Around halloween time we had another guest, William Jacobson. Clinical Professor of law at the Cornell Law School, and creator of the famous right winged independent media outlet Legal Insurrection. Having Mr. Jacobson visit was actually very refreshing. He is someone who knows his opinion, and not only isn't afraid to voice it, but articulates it beautifully. He made you genuinely want to hear his point of view on an issue, just because it generally was one opposing of the view point the majority of the class had.
However there was one opposing view point that although, yes was interesting to hear, definitely struck a cord with both I and a few of my fellow classmates.
Considering it was around halloween, there was an article published regarding the disciplinary action taken when it comes to culturally appropriated halloween costumes.
If i remember correctly, Mr. Jacobson viewed the issue as something that should be corrected rather than punished. Maybe used as a way to educate those who did something wrong and tel them why, instead, of reprimanding them because of a wrongdoing.
I could see how this perspective is necessary, however when reading deeper into the article I was able to, come up with an opinion of my own. The article features a blog post from Jake Goldberg, a student who posted a letter from Tuft's multicultural Greek council which advises fraternities and sororities to be aware of their costume choices and also the repercussions of someone who is not.
Now, the blog post highlights one specific section, which of course discipline. And of course what the article focused on. However, yes the discipline does seem to be a bit extreme. The post states, "“The range of response for students whose actions make others in our community feel threatened or unsafe, or who direct conduct towards others that is offensive or discriminatory, includes OEO and/or TUPD investigation and then disciplinary sanctions from our office that could run a wide gamut depending on what is brought to our attention and the impact of these actions on others."
This bold section is straight out of the post as well. He decided to bold the portion which talks about the absolute most disciplinary action one could receive. Where in my opinion, I think everyone, including the author of the article, glossed over a very important word in that paragraph, one which I would have decided to put in bold; "range". or maybe even "includes"
I feel as though not everyone should get such harsh consequences, however not only should they get a slap on the wrist and be told not to do it again. There are some people who have fun with costumes which may portray a different ethnicity. Like dressing up as a rapper, princess jasmine, or in a sumo suit. However, there are ways to take it too far, and for those people who do, I'm sorry, but i do not believe it was an accident. Wearing turbans or painting your entire body in black face, is an intentional act no matter how "innocent" someone thinks it is. Maybe they dont deserve a mark on their judicial record, but they definitely deserve a legitimate punishment. Which hopefully in doing so, they simultaneously learn that lesson, that people like Mr. Jacobson believe is necessary.
To end this post, I would like to reference my favorite part of the article, which points out an "obvious horror" of the letter Goldberg decided to share:
A student who wears an outfit that offends somebody, yet had zero intention to do so, is just as much in violation of this policy as a student who purposefully seeks to insult others with their costume.
*gasp* the horror. to believe someone who appropriated someone unintentionally receives the same punishment. wild right?
WRONG.
See, if someone notices the appropriation, they just wouldn't wear that costume. I dont think there is anything unintentional about offending someone. Because if you didn't want to do it, why even take the risk? clearly it just must not make as much sense to everyone who may not have a personal connection to the issue, as a some who does aka me. But i do believe just because they give an accident as a justification in the long run, doesn't mean that was the initial intention. They did it, they made a decision. It's over, now seek punishment as necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment