Search News


Browse Archives

News

Unedited Articles Infuriate Vassar Students

September 26, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In retrospect, some editors at The Imperialist, a conservative magazine at Vassar College, wish they could have stopped the presses.

Time was running out before a deadline. An edited version of an article was missing. In editing, Vassar students had removed some phrases that were sure to offend many students. Rather than re-edit the piece, the editors went with the original version. Graydon Gordian, editor in chief, has acknowledged that the terms that were published were offensive to many on the campus -- and The Imperialist has been under attack ever since over those terms.

"How is diversity achieved,” reads the article “Race and Freedom,” written under the nom de plume “Constantine,” in the most recent Imperialist, when minority and gay and lesbian students "are voluntarily confining themselves to ghettoes" of cultural centers created for them. "I find the objective of diversity to be utterly meritless, suggesting that our colleges should become some zoological preserve in some paternalistic attempt [to] benefit our ‘non diverse’ students."

Minority students were outraged at the use of “ghetto” and “zoological,” as well as by a cartoon that was printed (and that Imperialist editors say that they never intended to edit out). The cartoon depicts an “almost hyper sexualized, or tribal,” Gordian said, black woman, with bangle bracelets and a ghoulish face, pointing a finger at a young, dollish looking white girl. The caption reads: “Black student confronting a white supremacist on campus.” The point, Gordian said, was “that when black students accuse a white student of being racist, that student is as helpless as a little girl.” When he first saw the cartoon, he said he thought it was “stupid, but innocuous,” and let it into the publication that has the motto: “provocative not inflammatory."

According to a group minority students who complained to the Vassar Students Association, the cartoon and article were definitely on the inflammatory end of that spectrum. “Graydon said he had no idea that this could be construed as racist,” said Tiera Rainey.  "The cartoon had a big ass, some stereotypical attitude, some big frizzy hair, a popped out hip. It reminded me of a minstrel character. As a black woman, that’s so demeaning."

Rainey was one of the students who asked the Vassar Students Association to take away student-activity funding from The Imperialist, which is run by the Moderate, Independent and Conservative Alliance. “I think they should lose their privilege to publish with student money,” Rainey said. “They like to rabble rouse. It’s not about public dialogue.” Rainey also pointed out that Constantine, while beneath the cloak of a penname, had no qualms about referring by name to the anonymous author of an article in The Miscellany News, the student newspaper. The article, written by a black woman, was critical of what the author called an “inherent hostility toward diversity at Vassar College.”

The student association decided to let The Imperialist off with the order that the Moderate, Independent and Conservative Alliance hold an open forum for students on campus later this month, which it has agreed to do. "They apologized," said Rachel Zoghlin, a member of the student association. "In the future, they’re going to be a lot more careful. I [didn’t want to] freeze their budget for the year…. They are a minority voice on campus. They’re trying to get the campus more aware of conservative ideas.”

Offended students were hardly soothed by the apology from Gordian, who described himself as part Puerto Rican, that was printed in The Miscellany News. The apology uses the first couple of paragraphs to express compunction for insensitivity. “Although I have a different interpretation of the term’s [ghetto’s] use,” Gordian wrote, it is an “offensive term to use in the way it was, and for its usage I sincerely apologize.”

It is the later paragraphs, where Gordian “would now like to address the accusation that in the most recent issue of The Imperialist there can be found ‘hate speech,’” that convinced some students that the apology was half-hearted. “To be frank, I think that this charge is ridiculous,” the letter continues.

Said Rainey: “Obviously it’s not an apology.”

Angelic Sosa, a black and Hispanic student who wrote a letter to The Miscellany News, is still seething about the use of “ghetto” to describe buildings designated for particular communities. “These are places where students of color and homosexual students can feel comfortable,” Sosa said. “Now they’re uncomfortable.” She found no solace in the fact that the article was previously edited, but that the edited version was lost -- “Well edit it again” – nor in the definition of a ghetto, presented by the conservative group as a place where people of the same culture congregate.

