As if Foxgate wasn’t giving me enough blog material on the topic of press freedom this week, now the Student Bar Association here at Notre Dame Law School is threatening to censor its satirical bathroom newsletter, the Patty O’Herald (named after — and often targeted at — Dean Patty O’Hara), because of an “offensive” article in this week’s issue about a white 1L who joins the Black Law Students Association because he thinks it’s “fly.” Earlier this afternoon, we got the following e-mail from the SBA’s president:
Dear NDLS,
Good afternoon. I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in my capacity as the President of SBA, and also as an individual who cares deeply about the law school community. On behalf of the SBA I apologize to anyone whose feelings were hurt as a direct result of content contained within this week’s issue of the Patty O’Herald. I deeply regret that this occurred. There was absolutely no intent to offend any member of the Notre Dame Law School community. I also extend an apology to those who have been offended by any of the articles published in the Patty O’ this semester.
As a bathroom publication, the Patty O’ is a satirical look at situations that confront the law school community. It is not published with any ill intent, nor is it meant to target any group or individual. Despite SBA’s good intentions at offering comedic relief, it is clear that the Patty O’, on more than one occasion, has been read as offensive. Therefore, the SBA will be re-evaluating the Patty O’Herald over the holiday break to determine how it can better serve its purpose.
Obviously, this isn’t nearly as big of a deal as the Daily Trojan controversy. That involves official meddling in the internal affairs of the student newspaper at a university with one of the nation’s best journalism schools; this is voluntary self-censorship by a student organization that produces a silly law-school bathroom newsletter. As such, this isn’t really a battle over “press freedom,” per se. Still, I think the SBA’s position is kinda lame.
It’s not like the article in question contained any material that could be mistaken for a Michael Richards rant. I thought it was pretty funny, and like many things in the Patty O’Herald (which has been much edgier — and funnier — this semester than in past years), falls under the category of “jokes that thin-skinned people might be offended by, and that’s just too bad.” Unfortunately, the P.C. police almost always win such debates if the offended people complain loudly enough.
I mean no disrespect to those who take offense. What bothers me isn’t their sensibilities, but their attempt to impose those sensibilities on me. My attitude toward such things is analogous to the “change the channel” principle: if you’re offended by it, don’t read it! It’s different when something is so objectively offensive that huge numbers of people are upset, but I get annoyed when a small but vocal group of easily offended people is allowed to impose its mores on the rest of us.
Anyway, to foster an informed debate, and to allow people to tell me I’m an idiot if they disagree and think it’s horribly offensive (I do have a rather “anything goes” sense of humor, admittedly), I’ve posted the article in full after the jump.
Caucasian 1L Thinks It’s “Fly” He Joined BLSA
Inspired by the law school diversity training program, a Caucasian 1L has joined BLSA, the Black Law Students Association, in an effort to expand his interaction with minority students.
“I learned a few things in the diversity training, but the club has really opened my eyes,” the student, who goes by the nickname P-Dizzle, said. “One member spent time explaining Chris Rock jokes to me, and another promised to teach me the secret Q-Dawg handshake.”
Not everyone is as thrilled as P-Dizzle with his membership in BLSA. “Of course, we welcome persons of all stripes into our club,” BLSA spokesman Richard Warren said, sighing with exasperation. “P-Dizzle certainly has enthusiasm, but his understanding of African-American culture seems to stem largely from antiquated stereotypes and caricatures of hip-hop culture. An open and honest dialogue about diversity might help to counter his unrealistic view of other cultures.”
To “ease his integration into the club,” P-Dizzle spent much of fall break watching reruns of “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air” and “That’s So Raven” to hone his “flowcabulary” skills. “I’m confident I can relate to the issues facing BLSA,” P-Dizzle said. “The Federalist Society says most BLSA members wouldn’t be at NDLS if it weren’t for Grutter v. Bollinger. To encourage BLSA members, I’ll use phrases like ‘You go, girl’ and to show my surprise when they get an answer wrong I’ll shout ‘Oh no you didn’t!’”
“From the first day everyone in the club has been very welcoming,” P-Dizzle said. “They all express an interest in my heritage, asking me what it’s like to get a sunburn and how I built up my phat collection of Billy Ray Cyrus memorabilia.”
When asked about the group, Patty O’Hara was stunned to learn that BLSA is not a club for students interested in carpentry. “We encourage students to involve themselves in alternative trades in the likely event that they never achieve legal employment, and woodworking is a noble craft,” the Dean said, before being told of her mistake.
“I’m looking forward to my very first Kwanza,” P-Dizzle said. “One of my new friends promised to buy me the new Ron Artest album, and I’m going to ask my mom for some new rims. I can’t wait to drive into the Fischer Grad parking lot next semester rolling on dubs, ya heard!”
Now, I’m not sure what person or group expressed offense at this article. It seems to me that, if anyone should be offended, it would be Patty O’Hara, with the Federalist Society a close second. If it was African-American students who were offended, that would truly baffle me, since the article is clearly making fun of stereotypes (and of white people who hold those stereotypes), not making fun of African-Americans.
In any event, while not the most hilarious thing I’ve ever read, I think it’s pretty funny and not objectively over-the-top offensive. It’s unfortunate that this will probably be the last “edgy” issue of the Patty O’Herald this semester, as it’s been a real treat to have some actual non-bland humor to read in the john this semester.
UPDATE: I can now confirm that African-American students — specifically, BLSA members — are the ones making a ruckus over this. I really don’t understand that. The article does not make fun of black people. It makes fun of stereotypes about black people. The difference is rather crucial.
What’s really distressing is that individual students, acting on their own initiative and without any formal authorization, have apparently been removing the newsletter from the bathrooms in an attempt to censor it. I hope we can all agree, whatever we think of the article in question, that unilaterally removing it from public view is not the appropriate response. I’m disappointed that SBA, in its zeal to apologize as abjectly as possible, couldn’t spare even a sentence to castigate those who would take such matters into their own censorious hands.
UPDATE 2: Lisa explains in comments:
The part people were complaining about is the second to last paragraph. For those of you who don’t go to NDLS, you have to know that the Black Law Students Association is abbreviated “BLSA” and pronounced “balsa.” Knowing that balsa is a type of wood, I immediately got the joke, and I did not see it as being at all offensive. If anyone should be offended by that paragraph, it should be Dean O’Hara. I’m sure there were just one or two people that either don’t know about balsa wood, or else didn’t make the connection, and stupidly thought it was trying to say that black people should be carpenters or something like that, which we all know is absolutely ridiculous.
|
Categories: Notre Dame, Law School
|
December 1st, 2006 at 4:03:20 pm
oiy… wait, could that be miss construed… Suggestion to the people complaining, don’t see Borat your delicate sensibilities will be so threatened your head will explode.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:24:06 pm
As I see it, the Patty O’Herald controversy is more about press freedom than the Daily Trojan controversy, which is smelling more and more like a power struggle than anything else.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:34:30 pm
Best Patty-O teaser:
“Prof. Finnis questions theological validity of Bauer Torah”
On second reading, I can imagine O’Hara or the Federalists complaining as easily–if not easier–than I can imagine BLSA complaining, though the SBA letter doesn’t make it clear that anyone actually did complain. I wonder if perhaps the administration contacted the SBA preemptively, out of concern that it would be offensive?
In any event, the 3rd and 6th grafs make it pretty clear to me that the object of scorn is latent (and, as veterans of the diversity training seminars or xoxo boards know, occasionally patent) racism at Notre Dame. Given the overwhelming whiteness and maleness of this year’s admitted class, it’s not a big secret that the administration has been sleeping on the job. Taking down Patty-O articles that skewer them for it seems counterproductive.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:46:23 pm
Brendan, I’m shocked. The Weather Nerd has nothing to say about the ’storm’ hitting the Mid-West? Shame on you!
December 1st, 2006 at 4:56:22 pm
The part people were complaining about is the second to last paragraph. For those of you who don’t go to NDLS, you have to know that the Black Law Students Association is abbreviated “BLSA” and pronounced “balsa.” Knowing that balsa is a type of wood, I immediately got the joke, and I did not see it as being at all offensive. If anyone should be offended by that paragraph, it should be Dean O’Hara. I’m sure there were just one or two people that either don’t know about balsa wood, or else didn’t make the connection, and stupidly thought it was trying to say that black people should be carpenters or something like that, which we all know is absolutely ridiculous. I personally thought the most potentially-offensive paragraph was the fourth one, but that’s just my opinion.
