched issues involving racism and/or advocated on behalf of minority groups–of intolerance. The members of the Law Review, time will prove, are part of the solution, not the problem.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:51 am
“ghetto culture”
How interesting. UConn Law, located in an affluent section of Hartford, right down the street from a ghetto. My guess is not many UConn Law students originate from the ghetto, and therefore, it’s somehow acceptable to mock the culture and people associated with a particular region.
I don’t care how students try to reconcile their minstrel party. Fucked up is fucked up, whether it’s because of stereotypes based on race, gender, class, or “ghetto culture.”
January 30th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Personally, I’m tired about hearing people justify this party by saying that they didn’t “intend” for it to be offensive. That leads people to think that the only way that they can be racist or do racist things is if they specifically make it a point to be hateful. Saying that people of other races wear G-Unit clothes or drink malt liquor is sticking one’s head in the sand to the fact that– hello — these are stereotypes and a certain race/class is associated with them.
I understand that racism is to a certain degree a subjective interpretation, but it really gets under my skin that the people who seem to be defending themselves and setting the definition for racism are, for the most part, not the ones who are the targets of it.
January 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
And, Toes, you’re not exactly helping to disasssociate those stereotypes with that race/class, are you? That’s what really gets under my skin.
The stereotype is perpetuated by those who refuse to move past it. I think it’s quite brave of the African American students who were there to defend the party by saying, in effect, that they are not–as you would have them be–defined by “gangsta” culture. Before you get all holier-than-thou, read the book “Enough” by senior NPR correspondent Juan Williams.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
It seems I need to clarify here:
First off, I simply mentioned the racial break-down of LR to illustrate that UConn is not always the melting pot that people think this Blue State is. It was ONE example, just one, out of many, and I did not mean to imply that the group as a whole is not a legitmate one. I don’t think LR is in on a giant racial conspiracy. I do think that much more subtle things happen, such as, people who are on the group being mentors for their friends, which is obviously fine. But if people are not friends with a wide variety of races, then it’s more likely the same types of people get accepted into these groups.
All I am saying is that it is disproportionately white, and that issue never seems to be addressed in any sort of meaningful way. I don’t think the reason that the demographics of this group or any other group on campus is because of an intentional and malicious scheme. I’m saying that there are so many layers to why people who are on top stay on top and why it’s hard for people who didn’t start with that privilege to break through. And it seems like the knee-jerk reaction non-minorities have is to justify why they belong there instead of looking at the numbers and asking why things are the way they are.
I’m saying that the racial composition of schools in attendees, in admissions, in acceptances, in academic groups, in large prestigious firms, in the people who become partner, in bar pass rates, etc. etc. are all indicators of a very complicated system and the inequities within it. Our experiences within this system, what we see in it, and how we are treated in it along the way, contribute to how we view it as a whole.
So, please, let us just take my one minor comment on LR off the table, because it was not by any means my main concern in this recent issue. The issue, in my eyes, is that a party surfaced that used racial stereotypes. The issue is that some people didn’t think that there was a problem, that it was no big deal, that it was all in good fun. The party showed a general disconnectedness between the party-goers and the race/culture/class that they believed they were portraying. The idea that people were unaware that they were being offensive, or didn’t intend to offend, while yes, lacks malice and overt bigotry, is a problem.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
To: Another UConn LR Alumn”
Are you blaming Toes for perpetuating stereotypes by talking about what he or she essentially recognizes as institutionalized racism?
“The stereotype is perpetuated by those who refuse to move past it”
That’s a poor argument, regardless of what Juan Williams says. Sure it’d be the case if everyone in the world decided to stop thinking about and “seeing” race somehow. But stereotypes perpetuate because people don’t talk about them and challenge them when they’re faulty and damaging. Your suggestion to Toes to stop contributing to the problem by talking about it is weak. Based on this being the 30th comment for the original article above, while most of the others articles have fewer than 5, speaks volumes to what happens when people just “move past it.”
You already pointed out what Toes is talking about in your comment (#25) on your experience as a member of the editorial review board. You said,
“The difficult, but obvious, answer to your question [why there aren’t, and have never been, any black students on the review board] appears to be that black students simply do not perform well enough to earn their way onto the journal. You might be skeptical of this conclusion, and I am, too. So, let me offer another thought: self selection. For whatever reason, many black students choose not to participate in the competition. (I don’t believe that statistics on the racial composition of participants of the write-on legally may be gathered, but we informally have learned that apparently-qualified black students often choose not to compete.)”
and then you said,
“This is where the law review–and the university–should do better: convincing black students that they would be welcomed by their peers onto the journal. That said, I believe that part of what dissuades many from trying are bald and baseless accusations of racism, such as yours.”
That’s great, I agree 100%…at least with your first sentence.
