By avoiding direct confrontation, aggressors stifle campus race dialogue
By avoiding direct confrontation, aggressors stifle campus race dialogue
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
It’s that time of the year again, when yet another nasty race issue comes to the Lux. (i.e., the use of blackface and Native American costumes on Halloween and the graffiti found on the wall outside of Pierson College.)
My big question is: Why?
Why do these hurtful and demeaning acts persist year after year, after people of color have, in suite, expressed their intolerance for racist slogans, costumes — you-name-it forms of racism? People just don’t seem to get it.
I was having a conversation about the race issues on campus with a good friend of mine a couple of nights ago over dinner. I was trying to explain to her exactly why blackface and Native American costumes were offensive to people of color and why they shouldn’t be tolerated. After our long talk, she was still having a difficult time understanding why these things would be so offensive. She thought that, maybe, people of color were just too sensitive about these issues. To put things more for her simply, I laid out a scenario.
It’s as if one day I just went up to you and said:
“You know? You’re really ugly.”
To which you might respond with great confusion, silence or a:
“Wait, what? That’s really mean. Don’t say that.”
“Why, it’s the truth … I mean a joke.”
“But that’s really hurtful.”
And I’d casually say:
“Ehh, you’re being oversensitive. Get over it, wuss!”
And then, the conversation would be truncated, nothing would be resolved, your feelings would stay hurt and you’d certainly be angry.
For me, that’s kind of how this “dialogue” on race goes at Yale.
Anytime there is any sort of conference held to discuss the various incidents of racism or bigotry on campus, the only people who show up are the people who were offended or those who feel these acts were a disgrace to the Yale community. The “offenders,” thus, never get to hear from any of the people they hurt. I am not so naive as to believe that a simple dialogue would put all race issues at Yale to bed, but it would be a healthy start to healing some wounds.
So that you further understand what I mean, think about it this way: If a tree falls down in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it really make a sound? The answer, at least for our Yale dialogues, is no.
Students of color and supporters can discuss these racial conflicts all they want among themselves (or with President Levin) and nothing will ever change; it is only when we actually have participants from other perspectives that our message will actually have a chance to be heard and even be received.
Not giving us a chance to discuss these issues of race in a personal forum is more dehumanizing than the actual acts of racism themselves. By standing us up, you are not only insulting us — you are denying us a voice through which you may come to understand our grievances. We don’t want to yell at you, we just want you to listen. But more than anything else, we would like a real dialogue.
Gustavo Gutierrez, the father of liberation theology, gave a talk here this weekend. He said one of the most amazing things I’ve ever heard — “Friendship supposes equality.” To become friends, we must first meet and talk. Once you see us as a friend, equal to you in every way, you will treat us as a friend instead of an “other.” That is to say, when you see us as a friend, you will hopefully treat us with the same dignity and respect with which you treat your good friends. Hopefully this friendship and new awareness will allow you to clearly see that those comments you made, though seemingly inoffensive to you, are offensive to me. And hopefully, our friendship — and the respect that comes with friendship — will be reason enough for you to stand in solidarity with me, instead of against me.
With friendship in mind, I invite you to attend the various discussions on race being held all around campus this week.
Emily Polanco-Barahona is a senior in Morse College.
Comments
None 4 years, 6 months ago
The idea of the 300 word preamble stating why one view is wrong in opening a dialogue reminds me of the hate speech forum last fall. And we all know how well that didn't go. Oops. In that sense, yeah, racists are holding up dialogue because they're not conforming to beliefs expected to them. But then the dialogue wouldn't be about finding middle ground, it would be a ritualistic affirmation of an opinion we all share.
None 4 years, 6 months ago
All of these comments are sidelining the issue. Polanco-Barahona's point stands: the rally yesterday was comprised in vast majority by students who felt offended and not by the Yale community at large (let's get away from the binary of offenders and offended... there are many more students who think this is a non-issue or have never thought about it than actual offenders). This attendance scenario is lamentably similar to that of many racism dialogues on campus. In addition to denouncing them, the administration's role should also be to formally confront them (and if appropriate, discipline).