What’s ridiculous is that some woman (I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a guy) went through all the stalls in the women’s restroom and took all the copies down just shortly after they’d been put up. I finally had to ask my boyfriend to get me one from the men’s restroom yesterday so I could read it and find out what this was all about. Taking down something that you did not put up, just because you didn’t understand a joke, is incredibly juvenile. Not only does it prevent people from being involved in the dialogue, but it deprives them of other very entertaining material (the other “articles” were quite funny, and no one is complaining about them).
December 1st, 2006 at 5:24:24 pm
The story kinda reminds me of the Dinkin Flicka episode of The Office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW2wFbwOlCk
December 1st, 2006 at 5:26:55 pm
That article’s absolutely hilarious! So wait, does this actually go in the door of the stalls of the bathrooms?
December 1st, 2006 at 5:38:31 pm
UPDATE: The following statement is false: “I can now confirm that African-American students â€â€? specifically, BLSA members â€â€? are the ones making a ruckus over this.” You heard me, Christopher Hayes, an African-American student discussing the Patty O’ article with another African-American student. Apprently, you were too busy eavesdropping with your nose burried in your Mac to realize that neither I or the student who I was discussing the article with, is a member of BLSA. Although, to my dismay, I do agree with some of your comments about the article, your grounds for claiming that BLSA members caused this ruckus are not supported by the record. If for some reason I am mistaken about your source for the above stated information, I apologize. If I am not however, maybe this message will serve as a signal 1) that you should not be so quick to make assumptions concerning group affiliation and race or 2) that you should be man enough to actively take place in the discussions that you write about to ensure that your “news” is correct before placing your foot in your mouth.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:47:47 pm
If for some reason I am mistaken about your source for the above stated information, I apologize.
I accept your apology then.
Although I did overhear portions of your conversation (I wasn’t “eavesdropping,” I just happened to be in the room as the conversation was occurring, and it was audible to anyone within earshot), it is NOT the source of my statement. Believe it or not, I don’t make a habit of passing off partially overheard conversations as reporting. I’m glad you already pre-emptively apologized for falsely accusing me of such rude and irresponsible behavior, because otherwise I’d be upset at such an unfounded accusation.
The source of my statement was a person who told me via e-mail that BLSA members were upset about the article. I won’t identify this person without permission, but suffice it to say, it is someone who I have reason to believe knows what he/she is talking about. If you have reason to believe that that information is, in fact, incorrect — i.e., if BLSA is not upset about this article — please let me know and I’ll correct it.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:48:33 pm
I see what the article is trying to do, but it could have made its point better. For example, the article portrays both the white law student and the black law students as ignorant participants in this cultural-discovery; however, the article should have made the white law student the ignorant boob. Had he given himself the name P-Dizzle (over the objections of the black law students), and had the black law students tried to explain to him that they don’t actually sit around and watch the Fresh Prince all day, then the racial satire might have been better. As it is, the article seems to suggest that the BLSA is actually full of stereotypical black people. And that is where the article fails.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:50:05 pm
I’d hate to upset a man who wears velcro sneakers.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:51:25 pm
Brendan - your kicks are your business. Ya heard!
December 1st, 2006 at 5:53:49 pm
I have a HUGE man-crush on Chris Hayes.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:59:27 pm
LOL… now that’s funny right there.
But you picked the wrong day to make a velcro sneakers joke. I’m actually wearing legitimate shoes today! They have shoelaces and everything! (My velcro sneakers don’t do so well in rainy weather.)
December 1st, 2006 at 5:59:34 pm
Chris Hayes is my hero.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:11:36 pm
Mr. Hayes,
Good stuff, buddy.
So these actually do go inside the stalls? That’s just like in any undergrad dorm on campus. This furthers my belief that NDLS is just like another dorm: One that’s coed and filled with intensely indignant, type-A tools who don’t understand Notre Dame football.
I’m just kidding. On the square, though.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:11:51 pm
For example, the article portrays both the white law student and the black law students as ignorant participants in this cultural-discovery . . . As it is, the article seems to suggest that the BLSA is actually full of stereotypical black people. And that is where the article fails.
I don’t agree with this. Even the stereotypes that this “P-Dizzle” assigns to members of BLSA are coming from his mouth. In fact, the only member of BLSA we hear from in the article is the only reasonable person in the piece; he specifically points out that P-Dizzle has adopted ridiculous stereotypes that have no basis in reality. If anyone’s not the target of derison, it’s BLSA.
It’s really reaching to suggest that this article is anything other than a critique of white cluelessness.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:16:14 pm
“[M]aybe this message will serve as a signal 1) that you should not be so quick to make assumptions concerning group affiliation and race.”
This is a good point for everyone to remember, particularly at Notre Dame where the white undergraduates have a bad habit of assuming any black student on campus is an athlete. (I’ve actually seen them call out to passers-by, “Hey! Are you an athlete?)
With that in mind, if the complaints are coming from students and the complaints are about the portrayal of BLSA, black law students, or black people generally, I wonder if it might be because the environment of Notre Dame isn’t the sort that inspires charitable readings of this sort of stuff. In other contexts (or if read by a white guy who hasn’t been the subject of racism) it might be clear that it is criticizing the school and student body for its attitudes. But cartoonish caricatures of racism might lose their humor if one is regularly exposed to cartoonish and outlandish racism (again, see the xoxo boards or the disastrous diversity training sessions of the last few years.)
This is all conjecture on my part, though. Without hearing from folks who are offended why they are offended, it’s pretty hard to understand what’s going on. So in addition to Christopher’s point, it’s probably a good idea to remember that the people offended (if it isn’t a pre-emptive move by the administration) have a reason for feeling that way. It may be a good one or a bad one, but without knowing what it is, there’s no way to say.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:16:42 pm
I would just encourage you to contrast that with the fact that later in the article he is asked about what it is like to sunburn and about his Billy Ray Cyrus collection. At best it is inconsistent.
December 1st, 2006 at 6:40:23 pm
Also, darker skin does not prevent sunburn entirely.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:32:35 pm
It’s been a while since the last decent law school scandal. This is a pretty good one.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:34:07 pm
Here’s a suggestion to help lessen racial tension: Stop forming groups based on race.
Seriously, does anyone else not see the problem with a group of people saying “stop treating us differently!” and doing so from a group that emphasizes the fact that in some way or another they are different?
I dunno, maybe not being a part of any real minority I just don’t understand the need, but it seems counter productive to me. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try and just integrate into one group?
December 1st, 2006 at 8:43:39 pm
[sarcasm]
Yeah! What’s next, a law school promoting one religious identity over others?
[/sarcasm]
December 1st, 2006 at 8:57:08 pm
I generally echo Thomas W. and Chris’ sentiments, save the apparently incorrect assumption that Brendan based his statement about the source of the complaints on Chris’ conversation with said unnamed student.
I’d also like to add as an addendum to Thomas W.’s post something from recent, separate conversations with two friends/residents of the dorm in which I’m an AR. Both black, they each independently told me that on numerous occasions, white Notre Dame students have accused them of only acquiring acceptance into the university by “taking the spot of a more qualified applicant”.
There are not words to describe how presumptuous, narcissistic, insensitive, accusatory, unfair, and, frankly, racist this notion is. I bring it up in this forum because it underscores just how far we’ve yet to go, specifically as a University community and more broadly as a society, with respect to race relations. As an initial matter, in response to the accusation by the white students, I’d say that the children of alumni and individuals from geographically uncommon locales receive as great if not greater concessions from the Office of Admissions than do racial and ethnic minorities. It is unequivocally unfair to target these minorities, already the lifelong subjects of stereotyping and generaly ill treatment, when the issue of admissions is so complex and inconsistent relative to any given student. Speaking more broadly, though, I would highlight these clearly lingering stereotypes and conclude that whenever someone writes an article about race in any forum, it is especially important to remember the delicacy of the issue and the ease with which statements about race can inflame our sensibilities.