Matt Ambrose, president of the Moderate, Independent and Conservative Alliance, noted that this was only the third issue of The Imperialist, and that the incident was part of the publication’s “growing pains.” He hopes the forthcoming forum will be a positive step, and added “we’re rethinking the submission of anonymous articles. Originally, it was just a way to come up with cutesy pennames. It hasn’t worked out that way.” In an apparent editorial difference, however, Gordian said his policy on anonymous authors “stands as is.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Unedited Articles Infuriate Vassar Students

  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on September 26, 2005 at 11:02am EDT
  • Why do we publish student newspapers again?

  • There, There, Poopsie
  • Posted by JedI at Mercer Cty, NJ on September 26, 2005 at 11:02am EDT
  • The Imperialist seems to have committed the unpardonable sin of poking fun at the segregated facilities that allegedly keep the university "diverse." And, my goodness, the use of the word, "ghetto," is shocking!

    The outraged complainants are to be commended, though, for not exercising the customary rights of minority targets of ribbing at other insitutions. At Vassar, they only whined to the Students Association, agitating to cut off funding. Thin-skinned minorities elsewhere would have felt no compunction about stealing and destroying the entire print run of the offending conservative publication. Perhaps at some point, minorities will see fit to join the intellectual fray with written counter-arguments and thoughtful (even humorous) retorts. In my opinion, the Imperialist editor's quasi-apology is unfortunate.

  • Posted by chris on September 26, 2005 at 1:00pm EDT
  • I was offended by the use of the word "white." Last I checked, I'm sort of pinkish. I would like to see Inside Higher Ed's funding revoked, it's editors jailed, and all its readers forced to do a pushup every time they use the word ghetto.

  • Posted by James on September 26, 2005 at 4:22pm EDT
  • Places for minority and homosexual students to congregate and feel safe have nothing to do with purportions of diversity. They are intended to make the college experience of all members of an institution more comfortable. No matter how diverse (meaning how many different types of people there are at a school, not how these people get along with each other) has nothing to do with social interaction. The necessity for houses that seek to provide comfort for the marginalized on college campuses has to do with issues at schools that don't necessarily allow all students to be treated fairly there. So please, stop criticizing places like these as intended locales of aggresive segregation.

  • Posted by malcolm on September 26, 2005 at 10:30pm EDT
  • aww, the little baybsie-waybsies offended again? was YOUR little free-speechie weetsee repressed? of course not. try studying, and maybe we can address real injustice in the future. this whining has always made a joke of the left. wah, did i include YOU in my groupie-woopie without your informed consent? come on, people, there's work to be done against the system, if you haven't noticed.

  • Posted by Jeff on September 26, 2005 at 10:30pm EDT
  • Constantine was absolutely right in his article and you people who oppose him are traitors.

  • ghettos
  • Posted by Adam on September 26, 2005 at 10:31pm EDT
  • Could we have the whole article? What we read doesn't seem to be offensive. Isn't it something like the "niggardly" thing a few years ago--where what one needs to know is what the word really means? It IS a complicated matter though, on second thought. The gay part poses the same dilemma that "gays in the military" does, perhaps. (I say "perhaps" because I'm very shaky and unsure about all of this!) When people push for laws that a;encourage gays in the military the backlash they create (it seems to me at this moment) is so very "counterproductive"! So the gay person gets this RIGHT but now so very many people hate the idea of taking showers and sleeping and being always in close quarters with others who (we've got to face it) are getting turned on by them. How is that really different than coed dorms? And so even though these ARE ghettos on the campus of Vassar, they probably serve to AVOID many embarrassing and potentially violent, certainly awkward moments and experiences. And so I would think that the campus functions much more smoothly and peaceably and a more comfortable atmosphere is created and maintained. I imagine minorites BENEFIT from some seemingly "unfair" treament such as this. What do they say--the people in the dorms?

  • Does the Imperilist have a website?
  • Posted by Mike on September 27, 2005 at 4:21am EDT
  • Just curious, but does this newspaper have a website that we can fully view the article and cartoon? Thanks

  • Posted by Lisa on September 27, 2005 at 8:51am EDT
  • Nice article, some dumb comments, especially the first.

    But anyway, I can't believe they were ignorant enough to print that cartoon. After all the problems student papers have had with racist cartoons over the years...