The offended are understandably hurt, angry and perhaps as biased as the offenders. I can see how dialogues in which they are the vast majority can be threatening. I therefore commend Dean Gentry for moving to clarify policy on acts of hatred in the undergraduate regulations because this is a step in the right direction. When we can start bringing these cases to a real grievance committee (hopefully nothing like MAC from what I hear), then people will have to listen and face the facts. Then, we will have a real dialogue. Had I been able to refer to clearer stances on behalf of the University on these issues, it probably would have been more difficult for me to rationalize my behavior the way I did.
On that note, people have taken issue with the tone in my piece because they read me as if I were a completely different person before and after I donned blackface. They failed to realize the complexities in my perspective. If you project this issue onto somebody else by thinking of it as futile or refuting it all together, you've lost the point of Polanco-Barahona's piece as well. You're denying something we all possess: contradiction.
I am amused by how comfortable people are getting behind their computer screens. If you don't sign your name, I wonder whether we should take you seriously.
Reny Diaz, SY 2008
None 4 years, 6 months ago
I understand the frustration behind this piece, but the argument made is a little confusing. I'm not sure that kids that, for whatever reason, don't find blackface etc offensive would feel more enthusiastic to show up for a dialogue if the invitation to explain their indifference has a 300 word preamble explaining exactly why their position is wrong and insensitive to begin with. That's already less a dialogue than it is a demand to have the offending party defend themselves for being on the wrong side of a black and white (pun intended) issue.
If genuine conversation really was what the author was after, a more judgment-free approach to the invitation would have made more sense. I find blackface offensive too, but I'm not going to assume everybody is coming from the same ideals, historical knowledge, background etc as me.
A guy I know went as "the i-Pod Man" for Halloween. He was painted black all over (with an iPod on). It would be pretty ironic if THIS was the blackface incident referenced (obviously, there's no way to know exactly who and where wore "blackface"), since he is an international student that just wanted to go as the black-silhoutted guy in the commercials.
None 4 years, 6 months ago
I don't believe that this was the black face incident that the op ed is referring to as other students donned blackface to dress up as people like Michael Vicks and Tiger Woods.
None 4 years, 6 months ago
I don't think you can equate blackface with Native American costumes, because the particular offensiveness of blackface comes from the historical context of minstrel shows. While dressing up as an Indian might be facially equivalent, the historical context makes blackface a lot worse.
Other than that, I agree with you.
Why hasn't anyone suggested this as a quick and dirty solution to this problem:
http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/3095
"Yale Should Revoke Special Admissions for Athletes"
But athletes should be required to meet the same standards as all other applicants and students. If the 35 students that the football staff demands be admitted cannot get admitted without that special priority, they should not be at Yale.
None 4 years, 6 months ago
Really? None of the "offenders" have ever gone to a race forum? I find that hard to believe since I know several people on the staffs of the Rumpus, the Herald, and the Record who attended the race forums that were held after those publications' respective incidents. From what I understand, they took quite a drubbing too. And look at the results: those publications all issued apologies and have since shown more racial sensitivity. I'm not saying we should applaud what perhaps should have been expected in the first place, but let's give credit where it's due, or at least let's have the decency to refrain from making blatantly false blanket statements like "none of the offenders ever show up to campus race dialogues."
None 4 years, 6 months ago
To the poster from 9:55 am who wrote...
"Why hasn't anyone suggested this as a quick and dirty solution to this problem:
http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/3095
"Yale Should Revoke Special Admissions for Athletes"
First, are you somehow suggesting that Athletes are the sole, or even predominate perpetrators of racism and bigotry at Yale? If one is to make such an audacious claim, I certainly hope you have some empirical evidence that would suggest this is somehow the cause beyond a few first hand accounts. As a former yale athlete ('07) I find it ridiculous to believe that you somehow think the yale sports community, perhaps the most racially/ethnically integrated and inclusive community at yale, is somehow responsible for any and all racism at Yale. I believe you should use more discretion in the future when you post a blanket statement as such.