That said, I read the article, and although I found it funny, I was immediately perplexed by the carpentry reference. I assumed that it was an allusion to something about which I was not familiar, but also thought, “Wow, that could easily be interpreted as suggesting that blacks are more suited to carpentry than the practice of law.” In other words, even if I’d known that “balsa” is a type of wood, I never would have included the reference both because its proper understanding requires rather esoteric knowledge and because absent this knowledge it could be easily misconstrued as racist.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:19:52 pm
Patch,
Well said. At diversity training, one of the first year advisors was telling me how when he was an undergrad in the ’70s, he was always asked for his autograph because students assumed he was an athlete because he was black. It sounded like such an extreme example to me, but it is one that is based on ignorance, whereas the issues you discussed transcend ignorance to racism. Combined with many of the subtleties of being a minority at a predominantly white school, especially one that emphasises traditions that don’t historically include a lot of African-American people.
Especially absurd is the idea that Notre Dame admits people based solely on ‘qualification,’ which to the individuals who made those comments to your fellow Angry Mobsters probably means a point on a graph that indicates SAT score and grades. ND admits people who can do the work. Because that encompasses a much larger number of people than they can accomodate, they take into account many other factors. Some is race, yes, but there is an special emphasis on legacies/children of faculty. Conveniently for those people, there is no physical manifestation such as skin color to create the ridiculous presumption that they are not there by their own merits.
So yes, ND has a long way to go. I’m glad you’ve taken the time to recognize these issues and discuss them with the young men in your dorm; that’s what good ARs do. Although, I’m guessing you’re especially vigilant on parietal violators.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:45:01 pm
Um, the BLSA/balsa part was the funniest thing in the article. Of course, you have to have it in the back of your head that balsa is a kind of wood.
I thought the article actually did a pretty good job of making the white kid seem like the douchebag.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:09:02 pm
Wobbly,
Somehow, someway, I’ve garnered a reputation for being quite easygoing in O’Neill … and somehow my brother is perceived as especially strict and uncompromising in Zahm. I guess it demonstrates how greatly perception and reality can differ. I think my reputation is due in large part to the mostly responsible behavior of the young men in my dorm. In 3 semesters, I’ve had but 2 parietals busts … and they were rather egregious examples that no responsible Hall Staff member could overlook. While violating the time constraints of the parietals rule is behavior that I’m unwilling to tolerate, either the men of O’Neill are especially careful to conceal their violations or they simply respect the rule. I imagine that it’s some combination of both. Regardless, busting someone for parietals is an incredibly awkward and uncomfortable duty, and certainly not one that I relish.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:11:46 pm
“esoteric knowledge”?!?!?!?
Those poor souls who never took shop in Jr./High School!
December 1st, 2006 at 10:16:01 pm
I was offended by the article. Although Brendan may believe that people like me have “thin skin” and need to learn how to take a joke, Brendan will likely never experience racism of any kind and is not forced to constantly overcome such negative stereotypes. The legacy of slavery and the lingering sentiments of inequality and inferiority are deeply rooted in the black community and although I’m sure the article was not meant to be malicious, the stereotypes perpetuated are those that African Americans are forced to fight against on a daily basis. As a result, when I read the article I was shocked, embarrassed, and felt as if this was how my classmates viewed me. And Brendan, to be honest, I am offended by the notion that you feel as if you have the right to tell me what I have the right to feel offended by. Was that article overtly bashing BLSA or the black community? Not really. But the racial stereotypes presented were hurtful. Additionally, I am also slightly annoyed by the fact that you heard Chris and I having an open conversation about the article, you heard Chris say that this is a good opportunity for our classmates to speak openly about their feelings concerning this issue, and instead of speaking up at that time, you post such blatantly insensitive comments on your blog and walked away. If you feel so strongly about the issue then you should have “manned up” and said them aloud at the time instead of hiding behind the protection of the internet.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:33:05 pm
In a post about being offended by stereotypes, Tiffany A. uses the phrase “manned up” - clearly an overtly sexist phrase suggesting that Brendan is somehow effeminate for walking away from the situation and not addressing the fight head-on.
Although the legacy of sexism in this country is far different than that of racism, I can hardly imagine that Tiffany A. supports the use of sexist stereotypes in any form. However, instead of being outraged by sexist phrases, she uses one herself and embraces this sexist stereotype.
By using a sexist stereotype in such a flippant manner, she undermines her own argument and perpetuates the belief that men should not back down from fights.
Should we all find shock and offense in her comment?
December 1st, 2006 at 10:36:28 pm
I understand law students’ desire to argue everything and take propositions to their logical extremes to attempt to defeat them. But seriously…you just seem like a bunch of people whose skin is as thin as a hummingbird’s vagina.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:51:42 pm
Hmm. .I was not suggesting that he was acting effeminately. I was saying that his actions were cowardly. And I think its funny that rather than discussing the substance of my comments you, NDLaw, chose to select one slang term that I used and attack my entire argument based on that. That was a cowardly thing for you to do. It’s the easy way out. And furthermore, NDLaw, if you want to shallowly attack my comments then you should “man up” and post your real name.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:01:29 pm
Tiffany,
Not to jump entirely to Brendan’s defense, but I think you’re being a bit too harsh about his supposed failure to join your conversation. If you and Chris are not individuals with whom Brendan regularly converses, it might seem too presumptuous for Brendan’s comfort level to intrude on your conversation. I often opt not to engage in coversations that I overhear out of respect for the individuals who might object to my interjection. Also, Brendan is well known for his outspokenness on this blog, and while you might gather more about his opinions through this blog than straight from the horse’s mouth, I can assure you that he is equally forthcoming and candid about his opinions in person. He is my friend; I’ve had substantial face-to-face interaction with him; and I would not hesitate to call him consistently earnest, regardless of his chosen method of communication.
Before addressing the article as a whole, I first want to dignify the fact that you’re offended. I want a welcoming and hospitable law school environment as much as you do, and insofar as we have failed to provide that for everyone, I want to understand your frustrations. First, I agree with you that the article referenced several hurtful racial stereotypes about African Americans. Discarding the carpentry issue for a moment, I would ask whether you think it’s inappropriate to expose the narrowmindedness of racial stereotypes? I doubt very seriously that you would. Satire is a common forum through which people expose societal problems. I’m not necessarily condoning it as a method to combat racial stereotypes, but I do think that was the intention behind the article. My more pointed question for you is whether you think it inappropriate to use satire to expose the narrowmindedness of racial stereotypes, including and especially through specifically referencing the harboring of these stereotypes by a fictional individual. It seems apparent to me that this was the method chosen by the author. Perhaps you find it inappropriate that anyone should try to find humor in the use of racial stereotypes. I can understand such an argument, and if that is the case, perhaps the writers of the Patty O’Herald should avoid such satire in the future. However, if your frustration and hurt goes beyond this, I think I may be missing something that’s upsetting you. Could you elaborate? As a caucasion, I’m acknowledging my own ignorance to your frustrations, but as your friend and classmate I sincerely want to understand them.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:01:33 pm
Tiffany A. is my shero.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:08:06 pm
Tiffany. Why do you continue to use the sexist term? Can you not see that it is sexist? Do you not mind throwing around sexist terms? Equating being cowardly with not being a man is sexist, plain and simple.
I didn’t judge your entire argument based on that one point. I merely pointed out the fact that you used an offensive term in a comment about how stereotypes can be hurtful. I was not intending to engage your entire argument, nor is it my duty to do so.
What about your argument would you like me to address? That you were shocked and embarrassed? I believe you. That America has a horrible legacy when it comes to racial issues? I agree. That the stereotypes presented were hurtful? That’s a subjective opinion. I choose not to engage your discussion about Brendan’s actions because I have no opinion on it.
I understand that you don’t think the article was overtly racist, but contained what you construed to be stereotypes about African Americans that you found hurtful. What exactly do you want me to discuss?
I do think that your continued usage of a sexist term minimizes the power of your argument, and I think that discontinuing the use of such a phrase would be appropriate.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:20:53 pm
P. Roach, I honestly think you’re amazing and I appreciate your sincere curiousity and earnest attempt at understanding, but we’ll have to discuss this in person because right now I have to study for tax and work on a couple of papers. :-)
December 1st, 2006 at 11:23:12 pm
Tiffany,
I, too, would be interested in hearing your response to Patrick. I would have two questions: 1) Is it ever appropriate to use sarcasm or satire to mock and expose racial stereotypes? 2) If so, could you provide an example that would successfully do this without offending you?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:32:58 pm
I am using my name, and NDLaw is right: saying that someone should “man up” because they are cowardly does in fact perpetuate the sexist stereotype that courage is a distinctly masculine trait. That it is slang makes no difference; the phrase only makes sense if you believe that men, by virtue of being men, are not cowardly. If you’re going to use the term, own up to what it is.