If you want to do a better job having your editorial review board reflect the student body (or whatever the pool of participants), then you will want to do your best to discourage offensively themed parties in the future. Seeing or knowing that one’s peers see nothing wrong with having a good time at the expense of a few incredibly stigmatized stereotypes which are obviously damaging for people of color, and exploitive if you understand the market behind it, is certain to have a huge effect on how students of color interact and socialize with their peers. This would be the case anywhere. Surely the “self-selection” that you speak of can be a consequence of such social gatherings, in addition to the everyday gathering of friends and social circles that happen all the time in departments, schools and everywhere else. These are some of the real things that dissuade students of color from entering, not the “bald and baseless accusations of racism” of which you accuse Toes. And to the extent that “bald and baseless accusations of racism” do dissuade black students from entering in the first place, which I highly doubt happens often, or amounts to any significant number of total students of color, then too bad for them. I’m not going to pretend this stuff doesn’t happen so a few students can feel better. If you really are as concerned with there not being a representative number of people of color on the review board then you might want to think about how that’s due the institutional culture existing at home.
PS in comment (24) makes a good point in that one way to change institutional culture is to think about community and inclusiveness, and how to enable that through the way the university runs itself, whatever it be at the given time. It’s a challenging thing to think about because we rarely think about it, but this is where our discussion should be focused…This is where our discussion should be focused.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:29 am
I love this shit.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:41 am
Steve:
I definitely think we should talk about the problems of racism and racial inequity and racial inequities. I wouldn’t be participating in this–as you point out–lively thread if I didn’t.
I also would have to be stupid not to realize the connection between the African American community and “gangsta” rap and culture. I am deeply troubled by parties at other universities that demonstrate an intent to disparage black people. At those parties, some students brought buckets of KFC and wore shirts that said “I like fried chicken.”
Others dressed like rappers.
So on it’s face, it’s easy to draw the conclusion that the UConn students, who also dressed like rappers, must be disparaging black people, too.
The Texas students, however, effectuated their racism by linking black people and thugs. They (1) insulted gangsta culture and (2) perpetuated the stereotype that all blacks are part of that culture. The irony is that, at UConn, it wasn’t the students who perpetuated that stereotype, it is those who condemn the party.
The point that Juan Williams makes is that thug culture is hugely damaging to black people, and as damaging, if not more, is the resulting stereotype harbored by white racists that all blacks are thugs. Nothing suggests–and, frankly, my experience at the law school bears this out–that these students held that belief. The problem is that the reaction to this party serves as cause to link to the two, not separate them, and that’s the hurtful part.
I do appreciate your point that the mere fact that some black students would be offended by a party of this nature is cause for pause in an environment where institutions such as the law review should try to convey the fact that the journal would appreciate and welcome the participation of black students. That fact may warrant an abundance of caution.
That said, however, I think there is blame to be spread around, which is why I reference Juan Williams. The stereotype that blacks are thugs is not only perpetuated by white racists, but also myriad black entertainers. Those who are so quick to castigate well-intentioned law students should also consider boycotting the industry that has made itself rich off of convincing so many white people that black people are dangerous.
The irony, again, is that these students hadn’t bought that message at all.
January 31st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
fo schizzle, mah man steve. time to lighten up, peeps , and I doan mean yo skin collah.
January 31st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
So after several days of discussion of this issue on this blog, sounds to me like we’re back to square one.
Critics of the “bullets and bubbly” party want to talk about the pervasive nature of racism in our society, the tendency of elites of race and class in this society to mock those who they regard as being “beneath” them, the deep structures that often generate and foster “unconscious” racism, and the notion that privileged people have to take responsibility for their actions and not squirm out of accusations of racism with platitudes or blaming the victim.
Defenders of the party want a dialogue too…just with a different focus. They want a dialogue in which “racism” is limited to intentional conduct that offends people who have racial privilege, in which any discussion of racism includes an equal or greater denunciation of people of color, white critics of racism, and/or the culture of oppressed communities, and in which even proven allegations of racial stereotyping are sufficiently defended by the response “I didn’t mean it.”
I can’t help but think that at bottom are two different assessments of the world (or at least of American society). In one, racism is pervasive and systematic. In the other it is incidental.
Perhaps it is mere coincidence that those who believe it is systematic tend to be either people of color who actually experience and observe racism, or white critics of racial privilege who are trying to listen to them, while those who view it as incidental are generally themselves the beneficiaries of racial privilege. Perhaps …
January 31st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Seems like a rift that could be mended. We might begin by attempting to redress the grievance that gave rise to this whole issue: slavery.
It is possible to calculate the value of the labor expended by Negro slaves. I haven’t done the calculation, but we can determine what was produced by slave labor, and we can determine what working people earned. Calculated with market interest from the date the services were rendered to now, it comes to quite a debt.
The slaves and their masters are long dead, of course, but that doesn’t necessarily cancel the liability. There are survivors of the uncompensated, and there are survivors of the employers that, by the imposition of untold suffering, benefited from the free labor. Is there a way to make the exploited race whole by exacting reparations from those who benefited from slavery?
Who has benefited from slavery? It was part of an economic system that fueled the industrial revolution, and, like child labor, the extermination of the indigenous tribes, and many other brutal practices, it paved the way for our relative prosperity today.