  • Imperialist
  • Posted by benet on September 27, 2005 at 3:44pm EDT
  • I find the name of the newspaper more offensive than anything else.

  • Posted by Blithe Spirit on September 27, 2005 at 4:05pm EDT
  • Last comment, about Imperialist title: get over that, please. It's good in-your-face stuff. Look up irony, please. As for ghetto and zoo in the original, that is where rubber (no offense) hits the road in free speech, namely how you or y'all say it. If one must always hedge and qualify, one cannot (a) score big or (b) make ass of oneself in print, and that's a shame. Bravo for Imperialism, I mean Imperialist for running it (bouquet), brickbat for apologizing. On the other hand I. knows its audience and funding mechanics and would rather stay in business. What is one to do?

  • Posted by Finch on September 27, 2005 at 5:49pm EDT
  • It likely takes a good deal of intellectual strength (coupled with wry observation) to produce such material on a super-liberal campus like Vassar - known more for leftist ramblings that appeal to a closed faculty and a student population of rich white kids and sons and daughters of movie stars. To see Vassar emerge with a group of conservative thinkers should make Dartmouth worry.

  • Posted by Tanya on September 28, 2005 at 11:44am EDT
  • Ummmm...can you please elaborate on why you think that it takes intellectual strength to produce a racist cartoon on a campus like Vassar. I just feel as though the "Imperialist's" actions tend to fall on the more idiotic and insensitive side of things.

  • Words
  • Posted by John , Free-Lance Writer on September 30, 2005 at 11:46am EDT
  • I'd like to remind the audience that any publication must be held to standards for public consumption. This means, of course, that editors and writers must be aware that words have meaning. And, this meaning goes beyond dictionary definitions. For Constantine to suggest ignorance of words and definitions would mean that he is not qualified to write and publish. However, his psuedonym alone suggests that this young writer DOES think about meaning. Likening himself to an enlightened despot like Great Constantine -master of the Roman empire-- was not an accidental word choice that slipped through the cracks of the cutting room floor.
    So what is it? Stupidity or veiled despotism?

    Provocation is good for public debate as it moves discussions forward and uncovers assumptions. This, however, is not what the Constantine the Imperialist is doing.

  • In Response:
  • Posted by Constantine , Author of the Article in Question at Vassar College on October 2, 2005 at 6:01am EDT
  • Greetings,

    I am the author of the article, “Race and Freedom,” which was published under the pseudonym Constantine. On my weblog, at www.cineris.org/constantine/ I have published: the complete text of my article, the supposedly offensive image, and an archive in PDF format of all of the articles of the latest issue of The Imperialist (in which “Race and Freedom” was published).

    If you would, I would like to take a minute to express my thoughts on this whole situation, including the above InsideHigherEd.com article.

    First of all, I find it unusual that the article “Race and Freedom” has received the reaction that it has. The article’s primary concern is exploring philosophical and practical definitions of freedom. To be frank, I didn’t expect many people to even read the article in its entirety, much less get so upset over it. My intent in writing the article was not to offend, but rather to attempt to show why I consider a certain type of behavior to be built upon values that are inimical to a broader “American” conception of freedom.

    The only other explanation I find plausible, if a bit vain, is that the individuals on the Vassar campus who have led the attempt to penalize MICA for the wording of my article were frightened by the content of it. I do not think that any reasonable reading of my article can conclude that it was written to promote racism. The only connection I can draw between charges of racist content and my article requires a conflation of racial identity politics with race itself such that by opposing racial identity politics I am racist, QED. Obviously this logic is strained, at best.

    I am, in fact, happy to hear that students such as Angelic Sosa now feel “uncomfortable” in ethnically segregated housing. Though I am not, in the abstract, opposed to segregated housing, and acknowledge that there is not a necessary contradiction between espousing forced racial integration and demanding racially segregated housing, I do believe that the real world manifestation of these two views are indeed hypocritical. Many, many times I have heard students and professors at Vassar tell me that they would say things that may be uncomfortable to hear, things that may challenge my views. And, indeed, I have felt uncomfortable at times, and I have had my views challenged. My use of the word “ghetto” was precisely to challenge the views people like Ms. Sosa held about these racial congregation areas; if her comment is any indication, I hope I have succeeded.