But.
That’s entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. For one thing, on the great big scale o’ sexism, it’s barely a blip. Had Tiffany said “Brendan, don’t be such a woman” it would be a different matter, but that’s not the case.
More importantly, NDLaw, you’re using feminism to score points in an argument which 1) derails the discussion and 2) does a disservice to feminism, which is about much more than policing language.
Finally while it might undermine Tiffany’s credibility (it doesn’t), her use of “man up” (or even more sexist language than that) wouldn’t undermine her argument; you’re making a tu quoque attack.
But anyway…I wonder what might be done if the article is offensive because it makes students think that their peers harbor racial stereotypes. While the article necessarily is over the top for the sake of satire, I don’t think we can deny that students do in fact harbor racial (and gender, and religious, and so on) stereotypes. It may be that, given the circumstances, this sort of thing can’t productively be addressed by humor–as Tiffany says, the stereotypes were hurtful to her in spite of the fact that she didn’t think they were overtly bashing BLSA or the black community (though she may have thought they were doing so covertly perhaps? I don’t know). If that’s the case, the SBA’s apology might be merited, but an apology alone wouldn’t address the real problem.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:33:09 pm
ok, here’s my take– i can understand why this article would be offensive if it were not for the part of the article that explicitly says: “his understanding of African-American culture seems to stem largely from antiquated stereotypes and caricatures of hip-hop culture!!!!!!!!”
the article, to me, clearly does a fine job of portraying the racial stereotypes as laughably absurd.
while i recognize that there are many racial problems at ND, this seems like a pointless, harmless target.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:33:22 pm
TIffany, while you are right that Brendan (and I and many others) will never experience some of the things that you as a black woman will in life, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be free to express our opinions, even if it is just by “hiding behind the protection of the internet”. As Brendan has allready addressed the comment he made were not from your conversation (or atleast he says its not) but i’ll let him address the matter.
Here’s what frustrates me as a non-minority. is something i alluded to above, the idea that some, maybe many maybe not, but definitely a vocal minority atleast, of african-americans in this country want both to be treated as equals but also to recieve special treatment. They want the right to keep their own sub-culture but to be fully accepted into mainstream society, yet if anyone tried to create “white only” groups they would (rightly so) be accused of racism. You have things like Congressional Black Caucuses, Black Law Student Association, etc. And i know that there are other minority groups that do the same, and they bug me too. How can one claim at the same time to want to remove racism but then seek to differentiate onself based on race?
Please don’t take this the wrong way, as i said i will never fully understand what its like to have racial epithets hurled at me. To have people avoid me on the street because i am a young black man, or accuse me of theft because i am hispanic. I know that, and that in many ways what i am saying is going to be naieve and idealistic. But having said that i have to say i’m in the Bill Cosby camp, that in many ways the people who are doing the most harm to african-americans are their fellow african-americans. The ones who glorify a culture that talks about things like bitches and hoes, drugs, violence, etc. Thug culture, gang culture, and one that sadly looks down on education. I realize that as a student at a university you are likely not in that crowd, but don’t you think that sometimes instead of lashing out at people like Brendan who genuinely believe in the treatment of people as equals, you should probably focus yoru efforts and critcism on the people who ARE causing the problem, even if its those within your own group?
I agree that society is not fair, but how is it any more fair to give someone preference because of their skin color than to punish them because of it? Because anytime you create a system that benefits one person because of something like skin color, you are going to punish someone else. As some have alluded to above, the perception that minority students are being admitted because of their skin color is going to create resentment. Maybe if we focused more on solving the underlying problems of early education and poverty we wouldn’t have to worry about this at the college level.
I’ve always thought it made more sense, that if your going to give someone preference you do it based on lack of opportunities and advantages, especially economic ones, rather than skin which may or may not have had an effect.
As for the story above, i’m sorry if this bothers you but i thought it was hilarious. Why? Because its satire, its obvious satire and its not poking fun at black people or the BLSA, its poking fun at stupid white people who think that all black people are the same. But then, maybe its not so funny cause a lot of minorities think all white people are the same. That we can’t possibly see beyond a persons skin color. That we are deep down just racists. That we are still to blame for slavery (despite the fact that our ancestors may have had nothing to do with it, and even if they did WE didn’t). But really, I have to agree with Brendan, that people offended by that article are thin-skinned, hell if anyone should be offended its white people, we are the butt of the joke after all.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:48:49 pm
Finally while it might undermine Tiffany’s credibility (it doesn’t), her use of “man up� (or even more sexist language than that) wouldn’t undermine her argument . . .
Actually, Thomas W., it really does. Her point was that the use of racial stereotypes was hurtful. She engaged in sexist stereotyping while doing it, expecting that Brendan, as a man, shouldn’t be so cowardly. By using gender stereotypes to condemn the (alleged) perpetuation of racial stereotyping is hypocritical, and goes to undermine the argument she’s making becuase it shows that her outrage is just a personal preference and not some actual line.
You say that the difference is that this is “barely a blip,” and “does a disservice to feminism.” Well, who are you to judge? Isn’t the whole point being demonstrated by this controversy that people are going to draw the line between what’s sufficiently offensive and what’s harmless as they see fit? Why is your arbitrary line any more or better than NDLaw’s? And why is Tiffany’s arbitrary line any more or better than the article’s author?
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:01:52 am
Cant we all just get along?!?!!?!?!?!?
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:09:22 am
I personally didn’t find anything offensive about the article. I did not find it funny, but as is the case with most bad jokes, I wasn’t offended.
I completely agree with your point about the white only groups. In fact, I’ve made that argument on several occassions to point out that, although BET (Black Entertainment Television) is perfectly acceptable, a station named WET would never be allowed. Where I’m having problems with your argument however, is how that translates into a desire to “keep their own sub-culture but to be fully accepted into mainstream society.” The purpose of these groups is not, or at least should not be, to differentiate onself based on race. Rather, the purpose is to confront issues like the one presented today and alleviate misunderstandings that inevitably arise due to lack of cultural understanding. Also, if there was no double standard like that, there would nothing wrong with wanting the right to keep our own sub-culture while being fully accepted into mainstream society. There is a difference between acceptance and assimilation, which I’m sure you recognize.
Rap music isn’t “causing” any problem. Rather, it sometimes addresses the problem but more often simply draws our attention to the problem. Rappers who “glorify” thug culture are relaying life to us, as they know life to be. A life that we would otherwise know absolutely nothing about. Don’t shoot (or blame) the messenger.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:26:19 am
I suppose I could be more clear. It does not undermine her argument because arguments stand or fall independently of the behavior and opinions of the speaker. Thus, a robber might say, “Robbery is wrong in all cases” and be a hypocrite–but whether he is right or wrong doesn’t turn on whether or not he is a robber. We might rightly suspect the genuineness of the robber’s commitment to the statement, but dismissing the truth of the statement on those grounds is a logical fallacy.
As for the rest, you’ve got me dead to rights. I’m no arbiter of proper feminism, and no arbiter of proper offense. You are most especially right that I can’t say her use of “man up” is so benign that it doesn’t hurt her credibility, or that others ought not be offended. It doesn’t bother me, but maybe it will bother other folks–NDLaw is right that it is sexist after all, even if I question the motives for making that point.
But the disservice to feminism wasn’t that it was being used to combat some insufficiently sexist statement, but rather that it was being used–insincerely it seemed–to score points against Tiffany and to avoid addressing her more substantive concerns. That kind of tactic makes it harder for people to take genuine feminist criticisms seriously, and that is the disservice to feminism. NDLaw’s point stands or falls independently of that, of course.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:48:47 am
It does not undermine her argument because arguments stand or fall independently of the behavior and opinions of the speaker. Thus, a robber might say, “Robbery is wrong in all cases� and be a hypocrite–but whether he is right or wrong doesn’t turn on whether or not he is a robber.
Your analogy misses the point. Tiffany’s entire argument seems to be that she was personally offended by the use of offensive stereotypes, and then proceeds to engage in arguably offensive stereotypes while condemning it. How is that not relevant? Her “argument” (such as it is) is that people shouldn’t engage in offensive stereotypes. Pointing out that she’s doing the exact same thing that she condemns is relevant evidence against any argument she could make that her outrage is anything more than an arbitrary and illegitimate distinction drawn in her own mind.