Slave labor built Washington D. C. and a good number of factories and other buildings east of the Mississippi. Slavery brought Africans to this continent in great numbers and produced a vast population of free African-Americans, gradually transforming the culture to something exotic and unique. Every American enjoys some advantage today because of slavery, the most corrupt and brutal practice ever permitted by law. The fruits of slave labor redound to our credit in a hundred ways. A debt is owed, and it’s owed by each and every one of us, regardless of heritage.
Suppose you managed to convince Americans that a debt is owed. How do you get them to cough it up? Maybe offer them an incentive. A more just and upright nation might be an incentive, but it doesn’t have a lot of substance. How about, in recognition of the national quest for justice and probity, we agreed to dispense with race altogether? No blacks. No whites. Race becomes simply a state of mind. There is no legal status associated with skin color. By agreement. By social contract.
We’ve already come a long way in this direction, if we’re not so quick to admit it. What race is Barak Obama? His mother’s white, his father’s from Africa. He may be disabled by the lingering effects of slavery, but he’s not descended from slaves. Tiger Woods has no race. Neither does Muhammad Ali, who is lighter than half the people in my European family.
The last official act in recognition of differences in skin color should be the final distribution of reparations. No more affirmative action. Discrimination based on skin color or national origin would still be illegal, but racial classifications would be abandoned. African-American and Navajo would be nationalities, not racial classifications (as things are in fact). Hispanic would be a language grouping, and not a race (as things are in fact).
Once the amount is calculated, and we’ve made a national commitment to reparations, who gets the money? Send a check to every person in America who claims to be a descendant of slaves? A check to every victim of racial discrimination? To everyone with skin darker than a specified shade? Who sets the criteria for remuneration? Should we trust Congress to decide what to do with the money?
If we can look at who benefits from slavery and oppression to decide who owes the debt, maybe we can look at who suffers from the lingering effects of slavery and genocide to decide who gets compensated. By this analysis, it’s pretty obvious. The face of slavery had dark skin, and dark skin is still perceived as a mark of inferiority because of slavery. Black- and brown- and red-skinned people suffer today because we haven’t yet been able to expunge the residue of our first 350 years in the new world. It might be fair and just to distribute the money according to skin color, with dark whites getting a few dollars and very dark people getting a heftier sum.
The problem with this plan is that it probably wouldn’t do much to reverse the lingering effects of slavery. Somehow, it seems that repairing the system should be a principal objective of reparations. Maybe there are ways to improve the lot of disadvantaged people other than by simply giving each of them money. You could improve the prospects of their children, for instance, by enriching their educational experience. You could improve the general quality of their lives by enhancing conditions where they live and work. You could create means for them to improve themselves. You could help them deal with their aged, their disabled, their delinquent. Above all, you could help integrate them with the rest of us so that it’s no longer possible to tell who’s what.
To do this, we should create a national board of reparations, endow this body with a bankroll (that we collect with a one-time tax levy), charge them with the objective of repairing the damage done by slavery and genocide, and give them a dozen years to spend the money. I’d have us elect members of the board every four years or so. Let them make their own rules. Give our kids something to look forward to: a nation with just the one race.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I gotta beef with top dogs making fun of underdogs, adding insult to injury, know what I’m saying?
January 31st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Peter:
Undoubtedly, I am a beneficiary of “racial privilege,” and I view racism as systematic. I also try to listen to racism’s victims. I just happen to have a more sophisticated understanding of the problem than you do, and hence, a different solution.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Before criticizing the party animals, I think it all comes to down to the personal intentions of each person at that party. Was it to emulate hip hop artists, gangsta rappers? Hip hop has fans of all ethnic varieties and political persuasions. Some of the folks at the party said they are fans of hip hop. Does that mean they like Jay-Z, Eminem, Beany Man, I don’t know who else. I don’t have the patience to listen to hip hop myself. I have my kids play me the stuff they think might jibe with my particular political views. Last hip hop guys that I could understand was Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five.
Back to individual intent of the party goers.. Was it to make fun of thug culture and everyone else, ala Ali G?
Sometimes intent is misconstrued. Borat and other Sasha Baron Cohen characters are cases in point.
For the kids who came of age with MTV reality shows and network shows with black, Hispanic, gay characters, attitudes of race and sexual orientation are way better than my coming of age in the 1950s and 1960s. Be that as it may, we still got a ways to go, no question about that.
So I was thinking of having a party on the theme of white trailer trash, to celebrate a part of my heritage. Check your digital cameras at the door.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Peter:
I shouldn’t have said that … of course I think my view is more sophisticated (it’s my view), but I guess my point is that I think reasonable minds can differ.
I know you believe you’re right, and I know you’re well-intentioned. What drives me mad is that I am, too, but those who share your world view are so convinced that those who share mine are wrong, we get castigated as insensitive, racist, elitist bastards.
I really, deeply care about this problem, which is one of the reasons that I live in this city, while many of my friends–who prefer, like the rest of white, suburban Connecticut, to pretend there aren’t poor and desperate people in the world–have fled to the relative safety and isolation of the upper-class burbs.
