Spring Break
EDITORIAL:Solving racism no joke
Editorial | 5/1/07
Posted online at 10:59 PM EST on 4/30/07
/ Last updated at 11:44 AM EST on 4/30/07
In October 2003, the Justice published a column containing an allusion to the very worst of American racial epithets. That event and the tumultuous weeks that followed--remembered as the Dusty Baker Incident, referring to the former Cubs manager at whom the racist insult was hurled--seem now as mythical as a cautionary tale, one in which this publication failed to fully grasp the severity of its gaffe, and in which the campus's condemnation was appropriate in its vehemence. But the method of that response--and its aftermath--buried the issues at hand instead of resolving them.
With the last class of students witness to the controversy about to graduate, we would have hoped the campus's wounds had healed. But nearly four years later, it appears little has changed.
As community members and as a fellow publication, we are profoundly embarrassed by the hateful satirical advertisement for a "BlackJerry" personal assistant that appeared in Gravity Magazine last week. Just as we were astounded by its blatant racism, we can barely comprehend how its editors--knowing fully the campus's intolerance for hate speech--thought the advertisement's publication would ruffle no feathers. This should not have happened.
But it did, and emotions are justifiably high. We share our peers' frustrations, which in turn have shed light on an even starker dilemma: The racial dynamic on this campus is far more than strained; it is broken.
That notion was staggeringly apparent at the discussion moderated by the Brandeis Black Student Organization Sunday night: Passions filled the room. And senior members of BBSO, who hoped progress had been made in combating racism here, expressed a renewed disillusion. They rightly said that the advertisement crossed the line between satire and hate speech, and that actions were necessary.
The first arrived when the Union Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning Gravity, one which moved to punish the group, prevent future racial insensitivity in campus media and promote cultural understanding. In some passages there is potential for progress. But elsewhere, and in the resolution's overall tone, we see a familiar theme reemerging, one that disastrously marked past controversies, including our own.
With the last class of students witness to the controversy about to graduate, we would have hoped the campus's wounds had healed. But nearly four years later, it appears little has changed.
As community members and as a fellow publication, we are profoundly embarrassed by the hateful satirical advertisement for a "BlackJerry" personal assistant that appeared in Gravity Magazine last week. Just as we were astounded by its blatant racism, we can barely comprehend how its editors--knowing fully the campus's intolerance for hate speech--thought the advertisement's publication would ruffle no feathers. This should not have happened.
But it did, and emotions are justifiably high. We share our peers' frustrations, which in turn have shed light on an even starker dilemma: The racial dynamic on this campus is far more than strained; it is broken.
That notion was staggeringly apparent at the discussion moderated by the Brandeis Black Student Organization Sunday night: Passions filled the room. And senior members of BBSO, who hoped progress had been made in combating racism here, expressed a renewed disillusion. They rightly said that the advertisement crossed the line between satire and hate speech, and that actions were necessary.
The first arrived when the Union Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning Gravity, one which moved to punish the group, prevent future racial insensitivity in campus media and promote cultural understanding. In some passages there is potential for progress. But elsewhere, and in the resolution's overall tone, we see a familiar theme reemerging, one that disastrously marked past controversies, including our own.
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 7
James Sanders
posted 5/01/07 @ 11:38 AM EST
Though I disagree with some small parts of this editorial, its probably the most thought out editorial I've read in the Justice in a long time. Good job on this one. (Continued…)
Brian Paternostro
posted 5/01/07 @ 2:36 PM EST
I read each word in the editorial with less and less surprise. The diction chosen in this editorial seems almost scripted on behalf of the Editorial Board to carefully walk the fence on this issue, all the while maintaining the self-serving right to have an unquestioned press. (Continued…)
James Sanders
posted 5/01/07 @ 3:24 PM EST
"Censorship requires either prior restraint on the part of the government or coercive action to prevent speech from occurring." So you don't think scaring people not to say certain thing by threat of dechartering is coercive?
I'd remind you that in China, people are also free to say what they want. (Continued…)
Jordan Pollard
posted 5/02/07 @ 9:55 PM EST
Whitney v. California (1927)
Justice Brandeis -
??fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. (Continued…)
A former editor
posted 5/10/07 @ 4:38 AM EST
Though Brian makes some good points, his comment reflects a complete lack of knowledge regarding the circumstances leading up to and following the unfortunate Dusty Baker incident. (Continued…)
Post a Comment