A better analogy is that the robber condemns robbing but insists that what he’s doing isn’t robbery. If someone points out that what he’s doing is, in fact, robbery, isn’t that relevant to the claim the robber’s making?
Thomas W., the argument’s more nuanced than you’re seeming to allow.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:55:48 am
USC 44, Notre Dame 24
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:29:29 am
If David Duke says “People shouldn’t engage in offensive stereotypes.” David Duke will be right that people shouldn’t engage in offensive stereotypes-despite the fact that he’s the No. 1 cheerleader for the Klan and clearly is being hypocritical and likely self-serving. Telling David Duke that he is wrong -because- he personally engages in the same sort of offensive stereotypes he condemns is a logical fallacy called “tu quoque.” This doesn’t change that David Duke is a bad person, or that he engages in offensive stereotypes.
Similarly, that Tiffany engaged in a sexist stereotype while complaining about racial stereotypes doesn’t affect the legitimacy of her complaint about racial stereotypes.
Now, you might say that this shows that “her outrage is [no]thing more than an arbitrary and illegitimate distinction drawn in her own mind.” I don’t agree, but suppose we do.
Well what of it? Tiffany isn’t the only one upset, and not everyone who is upset is engaging in sexist stereotypes. It would be unfair to suppose that everyone who was upset is sexist just to defuse their complaint.
But let’s suppose they are. It -still- wouldn’t make a difference to the logical validity of their argument. Oh, we might not believe them and we might not take them seriously, and we might be suspicious of their motives, but the merits of their complaint doesn’t depend on their status as angels unless one of the premises is “I don’t engage in offensive stereotypes.”
Taking some liberties with Tiffany’s argument, suppose we say that
1) we shouldn’t engage in offensive stereotypes, even if it is to use humor to defuse those stereotypes.
2) X is an offensive stereotype
3) therefore, we shouldn’t engage in it.
Pointing out that Y is also an offensive stereotype doesn’t undermine any part of this argument–it only means that the person who asserts it ought to avoid Y as well as X.
Sheesh. I’m getting really pedantic, and this is far afield. If you’re still not convinced, I probably can’t convince you, or I’m probably misunderstanding what you’re saying. In the latter case, I’ll just have to shrug my shoulders for now and think about it (without posting).
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:38:10 am
Tiffany, several points. First off, I never really considered jumping into your conversation, but if I had, I think it would have felt awkward and forced, for precisely for the reason Patrick said. I don’t have the comfort level with you and Chris to just jump into a random conversation that you were having, which happened coincidentally to be in my presence. I mean, think about it, how many conversations have the three of us had during the last two-and-a-half years? None that I can think of. So, why would you presume that I have some obligation to either a) jump into your conversation about a given topic, or b) say nothing about that topic in any other forum? That makes no sense.
You weren’t talking to me, and I wasn’t talking to you. Why would it have been appropriate for me to jump in? Anyway, as I already said, I wasn’t really paying close attention to your conversation. As far as I was aware, it was a private conversation; you claim that I “heard Chris say that this is a good opportunity for our classmates to speak openly about their feelings concerning this issue,” but I did not, in fact, hear that. I emphasize again that I was not “eavesdropping,” as Chris claimed. I did overhear portions of your conversation, but not that particular portion, and I certainly wasn’t paying as close attention as you seem to believe.
That leads to my next point. I need to emphasize again that your conversation had nothing to do with this post. In fact, I had actually already written the bulk of post (and saved it as a draft) several hours earlier while down in the law-school lounge. I didn’t publish it until I was up in the computer lab, coincidentally during your conversation, but it’s not like this post was a reaction to the things you guys were saying, so the statement that I was “hiding behind the protection of the internet” is blatantly false. (Besides which, my name is on the damn website, it’s not like it’s anonymous, so I’m not clear on how it would be “hiding” anyway.)
You and Chris have now both, in turn, falsely assumed that I was reacting to your conversation, when in fact I was doing nothing of the sort. This issue is a major topic of conversation in the law school this week, and my post was inspired by the e-mail from SBA, not by your conversation. To be blunt, THIS ISN’T ABOUT YOU. It’s about a broader issue.
With regard to the rest of your comment… I stand by my belief that you are being thin-skinned about this. You say you were “shocked, embarrassed, and felt as if this was how my classmates viewed [you].” I believe that is an irrational feeling for you to have. The article did not convey that. It did not suggest such a thing; in fact, it suggested quite the opposite. That’s my opinion. You have a different opinion. We’re going to have to agree to disagree about this. That’s fine with me, but it’s not good enough for you — you want me to NOT express my disagreement with your opinion, but to just accept it at face value, because to do otherwise is to “tell [you] what [you] have the right to feel offended by.” Bullshit. You have the RIGHT to be offended by whatever you want. And I have the RIGHT to tell you that I think you’re being thin-skinned.
As I said in the post, “I mean no disrespect to those who take offense. What bothers me isn’t their sensibilities, but their attempt to impose those sensibilities on me.” If you were offended by the article, my advice would be to avoid reading the Patty O’Herald in the future, and to complain to the SBA if you so choose. But I don’t think it’s appropriate for SBA to cater to your personal pique by censoring the newsletter, unless the article is deemed to be objectively offensive or it provokes a very substantial outcry. When humor is forced to cater to the lowest common denominator in terms who’s offended, we’re left with no humor, because everything funny is going to offend someone.
Finally, returning to the earlier point, about why I didn’t jump into your conversation. After the way you and Chris have treated me on this thread, jumping down my throat and personally attacking me on completely flimsy grounds, blatantly assuming the most insidious possible explanation for my words and actions rather than giving me any kind of benefit of the doubt, it’s fairly clear you don’t like me. That’s fine. But I can’t imagine why you’d think I’d want to participate in your random conversations in the computer lab if this is how I can expect to be treated.
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:51:00 am
P.S. While it’s true that you telling me to “man up” is a gender-based stereotype that could potentially offend someone, I personally don’t give a damn. You can call me a fruity, velcro-shoe-wearing fag, for all I care. It’s much harder than that to really offend me. What I find more troublesome is the context of your insult, rather than the insult itself. The reason you’re telling me to “man up” is because you think I had some obligation, as a man (or a person of courage, or whatever), to jump into your conversation… even though a) you weren’t talking to me, b) you were having what appeared to be a private (albeit somewhat loud) conversation, c) we don’t have the sort of relationship where we routinely jump into each other’s private conversations, d) I wasn’t particularly paying close attention to your conversation anyway, and e) this post has NOTHING TO DO with your conversation, indeed f) it was mostly written before your conversation, so there’s no possible way that its existence could imply some obligation on my part to get involved in your conversation. It’s THOSE reasons — not your use of the phrase “man up” — that make your attack on my courage ridiculous.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:14:44 am
Thomas W., you’ve broken down a perfectly good logical argument, but the problem is that it’s just a parallel argument to the one being made by myself and, I assume, NDLaw. To be clear: I am not disputing any sort of objective argument as to whether the substance of her claim is true.
Again, I completely agree with you that if X says “This is an offensive racial stereotype,” the fact that X engages in other offensive stereotypes is not a response to narrow substantive logic of the argument. But I’m not attacking the substantive claim. I’m claiming that, by engaging in hypocritical behavior, Tiffany’s claim that she was offended personally is disingenuous and reflects a lack of sincerity and, in turn is some evidence that no legitimate distinction can possibly be drawn because this is all about arbitrary personal preferences.
I really don’t see what so difficult with this, and if I haven’t made my argument clear to you, I’m not sure what else I can do to make it more obvious.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:23:04 am
Also, to the extent that you’re arguing that I must engage in the substantive logical argument in order to also use her hypocrisy for what it’s worth, that is simply nonsense. I’ve got no obligation to do that, when my larger point is simply that her behavior evidences that any line-drawing cannot be justified in a rational manner.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:28:32 am
Ha Ha. Funny how you had nothing to say to me during the hours that you spent sitting across from me in the computer lab *AFTER I began a conversation with you to clarify the earlier misunderstanding. That was the SECOND time that you failed to address me in person. You can have your little website, I’m done. If you have anything to say to me, I won’t be hiding behind any computers.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:41:20 am
If you have anything to say to me, I won’t be hiding behind any computers.