I get heated about this topic because I think the outrage is misplaced. It’s a deep topic and I find the knee-jerk reaction to be shallow.
I respect everybody on this board, and I appreciate your heartfelt desire to find a solution to this disastrous problem. Despite our differences, however, I just ask for you to respect the fact that I may share your concerns but have a different opinion.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Another Uconn LR Alumn:
Can you explain your solution? As far as I can tell from your last comment (32), “The irony is that, at UConn, it wasn’t the students who perpetuated that stereotype, it is those who condemn the party” it seems as if you’re saying there’d be no problem if offended students simply didn’t say anything. People are offended because of the party. It is a consequence and reaction to the ways in which our peers informally socialize. I find it difficult, and troubling, to blame what is an easily predicted reaction to this party for perpetuating such sterotypes. Any concrete solution I would think has to deal with the source of controversy, not the reaction. If you are aware that systemic racism exists as you say in comment 37, coupled with the fact that systemic racism highlights the pervasiveness of intentional and unintentional racism (as Peter correctly mentions in comment 34), then how can you explain your “more sophisticaed understanding of the problem” in a way that reflects this knowledge? As of yet, I’m hearing the “lets just move on” story that’s used over and over again, and that gets us nowhere.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Right, let’s focus on the source of the controversy: thug culture. We need to address why the stereotype exists in the first place.
Overt racism is hatred or intolerance of another race. It isn’t about culture or class, it’s about the immutable characteristic of skin color. This distinction is hugely important, because that is what drove slavery, and what precipitated our current racial inequities. It wasn’t a misunderstanding about culture, it was about actually thinking of somebody as less than human because of his physical characteristics.
These students were not making judgments based on skin color, they were making one based on “gangsta” culture.
Part of the solution, then, is to stop defending that culture. Let’s face it, people, regardless of race, look absurd with gold in their mouths and pants around their knees. And they also look threatening. That’s the point–baggy pants to hid the weapons; pants around the knees b/c prisoners weren’t given belts. And the messages in a lot of rap–once a powerful vehicle for political commentary–are now mostly distatestful and violent.
Nas says he’ll kill the DJ if hip hop is dead, and I believe him. Nelly says he’s going to rob the jewelery store and have them make him a grill. Really? We’re defending this? Is this really black culture? I don’t think so. That’s why I reference Juan Williams’s book.
Don’t kill people b/c you don’t like the music they play on the radio, and don’t wear gold in your mouth because you look ridiculous and won’t get a job. I don’t care if they’re black, white, or blue; people who wear “gangsta” clothes look threatening. And, consequently, they cause fear … fear that is confirmed by the lyrics of gangsta rap. To overcome that stereotype, the black community should distance itself from gangsta culture, not embrace it.
That’s it, not complicated, and the fears and perceptions I’m talking about are not motivated by race, they’re motivated by a fear of thugs. So, in addition to talking about overt racism, let’s get to the meat of the issue and boycott the industry that teaches young black men to dress and act like criminals.
African Americans weren’t victimized by this party, but rather by the “gangsta” culture that the party mocked.
January 31st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
(Obviously this isn’t a wholesale solution to racial inequality. This is just my answer as to why the deeper problem surrounding this party isn’t the fact of the party but the fact of the stereotype.)
January 31st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
To say that “gangsta” culture does not have a racial overtone to it is like saying jazz or blues music doesn’t have a racial overtone. Jazz and blues were the “devil’s music” until white people starting playing them, and they went mainstream. I don’t think we’re at the point now where “gangsta” is a race-neutral term. You don’t have to be Italian to be in the mafia, but when people hear the terms “organized crime,” “mob,” “gangster,” etc. they generally associate them with Italians. One difference between “gangsta” and “ganster” is that the latter is far more romanticized at this point in our culture. But that wasn’t always the case.
Therefore, if the party was mocking “gangsta” culture, it’s not surprising that people would take such offense, regardless of the intention. Here’s what bothers me the most: it’s not a party-goer’s place to decide who can and cannot (should or should not) be offended by the behavior. You have to respect that people will be offended by things that you may not take any offense to. Did you know that the term “gypped” (as in “cheated”) is a slur against Gypsies? Yet if someone said they “got Jewed,” many people would take offense immediately (even if they weren’t Jewish).
The word “gangsta” itself represent young black urban dialect, just like words such as “playa” and “pimp.” There are culturally defined meanings to these words. If you deny that, then you have also have to assume there’s no difference between “nigga” and “nigger.”
January 31st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
One has to wonder why “Another UConn LR Alum” (AUCLRA) has so much to tell us — but not his/her name. But perhaps that is another discussion for another day.
More to the present point, however, doesn’t it tell you anything about yourself AUCLRA that you declare how sophisticated and nuanced your analysis of racism is, and how deep and anguished your concern about racism is . . . and then you proceed to prescribe a “solution” that is entirely dependent on blaming hip hop culture?