    Furthermore, I am disappointed in the content of this InsideHigherEd.com article, which I feel is very misleading. Take, for example, the following sentence: “‘The cartoon depicts an ‘almost hyper sexualized, or tribal,’ Gordian said, black woman, with bangle bracelets and a ghoulish face, pointing a finger at a young, dollish looking white girl.” Mr. Epstein here gives no indication of his own editorializing when he describes the “black woman” with a “ghoulish face.” In fact, the face of the figure is not distinguishable.

    Mr. Epstein also reports verbatim Ms. Rainey’s claim that I “had no qualms about referring by name to the anonymous author of an article in The Miscellany News, the student newspaper.” The article was not anonymous. The article was fully attributed when it appeared in a special edition of the Miscellany News the week following a Feb. 24th (I believe) Town Hall meeting. While I do not personally keep my copies of the newspaper for six months, I suspect The Miscellany News office has a copy. Unfortunately the online archives for March 2005 are not available.

    Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this InsideHigherEd.com article is that it’s an article about my use of the words “ghetto” and “zoological” and two silhouettes against a white background and not an article about how one group of students feels that it is okay to forcibly intimidate another group of students on campus for exercising their right of free speech. I am not merely referring to the bureaucratic strong-arming that has gone on to force an apology from Graydon, but also the physical intimidation and several incidents of “assault” (shoving and other violent actions, but fortunately, no actual brawls yet) that I have heard of first-hand. Fortunately anonymity protects me personally from such behavior, but the animosity is regrettably channeled towards other individuals who see no inherent problem with my article. This threatening behavior is perpetrated not just against conservative students at Vassar; even liberal/Democrats who have sided with MICA on this and other tempest-in-a-teapot issues have been subject to similar treatment.

    Regards,

  • Black man who's SAT's and GPA are higher than yours
  • Posted by Adam , Adam at Your Mom on October 10, 2005 at 7:13pm EDT
  • Constantine,

    You're a punk, because you can't post your real name. The only reality in your argument people are offended by is the rabid fear you have of people who are different from you and the violence implicit in the language you use to express yourself. All the patting on the back that occurs between white men on this website doesn't hide the pathological paranoia of a man who is threatened by the presence and relative cohesion of minority students at a college where there are so few of them. Nothing can excuse your language or your cowardice, expecially not the congradulatory speech of a few pathetic sympathizers on the internet. Your fear of us says far more about you than your painfully self-conscious academic writing and the inadequacy and guilt its persistent self-justification betrays.

    To put it plainly: You're a punk bitch.

  • Posted by Vassar '08 on October 10, 2005 at 7:13pm EDT
  • Constantine, maybe you should learn something about your topic of choice (i.e. ALANA center) before you write about it. For instance, it is in no way segregated housing, yet that is what you have called it. Perhaps you don't understand, but I venture to say that you don't care to understand. You know nothing of the value or premise of the ALANA Center, all you know is that your own white privilege is threatened by its very existence. Walking to the ALANA Center would force people like you Constantine to consider why you are uncomfortable there. You live your life without ever having to worry about being judged and mistreated because of the color of your skin and you are offended by students who are consistently marginalized on Vassar campus congregating with each other to seek refuge. And let's be honest with ourselves, you are a coward for writing under the guise of "Constantine." Have a nice day.

  • Posted by Vassar Sophomore at Vassar on October 11, 2005 at 6:13pm EDT
  • I sided with MICA on this one, but now that I'm seeing the fallout from the entire issue, I'm disappointed in everyone.
    I was initially disappointed in my fellow Vassar students for not taking this to MICA in a serious and orderly way, but rather going straight to student government. And, just for the record, what was in the article was shocking, maybe even sickening, but it was not hate speech. I've heard hate speech. This was merely offensive.