How is Brendan hiding behind computers? His name is on the f***ing blog! You know exactly who’s making the statements, as they are expressly attributed to him. Because he doesn’t engage you in person but prefers to do so on the blog–the very place where you got schooled for erroneously (and, in my opinion, recklessly) implying that he was racially ignorant based on nothing more than your inflated sense of ego, apparently–means that he’s ‘hiding’? Does Brendan disclaim his comments in real life or something? I somehow doubt it.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:59:21 am
Nick: Oh okay, I think I see what you mean now. Thanks for your patience. Though I would disagree that just saying “man up” would mean she’s disingenuous or insincere about not engaging in offensive stereotypes (though continuing to claim that it isn’t sexist might), just when someone decides to get off the credibility train is going to be a judgment call. YMMV, and ours does. No big deal there.
Still, I don’t think that entails that this entire dust-up is about arbitrary personal preferences (though I do agree that there isn’t a legitimate distinction between sexism and racism here). It seems to me that there are deeper issues at Notre Dame that prompted the article in the first place and that set the stage for such a pronounced reaction. Sure, precisely where someone decides to draw the line of things are offensive is a subjective exercise, and that line might not be one most people would draw, but the social environment is going to have some effect on all of those lines. That’s what I think may be going on here. If it seems that people are particularly touchy, it could be because they’ve been burned by these stereotypes too often already here. That environment, I think, is going to be a bigger issue in the long run than whether any individual has taken offense in proper form, or whether that individual is representative.
At this point, though, I think I’ll wait and see what happens on Monday since I don’t even know how many people are upset. If it’s only one or two people, then you may be right after all.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:14:08 am
F.y.i. I had nothing to do with the apology issued by SBA. Although I posted on this site that I felt personally offended I didn’t express my concerns to the SBA or to anyone in any position of power at the law school. Nor was I the person who removed the signs from the ladies room.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:16:40 am
Chris, our brief and somewhat awkward, yet cordial, little conversation in the computer lab — which occurred after you’d already jumped down my throat on the blog, for no good reason — was hardly some sort of amazing outreach effort by you which I rebuffed. “Failed to address [you] in person”? I addressed you to the exact same extent that you addressed me. You make it sound like I ignored you or something! You got my attention; I turned around and faced you; you said you didn’t know what BLSA’s feelings on the matter were (which was in answer to a question that I’d asked via e-mail); I acknowledged that. You explained that you had assumed my post was based on your conversation with Tiffany because the post and the conversation seemed to happen simultaneously; I explained that the timing was coincidental, and that I had received the relevant e-mail while sitting in the computer lab. And that was pretty much it. We each went back to our respective computers. I was working on a 30-page paper for one of my classes, and I’m assuming you were working on something too. It never occurred to me that you wanted to converse with me further; if you had, you should have said something further. Simple as that. There’s nothing more to discuss, really.
I don’t understand where you and Tiffany are getting this idea that I am somehow obligated to engage you in dialogue about this topic if I’m going to express an opinion about it at all. It would be different if the topic were personal to you specifically, but this isn’t a Chris Hayes issue or a Tiffany A. issue, it’s a Notre Dame Law School issue, so it makes perfect sense for me to address it in this broader forum; discussing it here in no way obligates me to have a personal conversation about it with every single classmate I come across. Nor does a failure to have such conversations with my classmates mean that I shouldn’t address it here. This whole line of criticism is just completely bizarre, and indicative that you and Tiffany are just grasping at straws looking for reasons to criticize me.
Then again, considering that the sum total of your response to my detailed evisceration of your totally unsupported conclusion that I’m a racially ignorant eavesdropper was to make fun of my shoes, I probably should have given up on this conversation a while ago.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:21:36 am
Tiffany, I apologize for implying that the SBA was responding to you personally. That’s not actually what I meant to say, but that’s how it came out, and I apologize for that, because that would be an unjustified assumption on my part. What I meant was simply to distinguish between 1) criticizing you (or anyone else) for being offended from 2) criticizing the SBA for responding the way they did to the complaints they got from the people who were offended, whether or not that group included you. In other words, what I really should have said is, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for SBA to cater to your or anyone else’s personal pique by censoring the newsletter” — unless, again, it rises to the level of being objectively offensive or constituting a more widespread outrage.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:17:33 am
This thread has been very Educational for me.
I knew that balsa was a type of low-density wood but I’d never associated it with Carpentry as such. I’d assumed it was used exclusively to make little lightweight model airplanes & topwater fishing lures.
;>
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:05:40 pm
perhaps cooler heads will prevail after finals and a nice little vacation.
–or we could all settle this on the dance floor at the backer.
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:59:46 pm
First of all, I don’t understand why y’all feel the need to try to sound smart in your comments. You all are probably going to take my words “feel the need” and put them in italics and , say, well what does “need” really mean anyway?
Also, it doesn’t really matter if Brendan’s name is on the blog because I for one rarely ever come here and a lot of people don’t neither. There’s a huge difference between exchanging comments on a blog and looking someone in the eye and having a conversation. a lot of people dont like confrontation, and that’s fine, me too, but i think it’s real funny that a guy like brendan and other people talk so much tougher through the internet than they do in real life. and no i’m not implying anything, i think people who do that are weak, and by weak, i mean weak.
plus, even if you are going to let brendan slide on this one, you shouldn’t do the same for ndlaw because you didnt even address what tiff said. you just took the easy way out by saying you weren’t going to pay attention to what she had to say because she said brendan needs to “man up.”
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:10:25 pm
Oh for heaven’s sake. The faulty assumptions are just flying left and right here. First of all, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m certainly not “try[ing] to sound smart.” This is just how I write. Sorry if it bothers you. Secondly, just because I post something on my blog doesn’t mean I’m too chicken to talk to people about it face-to-face. I am perfectly willing to have a conversation with someone about this topic, in person. But nobody has engaged me in conversation about it (Chris’s and my brief conversation yesterday was focused on clarifying our previous misunderstanding, not discussing the substance of the issue), and I haven’t felt like engaging anyone else about it, because first off, other people were having a private conversation that didn’t involve me, and secondly, I was busy working on a research paper! If someone comes up to me and says, “Brendan, what do you think about this issue?” and I refuse to answer, THEN you can criticize me for being a coward and being unwilling to express myself face-to-face, but as it is, you simply have no grounds to say this crap.
(Come to think of it, I did actually have a couple of conversations with people about this topic yesterday, in person, down in the lounge. Just not with you or Chris or Tiffany. I guess it doesn’t count unless I’m talking to you?)
I need to emphasize again that this post had absolutely NOTHING to do with the conversation(s) in the computer lab yesterday. It is PURE COINCIDENCE that I was in that lab, overhearing that conversation. Which is why this whole line of discussion is ridiculous — if I hadn’t happened to be in that computer lab, I would have blogged the exact same thing (as I said, most of the post was already written before your conversation even happened), and nobody would be accusing me of being a coward for “failing” to participate in a conversation that had nothing to do with me or this post. And indeed, I really wish I’d never been in that computer lab, because then a whole lot of unnecessary bullshit could have been avoided, and we could actually discuss the ISSUE instead of arguing about whether I’m a coward.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:15:01 pm
P.S. Steve, you’re right that “There’s a huge difference between exchanging comments on a blog and looking someone in the eye and having a conversation.” One of the differences is that, when you have a conversation with one or two or three people, the total number of people participating is… two or three or four people. Whereas, when I post something on the blog and people comment on it, a much larger group of people can participate, and I can get a better sense of how a larger number of people feel about this. You may not visit this blog regularly, but it gets several hundred hits daily from members of the Notre Dame community, and a couple thousand hits total. I’m not bragging about that, I’m just saying that because of those hits, something written here reaches a broader audience than a three- or four-person conversation, and can potentially inspire a larger discussion. Take for example this thread, which has 62 comments by 23 different people. Not everything everyone says is relevant or helpful (then again, that’s also true in an in-person conversation), but at the end of the day, a larger group of people is honestly participating.
Now, I’m not saying that blog posts are superior to conversations, I’m just saying that both have their advantages and disadvantages. You seem to think that the only legitimate way to discuss a topic is via in-person conversation. That’s ludicrous. It’s perfectly legitimate to have a conversation about something like this, and it’s also perfectly legitimate to talk about it via the Internet. There is no contradiction between those two things.