I think it’s a fair criticism that my own perspective does not equally respect all points of view. Because I am not afraid to honestly say that I do not respect all points of view. There is nothing respectable about rich white kids getting together to make a show of stereotypes of poor kids of color. And I don’t respect the point of view that excuses it by saying “They didn’t intend to offend anyone so therefore it is wrong of you to tell them that they have to take responsibility for being racist.”
Kerri referred to it as a minstrel show, which is brilliant because that is the perfect analogy.
Want to see what she means? Watch the classic hollywood holiday classic: “White Christmas” starring Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye. Now, I love old movies and I love Bing and Danny. But there is a scene in the movie in which the stars all get together to put on a show (in a barn, of course), and part of the show is a “minstrel” number.
There it is: white actors in blackface sporting “darky” costumes, physical gestures, affectations, stereotypical utterances, jokes and songs. It’s a different time and place so the specifics are different. But underlying it all is exactly the same spirit as “Bullets and Bubbly”: Aren’t those black folks just side-splittin’ funny with their naive, uneducated and backwards antics?
Nuff said.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Nail on the head there with Peter’s last comment.
I would be foolish to say that I am completely unbiased and objective, because obviously my perspective has been formed through my own experiences, those of my family, those of my friends, and the people in my community in general. And so I am biased when I say that it’s not fair or right that we always have to flip this type of conversation about race and racism onto the people whom are being degraded, mocked, or oppressed. So, instead of fixing the system (and whatever the “system” entails), a system which is largely run by middle- and upper-class white males, those people instead then focus on what the oppressed class can do to “fix” itself. Dress differently, act differently, essentially, be more like white people. Basically, “change yourself to conform, because the rest of us aren’t going to change our points of view.” So, when I have a client in a criminal matter who is from an urban neighborhood and grew up in poverty, and happened to get himself into some trouble, the answer seems to be to tell him “Go to the Gap and stop wearing those thug clothes, get out of that gang, and stop listening to rap music. Maybe then, you can make something of yourself.” I don’t like that solution.
And “minstrel show” was precisely the first term that came to mind when I first saw these pictures. I was unaware of the scene from White Christmas (ironic title, no?) because I’ve only seen the TV version, and that must have been edited out. I would also add Spike Lee’s “Bamboozled” to the weekend movie list. Short plot summary: a well-educated African American writer creates an outrageous modern minstrel show to become successful in America’s white-run media. It’s an interesting social commentary on how both blacks and whites react to the show. Interesting in that, first people are offended by it and aren’t laughing, because they know it’s not right. But it doesn’t take long for people to become numbed to it, and accept it as entertainment.
http://www.bamboozledmovie.com/film/index.html
January 31st, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Another UConn LR Alumn:
As I mentioned before, I certainly agree that the music industry, and pop-culture industry more broadly help fuel these stereotypes. In fact, to not agree would be to deny an empirical reality, as would be the case to deny that a great number of our urban brothers and sisters are black, Hispanic, and poor. It’s also a fact that they are seen as a market and/or to be marketed, by advertisers and industry. These three positions would be very difficult to refute, and I’m sure you would agree. What I find upsetting in your argument though, is a lack of awareness with the role of inequality, deprivation and discrimination in ruining and starving the same urban, black, Hispanic, and poor people that we both agree are being exploited for profit.
The deprivation that our urban, black, Hispanic and poor friends experience produces an environment in which children, adolescents, and to a lesser degree adults, increasingly turn to violence to get by. This includes many of the things you mention as ridiculous in comment 41. Though there are many significant differences, similar things existed in the early 1900s as poor Italians, Irish, and Jews immigrated to the U.S. For many, it was not uncommon to be in positions that resulted in physical violence. In fact, many had to be aggressive and overly defensive, for if nothing else, a survival mechanism. It is precisely these social circumstances and their consequences that are not weaved into your defense of the party and your overall position. Violence, guns, pregnant teens, high policing, racists laws (fueled by stereotypes and the industry we both agree is exploitive and racist), and incredibly unequal imprisonment rates (sprouting the baggy pants phenomenon, and fueled by that same industry we both agree we should boycott), are all symptoms of deprived and controlled communities that lack money, services, support, encouragement, acceptance, inclusion and love.
For a highly visible, and highly marketed number of urban, black, Hispanic and poor teen-agers and twenty-something adults, the lack of, and need for, such inclusion, respect, and love among all people is expressed in many of the behaviors mocked at the party, and that you find ridiculous. To state that “[t]hese students were not making judgments based on skin color, they were making one based on “gangsta” culture” shows a lack of understanding why some urban, poor, black, and Hispanic young men and women resort to guns, sex, and violence, and how industries feed it to us around the clock. If you are to understand what you call “gangsta” culture you must first understand the deeper reasons as to why it exists as it does, and how it keeps going.