    Constantine: Your article made a point; diversity taken as ideology and not idea is dangerous and counterproductive. But the more I read of your comments on the article, the less I believe that you really knew what you were doing. You should know, if you were on the Vassar campus at all, that we have no segregated housing (not since voluntarily-segregated black housing ended in the 1970's) on campus, and that no one could ever live in the ALANA center or in Blegen House. It's physically impossible. I go to the ALANA every week, and I feel cramped in there after a couple hours. You may feel that using the words ghetto and zoological in the context of a college campus is okay. Fine, that's your decision. It's your constitutional right. But look what's happened:
    http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=8452

    That's hate speech. Undeniably so. There are names in that article, names of people who are now personally vulnerable to the kind of despicable hate that poisons this world. Why? Because you chose, as a journalist, to be purposefully inflammatory. Their names are out there now, not yours. I know you place great value in names.

    Everybody:

    These are the consequences of an atmosphere where we cannot talk to each other. I support The Imperialist because I appreciate the value of hearing the other side -- especially on this campus where the members of MICA are so outnumbered. I know people who work on The Imperialist; they're good people. Could we, please, for the sake of the world, try talking to people like them about our problems before showing the people of the world how our blind *anything*-- outrage, faith, belief, arrogance -- destroys us from within?

  • Posted by Constantine at Vassar College on October 12, 2005 at 4:47am EDT
  • Vassar Sophomore,

    I'm quite aware that Vassar doesn't have racially segregated dormitories. My use of the term housing to describe these facilities was merely for brevity's sake.

    I find it disturbing that you hold me accountable for actions that have occurred several steps removed from myself. I did not force anyone on the Vassar campus to attempt to revoke the VSA membership or funding of MICA. Furthermore, I did not force InsideHigherEd.com to write the article above about the incidents at Vassar College. I did not force any of the individuals who are named in the InsideHigherEd.com article to identify themselves in said article. Lastly, I did not force the proprietors of Overthrow.com to write, clearly using the InsideHigherEd.com article as their source, their own disturbing and disgusting account of events that have transpired at Vassar.

    None of this happened because I chose to be "inflammatory." Your statement that I am somehow culpable for Overthrow.com's racist remarks about students who identified themselves in the InsideHigherEd.com article strikes me as confused reasoning. Overthrow.com is responsible for what is posted on Overthrow.com. The proximate cause of the Overthrow.com article is the InsideHigherEd.com article, and the identified students' inclusion in the InsideHigherEd.com article comes directly as a result of their willingness to be interviewed for said article.

    I am responsible for writing an article that challenged Liberal orthodoxy. As much as I might like to be able to control the reactions of the individuals who have and continue to misconstrue the content and intent of my article, I cannot. Instead of formulating thoughtful intellectual rebuttals, of which I have seen not one from anyone on Vassar's campus, many individuals have chosen instead to act out of emotion. One of the mantras I hear repeatedly being used by people who wish to censure MICA or me is that speech has consequences. Indeed it does. Actions also have consequences. Why is it that so many people wish to hold my speech accountable for the actions of others? Are these others not adults, fully capable of their own decisions and actions?

    Regards,

  • Posted by Vassar Sophomore at Vassar on October 12, 2005 at 10:04am EDT
  • I admit that my comment was too emotional for it's own good; I recognize that. But it speaks, more than anything, to my utter frustration with this whole issue.

    I suppose what frustrates me so in this whole debate is exactly that one can not control people's reactions to what one writes. But what can control what one says.

    Particularly in public forums, especially for authors of published work, incorrect or irresponsible use of words — for example "housing" when one is not referring to a residence — only confuses one's argument. You had a great idea in that article of yours, but it was one that needed to be treated with care because in printed media it's difficult to tell the tone of a writer's voice. Surely you knew, maybe even hoped, that there would be reaction to your idea and your article. Perhaps not this kind of reaction you would have liked, but surely you wouldn't have written it without wanting a response. The Imperialist staff talks about conversation and awareness, so i doubt you were just getting this off your chest in some sort of cathartic fit. Something bothered you, and you're intelligent. And so you wrote.

    If we'd been having a conversation and you'd said what you wrote, I may have done a double-take, but probably would have dismissed it quickly. In casual speech, things are easier to swallow because as people, we don't always have time to think about what we want to say. The same is true on these blogs and whatnot, so I'm sorry for jumping down your throat about the housing thing.