Moreover, it OFTEN happens that I’ll post something on the blog, and then people will come up to me and start a conversation about the topic with me, in person. I have no problem participating in those conversations, indeed I welcome them. So blog posts can be vehicles for starting conversations.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:33:32 pm
I completely disagree that by posting on this blog that Brendan is in anyway hiding. That might be true if this blog were anonymous, if he only went by a pseudonym etc. But for cryingout loud his full name is the address!!! I think it takes a lot MORE guts to post something here than just have a conversation with one or two people, for one thing its out there for everyone to see, not just a select audience, for another its far more persistent than a normal conversation. Disagree with what he is saying fine, but the idea that he is hiding by posting it here? Ludicrous
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:36:16 pm
Sure you’re bragging about that. You advertise your blog. I don’t care - I’d probably be proud, too.
But you’re wrong that the main difference is that a blog can engage more people in a subject than an in person conversation can. for the people involved at least, it’s the kind of interaction you have. when people are going back and forth, it’s easy to get angry - especially when they’re already charged and have opposing views. watch, here’s a difference. you can say tiff’s “bullshit” over the internet. say it to her in person. or say it to me. on one hand, you’ll get a response with lots of caps locks or boldprint, or if you said that to me in real life, then you’ll get a “what did you just say to me?” do you know what im saying? this isnt about letting lots of ppl read about an issue or what you think. this is about me to you, or you to tiff, or basically anyone who sends messages through the internet. would you talk the same way in that person’s face the way you do over the internet? i’m saying no you wouldnt
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:48:32 pm
First off, I didn’t say it’s “the main difference.” I said it’s “one of the differences.” The reason I said that is because you were only highlighting the other type of difference. My point was, “I’m not saying that blog posts are superior to conversations, I’m just saying that both have their advantages and disadvantages.”
And I wasn’t bragging or advertising. Bragging is saying, oh look at me, I’m cool because my blog has a lot of traffic. Advertising is saying, hey everybody, come visit my blog! I wasn’t doing either of those things. I’m not denying that I ever do those things, but I wasn’t doing them here. Here, I was simply pointing out relevant information to this debate we’re having about blogging vs. having a conversation. You were the one who raised that issue by saying, “I for one rarely ever come here and a lot of people don’t neither.” I was rebutting that with relevant factual information, and further raising an argument for why blogging has some advantages over in-person conversations. That’s NOT the same thing as bragging or advertising.
As for this question of whether I “talk tougher” on the Internet than in person. That might be true in some cases. In other cases, the opposite is true, because I might blurt out something in person when, upon reflection, I’ll cool off and say it more diplomatically on the Internet. Both things can happen. But let me ask you this. You’re focusing on how I said “bullshit” to Tiffany and stuff like that. But it was Chris and Tiffany who jumped down MY throat, here on the Internet!! I hadn’t said ANYTHING about them personally, and then Chris comes in and accuses me of being an eavesdropping racist (or at least racially ignorant), and Tiffany accuses me of being an insensitive, unmanly coward!! And you’re upset that I said “bullshit”? Damn straight, if they said those things to me in person, I’d say “bullshit.” But the funny thing is, they DIDN’T say those things to me in person, and no one is asking Chris or Tiffany why they didn’t say those things to me in person. In fact, when Chris talked to me in the computer lab yesterday, he was perfectly nice, and this was less than an hour after he had been insulting me on the Internet. So if I “talk tougher” on the Internet than in person, I guess I’m not the only one.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:04:38 pm
Steve,
Thanks a lot, you’ve completely distracted from the issue. By the way, what do YOU think about the substantive issues? Why don’t YOU respond to Tiffany’s claims?
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:55:58 pm
that daniel craig guy is a prick
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:01:10 pm
People need to take a deep breath and watch this skit, which makes fun of stereotypes and president Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7CryUbGUg0
Or how about this one, which makes fun of black, asian, hispanic, white and jewish stereotypes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qIKFWzKbhw
If you don’t find the above offensive but you do find the Paddy ‘O offensive, why? Simply because Chapelle is black? Maybe that’s fair, I don’t know. But this latest Paddy ‘O seemed to be in the spirit of Dave Chapell/Richard Pryor style humor–the later of whom has been called the greatest comedian ever.
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:14:05 pm
While I hate to derail thebeef’s noble attempt to get back on topic, I just want to apologize for the final paragraph of my 1:38 AM comment, particularly the statement that people in this thread are motivated by the fact that they don’t “like me.” I have no idea who likes me and who doesn’t, or what people’s motivations are, and I shouldn’t have speculated on it. I was pissed off and it was late, and I crossed the line there. I apologize, to Tiffany specifically, for that comment.
I also want to clarify that my “fruity, velcro-shoe-wearing fag” reference was not intended to imply that anyone in this thread would actually have said such a thing. It’s come to my attention that Tiffany felt I was putting those words in her mouth. That wasn’t my intention at all. I was just using that as an extreme, hypothetical example of the fact that I am not easily offended by mere offensive words. It’s the context that matters to me, much more than the words. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that Tiffany, or anyone else here, would have used those particular words.
And another point of clarification. I don’t think anyone here is a coward. I’m not accusing anyone of hiding behind the Internet, or of talking tougher online than in real life. I was just attempting to say that, if it’s fair game to say those things about me, it’s fair game to say them about other people too. But I don’t think they apply to any of us, or have any place in this conversation.
Finally, I for one regret that this conversation has gone off the rails with all this personal stuff, and I hope we can get back on topic and put this nasty business behind us. Me, I have a USC-UCLA game to go watch. :)
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:23:47 pm
Tiffany, get a grip. It’s obvious to anyone who read Brendan’s post that he wasn’t saying or even implying that you called him a velcro-shoe wearing fag, or whatever.
Race relations at ND have always been shit-tastic, but things like the Patty O’Herald article *help* matters, not hurt them. The article isn’t Jonathan Swift-level satire, but it’s pretty fucking funny and exposes one of the problems at the heart of ND’s race issues — that white students by and large have only an anecdotal understanding of African-American culture. The joke of the title is that the white kid thinks “fly” is contemporary African-American slang. The carpentry reference has to do with the pronunciation of the acronym BSLA. To my mind, you have to pile inference upon inference to get to a place where the article is at all offensive to African American students.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:41:06 pm
Tiffany, I find it entirely distressing that instead of conversing with Brendan about this matter in person, you chose to post your unfounded accusations against his character on his blog. Your offensive and false assumptions that Brendan is too cowardly to speak about his opinions in person are founded entirely on your ignorance of his character and it is both unfortunate and unflattering that you chose to spew such nonsense here before making any attempt to speak with him. Had you spoken with him, you would know that he’s easy to talk to and generally considerate of other people’s opinions even if he disagrees with them. Brendan’s a nice guy. Insulting his integrity is not persuasive and it ultimately detracts from your point.
And Brendan, don’t be so sensitive. I don’t think anyone is really jumping down your throat. Martyr. You sound like a bullied little kid whining about how people are picking on him. Boohoo. Buck up, sweetie. I still think you rock.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:50:05 pm
In reply to your original post (I don’t want to respond to all the above replies), specifically your “change the channel” comment: I would agree with you if the Patty O was something people picked up and bought. But anyone who uses the bathroom gets the writers’ opinions imposed on them. Of course you’re going to see it, it’s right in front of you. I’m all for freedom of speech, but I would have no problem with someone taking down porn posted in an office or public building even if it only offends a few — say, the one girl in an office full of guys(i’m not stereotyping, it happened to me, though it was a calendarand not actual porn).
This year’s Patty O may not be as visually offensive as porn in a public setting, but it offends a lot of people. I think it makes the law school environment more hostile, and it makes me upset that I study with people who think like that. I never took it down myself, but I’ve been tempted to in the past — especially the ones with personal attacks against specific individuals in the faculty and administration.
I think (hope?) more people are relieved than annoyed about that SBA e-mail.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:28:21 am
“it makes me upset that I study with people who think like that”
It upsets you that your classmates think racial stereotypes deserve to be exposed and belittled? Really?