The broader issue with your argument though is that it appears to lack an understanding of historical and current oppression and exploitation through deprivation, carelessness, and profit. You’re also lacking a solid understanding of systemic and institutionaized racism, and how they link to the very things you find ridiculous (and being black does not automatically make one aware of these things). To be clear though, I’m not saying you have to like the things you don’t like. I don’t like hearing anyone say they’re going to kill someone, even if it is a DJ, nor do I like flashy or “in your face stuff” (which, by the way, is certainly not a fair representation of hip-hop fans and performers overall). But the effects of deprivation, exploitation and control on the opportunities, socialization, and growth of many of our urban friends will spread in predictable and understandable ways. You can be sure to see more violence and aggression, and when there’s a news industry, larger media industry and larger popular culture industry pushing it, you’ll be sure to see it some how, even if you’re not interested. If these connections were understood more thoroughly I’d argue that significantly fewer people would feel a “gangsta” themed party is a good idea. Instead, they’d probably show more empathy, and some might even work towards fixing it.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:33 am
Steve,
I acknowledge all of what you’re saying as true. I understand more of the history of systemic racism and hip-hop culture than you might think, not only from taking classes on both subjects in college, but from the distinct pleasure of working with students at Hartford Public High School.
Let me be clear whom I don’t blame. I’m not suggesting that an African American boy from Vine Street should one day abandon his baggy clothes and hip hop albums. I understand why young blacks often have to look “tough,” because looking anything tough in some neighborhoods would make them a victim of some pretty serious physical harm. The problem is that a vicious cycle perpetuates itself. Gangsta rap doesn’t exist in a vacuum–it’s origins are reality. At the same time it speaks the truth of street life, it also reinforces it.
Meanwhile, it’s hard to tell rational white people, who have not grown up on the tough streets, to disassociate the media portrayal of violence and “thug” life or gangsta life or whatever. So when that culture is embraced by the black community, it appears threatening. And frankly, that’s what it’s supposed to do.
So, I understand how institutionalized racism links the things I find ridiculous, but I still find them ridiculous, as does pretty much anybody who is in a position to offer me or you or most people a job. Mind you, I would say the exact same thing to somebody who is part of “skater” culture, and wears the clothes associated with that genre, or somebody who is “goth.”
(As an aside, I have a colleague who throughout college sported pink hair and a nose ring. A professor talked to her about appearances and the fact that, while he knew she was brilliant, others would underestimate her beause of how she dressed. I said the exact same thing to the students at Hartford Public whom I was mentoring. Putting the origins of the dress and its racial implications aside, that was good advice.)
Also, I should point out that I agree with you that our criminal justice system is extraordinarily biased. I completely agree that issues that would be treated by medical professionals in wealthy communities are handled by police in poor ones. I firmly believe that we should decriminalize drug use in order to both cut the street value and provide for counseling and treatment. We should certainly end the disparity between the treatment of crack and cocaine. And as long as these drugs are illegal, we should start raiding the wealthy suburban homes where so many drugs are consumed.
But just as I don’t blame the black kids who grew up here, I also don’t blame the white ones who didn’t. They’re victims of their own privilege in a different way, and it doesn’t address the roots of the stereotypes to convince them that they’re making fun of black people when they weren’t! We disagree on this point. I respect your opinion and you don’t mine, so let’s just put that one to rest.
Incidentally, I appreciate the option to remain anonymous on this message board. It’s not because I am ashamed of my view or secretly know it’s wrong. I simply recognize that it’s unpopular and, moreover, disrespected. What I am saying is easier explained than understood. I think we all support free speech, and remaining anonymous has allowed me to be freer in my speech and given you the opportunity to lambaste my views.
Also, the opinions I have expressed–though they may seem to be–are not cemented. I have valued this discussion b/c it’s caused me to think harder about these issues, and I will continue to do so. I am not prepared to defend these views forever, because I may not hold them forever. You may find me closed-minded, but I am not. I just need to challenge your viewpoint before I embrace it.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:48 am
Toes sez:
“So, when I have a client in a criminal matter who is from an urban neighborhood and grew up in poverty, and happened to get himself into some trouble, the answer seems to be to tell him ‘Go to the Gap and stop wearing those thug clothes, get out of that gang, and stop listening to rap music. Maybe then, you can make something of yourself.’ I don’t like that solution.”
Absolutel. I would also argue that the worst part of that “solution” isn’t that it’s premised on the youth in trouble with the law making something of him/herself. The worst part is that what it communicates is that if you, young kid in trouble, dress up and make yourself up and present yourself to look like my idea of respectable, then I will respect you. Corrolary: I have no obligation to respect you as you are.
Here, too, the question of race and racism collides with issues of class. Most of the authority figures in a poor kid’s life (teachers, principals, police officers, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, social workers, psychologists) are going to be white. Virtually all are going to be middle class and most will have come from the middle class themselves. Some will have struggled with understanding their own privilege; most have not.
The youth who comes in front of these authority figures wearing a style of clothes or jewelry or hair or body modification or whatever that is associated with his or her community (ghetto, barrio, white trash, take your pick) is instantly suspect. Plenty of judges chew out these kids for showing up in court not “properly” dressed. What makes a suit and a tie proper? Don’t we know that criminals also wear suits and ties, and that anyway there is no such thing as an illegal piece of jewelry or a criminal pair of pants? And anyway who gets to make these rules about propriety but the very people who stand in judgment over these kids because of their race and class privilege?
February 1st, 2007 at 10:57 am
Peter,
What you’re saying about appearance reminds me of the struggle that some meet when just trying to get into the job market. A person has no well-paying job, hence no funds for “respectable clothing,” which leads to an improper appearance during that interview. So, no matter how qualified, friendly, and intelligent that candidate is, if the potential employer pays attention to things like collars and ties, he might not be the top pick for the job.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Another UConn Law School Alum,
I agree that the white kids at the party should be cut some slack because it seems that their intentions were not to mock African Americans nor were they motivated by racism. What they didn’t think through is that their behavior might offend some people who were suspicious of their intentions.
Peter and Kerri,
The analogy of the minstrel shows doesn’t work for me. Anybody who has gone to public school in the last 20-30 years has received a fairly steady dose of sensitivity to race and ethnic stereotypes. Young folks are much hipper to this stuff than pre- civil rights audiences. And a dose of Spike Lee helps us white folks to try to do the right thang.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I am amazed at the amount of commentary on this particular event. I can’t watch the super bowl, I attend few parties and I cant’ forget Vietnam. Vietnam is over, and over and over…I see only the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and am twisted by the arrogance of Americans who live their lives untouched and unconcerned by the killing. Many of you on this blog have worked hard to end the senseless killing in Iraq and I commend you for that. Please forgive my obvious pain.
dave ionno
February 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“Anybody who has gone to public school in the last 20-30 years has received a fairly steady dose of sensitivity to race and ethnic stereotypes. Young folks are much hipper to this stuff than pre- civil rights audiences.”
I’m not sure about that. I mean, yes, students are generally taught that civil rights are right and bigotry is wrong, but that doesn’t mean the message leaves the classroom with the students. I used to do some work at my old high school, and I heard lots of anti-Hispanic, anti-Middle Eastern, and anti-black commentary in the halls from members of the primarily white student body. Soooo, what I’m saying is that because most authorities (at least in CT) condemn racism, this generation should know, intellectually, that perpetuating racial stereotypes is fucked up. But when they act like douchebags anyway, there aren’t always serious consequences to reinforce the theory that racism is wrong. Theory without action remains just theory.
(Jim, remind me to tell you sometime the stories I have about what some white students have said about people of color when there weren’t any non-white people present for them to feel worried about offending.)
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Kerri, I will take your word for it. You are privy to what Generation Next( or whatever they are called) is saying and doing way more than I am. I am sorry to hear that “ignunt chirrens” are still being turned out by “they ignunt parents”. Say, how about we forget about all this and go see Shirley Q. Liquor at Chez Est?
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Dave,
I agree that the war shit is higher up on the scale of fucked up things Americans are doing.
The time for writing shit against the war has run its course. It is now time to monkeywrench the war machine in whatever ways we can.
Code Pink has a great idea. They want to organize occupations of Congressmen’s offices to show them what an occupation feels like. I am down with that. And while we are occupying offices, maybe we could eat at the Senate cafeteria and work out in their gyms.
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Another Uconn LR Alumn:
Yes, we are in agreement with many of the major points, and please don’t feel disrespected on this board. Keep in mind that there are many people here who care greatly about the inequalities in our society, work hard to understand them, and do their part to address them. Often though, there are few avenues to express this in any public forum, so when the opportunity comes up many of us will jump at it, as you’ve cleary noticed. Finally, I don’t care if you remain anonymous, I think it makes for a more honest debate and reflection.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Wow! What an awesome discussion on race. Damn do we need it too. This is the issue that has us so divided that we can’t get healthcare for all, we can’t stop the war, or win a living wage.
So who has to start dealing with it? White people. People of color already have/already do. For way too long we’ve (whites) been taking a free ride on this. We need to begin to step it up a bit. Our generic response to the entire theme of racism is “don’t call me a racist!”
And should that come as a surprise? We as whites hear the word “racist” and we conjure up notions of the Ku klux klan etc….but I would submit that you could take away all of the white supremacist organizations and still have a system about as hurtful to people of color as we have today.
In other words it’s the innocuous whites who practice institutional racism (without any bad intentions) that are causing 95% of the harm.
But I would request that for just one minute we don’t get defensive. We simply ask: does the system of racism help us or hurt us—as whites? (I assume we all agree it hurts people of color).
The CT Caucus for Whites Against Racism asked that of ourselves and found some pretty strong arguments as to why we need to step up the fight against racism:
1. While racism super-oppresses people of color—it divides us all—and keeps us from getting healthcare, paid family leave, decent social security, worker’s comp—or being able to stop the war. All of the basic things that we all need because of the colorline—created through racism.
2. We as whites lose a part of ourselves—we give up our culture in order to be white.
3. The dehumanization of racism reaches us too. For example: this country is so pervaded by stereotypes of the violent black man—that we pass dehumanizing laws that say we should imprison drug addicts—not give them treatment. So our racist criminal justice system imprisons people of color for doing drugs (whites usually don’t go). And whites are neglected—the rate of white overdose is much higher than it is for people of color. Poor whites can’t afford treatment—don’t get caught by the law—and keep using till they die.