    But in print, your every word is up for the masses to scrutinize, with the understanding that you put it there, purposefully. You've got the right to say whatever you want, so the words you choose are your responsiibility. As a journalist, as a writer, as someone who assumes the responsibility of informing, you cannot shrink away from what happens next. You've posted here and other places, almost bemused by what you see as overreaction and general idiocy. But you're so detached from the personality your article has taken on. That's what's frustrating to me. You're missing the heart of the issue. This goes beyond what my frazzled brain can communicate, but I'm gonna try anyway. Let the shit hit the fan, I'm willing to face the consequences.

    True, Overthrow's words are not your responsibility. I very much doubt you're what I'd call a racist. I'm willing to bet you're a good, decent, person. That's why I'm even taking the time to write this. You say you didn't force any of this. But your word choice did.

    You can't possibly have thought, as an intelligent person, that only 60 years after World War II, "ghetto" can be taken only by its literal meaning without social context. That's less than a lifetime to come to terms with the images that "ghetto" invokes. The world has not yet healed from that. (This isn't like, as some people say, using "niggardly" correctly; "ghetto" is the actual word and it comes with all the baggage.) You forced reaction with that word, I'll go as far to say that you forced angry reaction with that word. You may not have meant to appear racist, but guess what? You have. To everyone. And it seems pretty clear to me that this new title bothers you.

    You aren't a racist. You're an intelligent person who knows how to argue a point. You're better than the people at Overthrow.com. You're smarter than they are. You're better than the people here who are fighting the wrong people (MICA) in the wrong way (trying to censor them.) You're willing to talk about it. And so people will listen to what you say. Now. Take a stand. Differentiate yourself. Take responsibility for what happened, and for goodness' sake, help us move on.

    Otherwise, you're just as bad as "they" are. On that note, doesn't bother you at all that the authors of that "disturbing and disgusting" article now count you as their ally?

  • Posted by L S , "better than?" I disagree. at VC '05 on October 12, 2005 at 11:17am EDT
  • Dear Vassar Sophomore,

    I am so glad you make this point, below, to Constantine, because it is so important that Constantine condemn nazi usage of his article, even it if is "not his fault.” But it bothers me that you say Constantine is "better than" the people who took this to the VSA...ignoring that if this had never been published, or edited better (or at all), none of the fallout, including the horrible, frightening consequence that two vassar students now have their names used on a nazi website that urges its followers to go out and take action, would have occurred.
    No student is asking for censorship. They originally asked for censure, a different word, which is in the VSA constitution and can be done at any time. All it means is the VSA demands an apology. And the students also asked that they not have to pay for the printing of something that upsets them personally (Constantine makes a distinction between being personally offended and just generally offended in his article). If funding for the Imperialist was cut, the newspaper could have taken to the Internet, or published underground with other funds.

    Alternately, as a way to end this, the Imperialist could have, instead, offered to abide by guidelines. Squirm, the on-campus porn magazine which has come up several times, already does abide by guidelines of "decency" (no full frontal nudity, no genitalia, etc). What about encouraging the Imperialist to get in line with Vassar's own policy of civil discourse, in which you can't write anything that will offend, or that you should know will offend, a person or group of people? But Constantine's argument in his own article is that black people are too easily offended and that they shouldn't be, so obviously he's not going to take seriously the idea that their offense carries any weight. As a private institution, Vassar has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable speech. And if you disagree, you are free to leave campus, or post your writings elsewhere, including on the internet.

    Constantine, if you understood anything about people who are not like you, you would understand that this is indeed an emotional issue. That your article and the fallout from it questions the right of students of color to be in school, since they must struggle so hard just to be treated like other students, and live on campus without worry of personal attack (because the original article was, indeed, a personal attack against a student who had not done anything to you). There is no way for you, as a white person, to understand what it means that two students have been called the n-word publicly. But think about this: what if a future employer googles them? How long will the reverberations of this last? Probably longer for them than for you, because you still don't even have a real name to smear. Don't you understand that this is an example of privilege, that you can write and post absolutely anonymously and suffer no repercussions, while the bodies of the students of color on campus physically mark them as "other," mark them as "angry" and "emotional," make them the targets for future attacks? Because this is out in the news now, and there is no telling what will happen next. Do you understand that because of the color of their skin, they cannot hide when something like this happens? Are you willing, yet, to rescind your original argument that the color of one's skin is practically incidental and shouldn't be important to one's life? Because there are still plenty of people out there, and not black people but people who hate them, who think otherwise. So your happy idealist philosophical argument about how color shouldn't be important is fine and all, but I think it's clear that you've been proven wrong in that respect.