“personal attacks against specific individuals in the faculty and administration”
Depends on what you mean by “personal attack.” For example, some of the stuff re Rodes’ age and the general hostility toward Horvath, I agree. The Gurule stuff was harmless. On the other hand, while the CSO piece maybe came a little too close to an ad hominem line, it’s absolutely relevant and appropriate to point out the discrepancies or gulf between what we expect our CSO to be, and what our current CSO staff experience has been, both when they were law students and when they were CSO staff elsewhere.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:49:42 am
I echo ND3L’s statements wholeheartedly: 1) The persisent, exaggerated portrayals of faculty/administration members’ perceived shortcomings and eccentricities are disrespectful of those that provide us with an exemplary education; 2) Many stories push, if not cross, the line in portraying certain religious/racial/political stereotypes that are easily misconstrued and/or seen as offensive; 3)There are myriad ways to be funny outside of poking fun at others, yet all of the Patty O’s articles make fun of some person or group; and 4) There are more interesting and important things to think about while doing your business, like “What motivated someone to etch ‘Band Sucks’ in the handicapped stall of the Men’s Restroom in the Law School?” or, “Is it morally acceptable to use the handicapped stall when I’m not handicapped yet prefer the additional space to set my bag comfortably beside me and place a little more separation between myself and the person with loud flatulence 3 stalls down?”
For these reasons, I think we should avoid controversies and hurt feelings that the current format of the Patty O’ obviously generates. It’s just not worth it.
Secondarily, I want to mention that I think Mr. Shim has a valid point about the failure of individuals to temper their statements on blogs. All too frequently, people step on soapboxes on blogs and say things in such a way that hurts the reader. I learned this lesson all too well through my fortunately defunct blog. A classmate and now, fortunately friend told me in London during our 1L summer that prior to meeting me, she thought I was an unapproachable, sanctimonious, and self-righteous jerk because of the things that I said on my blog. Having reread many of the things I wrote on my blog and some of the things I’ve written here, I understand completely how she had this impression of me. With the written word, when directed at a particular audience, it’s extraordinarily difficult to temper one’s words to the sensibilities and reactions of others when they aren’t directly before you. Bald-faced, written recitations of one’s opinions don’t account for the instantaneous reactions of listeners. Face-to-face conversations do. By speaking directly, we are forced to recognize the feelings and emotions of others and adjust what we say accordingly. Here, however, there is an unavoidable communication gap that undeniably exacerbates the tension already generated through another piece of written communication. These sorts of thorny issues, when they directly involve people with whom we personally and daily interact, are better discussed in person. I’ve learned this lesson too, too, too many times. I can’t count the number of times I’ve sent a heated email with words that I never would have uttered to a person’s face. Earlier this semester, this behavior on my part almost ruined one of my best friendships. Indeed, we need to be far more careful about the things we communicate to each other indirectly, especially in writing. The mess we have here demonstrates this well.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:54:52 am
I think this issue is far more of a “freedom of speech” issue than the Fox DT issue.
Regarding the sensibilities of certain commentators on this blog who apparently are black and offended by this article, I find your position rather ridiculous. I am led to believe that there are really only two ways for white people to appease you: Submit all thoughts and publications to a panel of blacks to assure none will be offended and thus give a black roundtable complete censorship rights over white authors/speakers; stop talking about black people altogether and ignore their existence. Which do you prefer?
You know, don’t give me all this bullshit about history of slavery and racism. This has nothing to do with your skin color and the history of blacks in America and everything to do with that fact that you’ve been conditioned by your education and media to take offense. The fact is, blacks have a double standard when it comes to edgy material that concerns race. For instance, Roy Campanella was crucified and fired as an announcer for suggesting that maybe the reason blacks are disproportionately such good athletes is because of the selective breeding and survival of the fittest that occurred as a result of slavery (a logical conclusion as any). Yet recently on TV, Michael Irvin, commenting on an exceptionally athletic white football player, joked that surely the white player must’ve had some African in his bloodlines — only being part black could explain how the white player was so good. And virtually nobody has taken Irvin to task for that.
From any objective view, blacks have hardly been the most oppressed and discriminated group on the planet: Jews, for example, were historically segregated in European ghettos and almost completely wiped out in a genocide. And yet in my personal experience, I find my Jews to be far more open to non-Jews having fun with Jewish stereotypes than blacks. Which suggests maybe you should quit your bitching and instead spend more time worrying about your community’s own self-created problems, including atrocious graduation rates, atrocious incarceration rates, and atrocious divorce and abandonment rates. If you are so thin-skinned you get upset over obvious satire that meant no harm, how in the world are you going to be tough enough to lead and win the battle against the problems that truly threaten and grievously harm the black community?
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:27:02 am
Wow
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:29:38 am
dear ask a robot,
my husband has been surfing the net late at night. we used to fool around for hours before bed-time, but now (he says he’s doing our taxes), he holes up in there for hours. i know he’s visiting “naughty” webpages because our son showed me how to look at his cached files. i know it’s wrong to spy, but i don’t think he should hide this stuff from me.
i want to confront him but i’m afraid, if he knows how i found out, we’ll just fight about trust issues (and not sex).
what do i do? please help me.
upset in utica
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:30:32 am
Dear UPSET IN UTICA,
101010010 10010 10010101 100101 01010100 0101
10010101001 0101010 01 101001010 101001010 1001
10100101 01010001
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:34:31 am
Andrew you should just wear a white sheet and carry a noose with you to school on Monday to ensure that you are readily identifiable.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:39:22 am
Andrew,
While I agree with some of your points, I’d generally refer you to my previous post. Your reply is rife with strong words that, 1) you could have conveyed more charitably; and 2) you’d be far softer about conveying in person.
First, you’re on terribly thin ice in reducing the “black and offended” individuals here to malleable lab rats by stating that they’ve “been conditioned by [their] education and media to take offense.” Bear in mind that these are law students at a top-tier law school. They’re intelligent, rational individuals. You’d be well-served to dignify their obvious and, in fact, advanced ability to reason and think for themselves.
Second, you are being quite stereotypical by enunciating so sweeping a generalization as, “[t]he fact is, blacks have a double standard when it comes to edgy material that concerns race.” I know plenty of blacks that do not harbor your perceived conception of the universal black stereotype about race. You’re being unfair, both to the individuals on this blog and to blacks in general.
Third, you need to back off the “your community’s own self-created problems” line, because the underlying problems of which you speak are historically convoluted and no one group of persons’ fault. There is an obvious, historical legacy of slavery that still affects blacks to this day. They have remained economically disadvantaged relative to whites since slavery ended and are still socially ostracized by far too many, far too often. This is undeniable. Whether and to the extent that blacks have perpetuated this social disadvantage is debatable, but if I am correctly reading your general position as anti-welfare Neo-Con, I leave you with this to ponder: If black problems are self-created, then LBJ must have been our first black president.
Hmm, something about that rings false to me …
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:46:20 am
Let me retract something, Andrew. I don’t agree with “some” of your points. I agree with only “one” of your points, and that’s the one about Michael Irvin getting away scot-free for his racially insensitive and stereotypical statement about supposed black athletic superiority. It is a double standard that the media would not take issue with such a statement.
Outside of that point, I am bothered and upset by your post.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:51:05 am
i’m really upset with the pro-robot stance of this webpage. nobody should ask a robot anything–except to compact trash.
really, let’s clean up the dialogue. robots are retarded.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:02:41 am
Annoyed, Andrew isn’t a NDLS student. He’s also not a racist. Though it eternally frustrates me that he’s so willfully insensitive in expressing what are actually perfectly legitimate opinions in the most provocative and potentially offensive ways possible. Apropos of which, Patrick, you’re right, Andrew is the freakin’ poster boy for the thesis that the Internet causes people to sound more like assholes than they really are. Heh.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:19:01 am
Patrick, you are my blog-comment hero.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:22:45 am
That’s the third time someone has declared someone else his/her hero (or “shero”) on this thread. Heh.
Oh, what the hell, let’s make it four. Auto-robot-response, you are my her0.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:29:29 am
Wookie,
Although I generally agree with you, I object to your use of the word “retarded.”
Like most people, I generally despise robots. But I urge you to sign this petition. http://new.petitiononline.com/words/petition.html
All the Best,
B.D.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:31:46 am
I’d like to correct the statement I just made. I do not generally agree with Wookie–only that robots are gay as hell.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:32:18 am
Robots eat old people’s medicine for fuel.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:41:44 am
//”only that robots are gay as hell.”
dennehy, don’t you see you’re saying it’s okay to say “gay” but it’s not okay to say “retarded?”
why is one of those words more offensive than the other? let’s just not say either, shall we?
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:43:11 am
i mean not say either in the pejorative sense.