I think the extent to which we (white folks) can really internalize how racism hurts whites—and is something critical to win on for us.—will be the extent to which we step up—like Peter Goselin has, and say: Good intention/bad intention—it doesn’t matter—we need to address it and change it.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 am
[…] Apparently blackface is the new black. But unlike iPods and YouTube, I just can’t get behind this trend. However, if you loved “Bullets and Bubbly,” just wait–there is a similar display of bad taste at best, racism and classism at worst, coming to Hartford real soon. Don’t try googling news items. As of 8:40 this morning, the only listing you’ll find about this is from the Hartford Courant. Every day my commitment to alternative media is renewed by reminders like this that the media can set the agenda by simply not reporting, nevermind the lack of factchecking and bias involved in the content when they do cover a story. […]
February 7th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
THIS event is the reason why Michael Richards “Kramer” could say what he did, and still come away thinking he was not racist. So many people make jokes about other groups with their friends, and think its ok, because they may be friends with someone who is a member of that group. They don’t stop to correct each other, they don’t say, hey man, that’s out of line. They see no problem with it, until one of them, like Mike Richards flips out, and all that stuff he’d been joking about with his buddies comes out, leaving everyone, including himself, shocked. They will say oh he’s never said anything like that before, he’s not racist. Yes he is and yes he did, every time he made a joke about African-Americans to his buddies and they all laughed, or someone else made a joke, and he laughed with them.
Don’t be upset that others are upset with you for attending that party, or that they now suspect you of being racist. You shouldn’t have had that party, you shouldn’t have gone to that party. By the way, you shouldn’t have made those jokes either.
Wake up, if you don’t want to be a labeled a racist, then stop talking the talk, and stop walking the walk.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
You are a bunch of politically correct weenies.
Why don’t you spend your time and energy bringing attention to something important, like the genocide in Darfur, instead of whining about being “offended” by ill-conceived humour. The femininization of America continues. While we divide ourselves protesting hurt feelings, the rest of the world is passing us by economically and politically. Can you imagine universities in China, India, Japan or Europe being ground to a halt by such minutia?
February 14th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
James Joseph:
Any slight inclination I had to actually take your post seriously was quashed by your use of “feminization” as an insult.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
He actually lost my respect at “weenies.”
February 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
As a law student (not at UConn), I find this discussion may have overlooked an important, but subtle, difference between an offensive act and a racist one. As many realize, offensive acts need not be racist, and racist acts need not be offensive. On the other hand, offensive acts may be racist, and racist acts may be offensive. Though I am no authority on the definition of racism, my general impression is that a racist judges people not on the basis of their character, but by the color of their skin. Similarly, I am no authority on what actions are and are not offensive, but my general idea was that an event / action is offensive if someone finds it personally objectionable.
Many find the activities of others offensive. For example, many find the multiple wars against persons, many of whom are of Middle Eastern heritage to be offensive. Hopefully, intelligent law professors and students will not label those involved with the wars racists based on that alone.
February 18th, 2007 at 12:03 am
I am happy to see an honest discussion on this topic because I have failed to see one, until recently, within the actual student community. Among the student body the issue has turned more towards condemning the publicity that followed the party (and lets face it, there was only minimal media coverage and it has long dissipated) and attacking those who want further action and discussion.
I am deeply saddened that the real issues this party shined a light on are being overshadowed by those trying to save their own skin. The party was an exercise in racism and classism. I believe that those attending the party did not intend to mock black stereotypes. However, the fact remains that these people with privilege felt comfortable dressing up in attire that looked down upon an underprivileged group. I find it hard to believe that someone dressed up garnishing fake guns and pretending to be pregnant while drinking 40’s because they admired hip-hop and “gangsta” culture and music and wanted to pay homage to it.
The students who attended this party go to a good school that should be preparing smart people for very important and public careers in law, government, etc. These issues shouldn’t be put on a shelf somewhere to gather dust until the students who attended this party graduate and secure good jobs. Frankly, I don’t really care if this wrecks anyone’s future career because they should have known better.
The party already happened, there’s nothing we can do to change that. We have to now deal with the aftermath and turn it into something positive for the school, its students, and for the community as a whole. The SBA representatives who attended the party have barely said more than an insincere apology that people took offense to their actions – they did not seem to regard their actions as wrong or have even tried to create a real and lasting dialogue on campus about the issues of race, class, and inequality. These people are not positively representing the school, nor the student body and though asked by several students to step down, they have not done so.
UConn and its students are in a wonderful position to use this negative event to create positive change. SBA reps, do something worthwhile or step down. The rest of the student body and administration should work their butts off to keep talking about this. These issues are ones everyone in this country face each day – UConn should address them. Create a class on inequality, do a forum on race each semester, sponsor a study on these issues in the law and create a curriculum around it. Make your school a leader in addressing inequality in law. Don’t simply ignore the issues and refuse to have consequences, this only condones them and further perpetuates privilege and racism.
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:45 am
hi guys…
hi guysI would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well and i have start my own blog now, , thanks for your effort…