    Students are "overly sensitive," as you say, in perceiving race because they've been sensitized by lifetimes of racism. Because they've grown to expect outbursts like the nazi article at Overthrow. Because they expect to hear that word used against them. And anything less than the n-word is just potentially leading up to it (as has happened here). Racism is a matter of degrees. For instance, your statement that black people have been academically trained to find racism sounds a lot like the Nazi argument. found online about Jewish academia. Of course, it is worded differently, in a different context, but it is essentially the same argument, motivated by the same fears. This is why students stood up against your article: for what it symbolized, for what campus tolerance of racist ideas could lead to (and it is clear that, given the current explosion on campus of anger and hate, that racism at Vassar is more suppressed than it is eradicated, and that your ideas are much more prevalent than I had hoped).

    Vassar's speech policy says that students do not have to tolerate insults from you. There is no "right way" to go about asking for redress because it is always an imposition to have students of color address themselves to a largely white body, whether that is the VSA or the Administration. Are they not supposed to have opinions? to get angry or emotional when they are hurt? To read well enough that they can find their rights as a student in the Vassar College Regulations?

    Cosntantine, I know you spend a lot of time on the Internet, but I ask that this time you read carefully and spend some time actually thinking, honestly, about what has happened. I'm totally giving you credit for having that capacity. Because people can change, and I want to give you that chance. But it's time for you to stop talking so much and start learning from what people have to tell you. If you do care about race as you purport to in your article, it could be a good experience for you.

  • My bad
  • Posted by Vassar Sophomore at Vassar on October 12, 2005 at 4:41pm EDT
  • Dear J.S.,
    In my rush to get that comment up before class, i left out a very important distinction. I do, in fact, believe Constantineto be better than *some* of the students who took this matter to the VSA, namely the ones calling for a complete shutdown of the paper; the censorship so different from the censure you described. These students, and there were some among the rational ones, are the ones whose behavior I find ridiculous. My better than qualification comes from the fact that at least Constantine is now talking about what happened with "the other side" as it were, instead of ignoring what that other side has to say. I think the VSA did an admirable job considering the circumstances and that Gordian's apology was a step in the right direction at least.

  • Posted by ?? on October 15, 2005 at 11:19am EDT
  • Constantine:
    You say that you knew the Alana Center and Blegen house were not dorms, but that your use of "the term housing to describe these facilities was merely for brevity’s sake." I'm curious how the phrases you used, "ethnically" or "racially segregated housing," were less difficult to type or less lengthy than "cultural center," the accurate term.

  • Posted by Patrick on October 16, 2005 at 10:00pm EDT
  • "So the gay person gets this RIGHT but now so very many people hate the idea of taking showers and sleeping and being always in close quarters with others who (we’ve got to face it) are getting turned on by them. How is that really different than coed dorms?"

    This was a comment made by some fellow named Adam way back up on the top of this thread. I apolgize for distracting from the recent comments (which I so deeply appreciate, especially that of LS), but gay men in the company of straight men are not getting actively turned on by them in a locker room. The assumption is gross and ridiculously ignorant. A gay man in the company of straight (naked) men, can actually control himself enough to change his clothing without reaching out and caressing the nearest man.

    This comment ranks with the time I, as a gay man, was asked about "soap dropping" in locker room showers. I, as a gay man, am apparently supposed to know all about how straight men drop the soap, bend over to pick it up, and are then anally raped by gay men... That's insane and homophobic, as is the above comment in its assumptions about gay male sexuality within the context of "don't ask, don't tell."