Secondly, are you also suggesting that Yale athletes all receive special treatment in order to be admitted? In my own graduating year in my sport (15) there were at least 5 valedictorians alone I know of, with the rest of the team all possessing exemplary academic records. I also had the pleasure of rooming with two football players my first two years at Yale. Both possessed stellar academic credentials and there is no way anyone could have questioned their admission into school.
While I will not dispute that I am not so naive to think that every athlete who is admitted has 1600 SAT scors and 5s on every AP Test, I think you buy into the common claim that yale athletes get a leg up in admissions too heavily. If you are so strongly against anyone being admitted into Yale as "special priorities", should you also have something to say against affirmative action in general?
If I misinterpreted your remarks, my sincere apologies, but if i did indeed interprete your post correctly, I think you are extremely off base in your accusations.
None 4 years, 6 months ago
Quick note- I meant to put "None" in scare quotes, not offenders.
None 4 years, 6 months ago
Ms. Polano-Barahola isn't being clear with her language. "Dialogue" and "discussion" are not what she wants. Lecturing and sermonizing is what she means, as shown by the one-sided conversation with her dinner partner. The idea that there's oversensitivity to raw and unpoliced language is, apparently, completely, obviously, and inarguably wrong.
What kind of "discussion" is it when the interlocutor has no chance of making a point?
None 4 years, 6 months ago
"First, are you somehow suggesting that Athletes are the sole, or even predominate perpetrators of racism and bigotry at Yale?"
Sole no, predominant yes.
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have any empirical evidence besides the Kat Lo incident (football players), some things that have appeared in the Rumpus, and my own personal experiences talking to people and overhearing their conversations. But why is empirical evidence (of which none exists publicly, I'm sure) necessary? Why can't I rely on my own personal experiences to form an opinion? You can feel free to contradict me, but you don't have any "empirical evidence" either, only generalizations.
(By the way, who were the wearers of blackface? I don't know but would like to find out.)
"Secondly, are you also suggesting that Yale athletes all receive special treatment in order to be admitted?"
No, not all, but many. I don't think this is really debatable. Do I think removing special treatments for athletes in admissions would completely cure this problem? Probably not. But have recruited athletes been responsible for most similar instances in my experience? Yes. Do I think there are lots of highly "qualified" recruited athletes? Of course, most are. While the vast majority of student athletes I know are people I am or would want to be friends with, however, athletes are also the instigators of some of these incidents, and specifically the Kat Lo break-in.
Note that I didn't write that article--someone else did. I guess I was trying to get people thinking, even though it does (somewhat) reflect my own opinions.
More to the point - if you think that recruited athletes are NOT the predominant perpetrators of these kinds of instances, why don't you say so outright?
None 4 years, 6 months ago
I am aware that you didn't write the article. I was responding specifically to the part of your first post when you wrote
"Why hasn't anyone suggested this as a quick and dirty solution to this problem"
"Yale Should Revoke Special Admissions for Athletes"
By writing that you insinuated that the racial problems at Yale would be solved simply by cutting the recruiting of athletes. Maybe I did not make myself clear, but I thought by what I had said made it crystal clear that I do not believe yale athletes are the predominant perpetrators of these kinds of instances. If not, I am saying it right now.
While I do not dispute that there have been instances where athletes have been involved, what I took exception to was your claim that all such problems would cease just by eliminating the recruitment of athletes. That is absolutely erroneous. I just finished four years at Yale last spring and I don't know about you but I kept company with a very diverse group of people - sports team, fraternity, political groups, society, as well as rooming with 4 international students...From my experiences I did not find these issues surfacing in one group more often than the other. I saw the good, the bad, and the ugly from all sects at Yale and to lump all athletes together as even the main instigators of such events does not reflect the truth of the situation and is a gorss generalization.
I will give you that there are some instances where athletes may indeed get a leg up in admissions, however, being a part of the recruiting process for my team I know this is the exception to the rule. Also would you mind answering my other question. You said you are against "special priorities"...would you clarify if this just means athletes or would this include all minority groups who often receive a helping hand in the admission process?
Or login with:
OpenID