  • Posted by Andy on October 17, 2005 at 4:38pm EDT
  • Constantine,

    In an earlier post, you wrote: “I do not think that any reasonable reading of my article can conclude that it was written to promote racism.” Well, Constantine, even though you may not think them “reasonable,” many readings posted on the Internet have connected your article with racism. How could this be?

    Words like “ghetto” have a history. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest usage in the English language occurred in Thomas Croyat’s Croyats Crudities, in 1611. He defined the term as “the place where the whole fraternity of Jews dwelleth together” (230). This definition may have had undertones of anti-Semitism but that is unclear from the specific passage. Nevertheless, the definition has changed over the past four hundred years; now, the word “ghetto” can be linked to racism. The second definition presented by the OED is: “A quarter of the city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited by a minority group or groups, usu. as a result of economic or social pressures; an area, etc., occupied by an isolated group; an isolated or segregated group, community, or area.” Though this definition does not explicitly contain the word “racism,” the link can be achieved through the intermediary “segregated,” since this term (“segregated”) when associated with a “minority group or groups” is associated with racism.

    So, even though you may not have intended it, your words linked you to racism. When you use terms like “ghetto,” you have to be aware of their historical evolution, because modern usages and interpretations are strongly tied to the histories of the usages of the terms. So, I do hold you accountable for the National Socialist Movement’s reaction to your article; you chose specific words that linked you to racism and thus to white supremacy. Therefore, you are personally responsible for any repercussions that your institution and your fellow-students must face.

    Sincerely,

  • Please
  • Posted by Michelle Savarese on October 25, 2005 at 3:38pm EDT
  • First of all, Mr. Constantine's link for the article is not up. So can he get the site working.

    Second, can we just all please deal with reality...it is 2005 people. Modern anthropology reveals that the thing we call race is a socially constructed concept and not scientific. While it is true especially in America that the history of white and black must be dealt with, and while it is true that there are in fact different phenotypes - the ultimate truth is we are more alike than different. It is too bad that European Americans that still consider themselves as white do not recognize this ultimate truth and actually take on the "responsibility" of pointing out to those they categorize as black or brown and who have been historically (and in the real world) segregated that they have no right to segregated housing on campus. Are European Americans looking to dorm there, we all know dorms are segregated by choice just as the real world is, and who is to blame for that???
    I am Italian and Sicilian American, I walk the middle line, I could be "white" if I want to like so many other brown skin Italians, but I choose to recognize the African influence in our bloodline and the social realities that American history has produced. It is about time that all people, espcially European Americans begin to do this.

    Also, I want to say I saw the character of the African woman on the News. While I would agree on the minstrel influence of her design, I have to say she was actually beautiful (maybe an image Kara Walker would create). Whoever drew her undoubtedly recognizes African beauty, it is too bad that recognition can not be put to positive use.
    And then to top everything off, to be accused of being a racist at Vassar is to feel like a "little girl" - that is a little white girl...come on people, please...

    I saw the picture on the News, while I agree

  • Posted by Meg on October 28, 2005 at 4:35am EDT
  • I would like to make a quick correction. "I was basically afraid to come across a group of African Americans in the halls on my way to class..." I made a mistake in my editing, and we all know what that can lead to.

  • Posted by Meg on October 28, 2005 at 4:35am EDT
  • This is going back a bit, but I feel the need to address an issue I have. Why is it that Adam (10/10/2005) identifies himself as a "BLACK man [whose] SAT's and GPA are higher than yours"? If someone wrote "WHITE man..." the outrage would be unbelievable. Does the fact that you're black make your high grades better than someone else's high grades? I realize that you may have encountered more adversity in your life, but if what we're reaching for is a society in which no one makes distinctions based on race, why do you make such an effort to point out that you're black? Why is it okay to be proud of being black, or hispanic, etc, but being proud to be white is unheard of, except among white supremicists? I would say, in fact, that many whites would admitt to having certain feelings of actual guilt or shame when they think about their race. It seems to me that some (not all) African Americans are so tied up with being oppressed, that they make more of an issue of their race than European Americans. In this way, it is a fact that racism works in more than one way. In my high school, I was constantly and intentionally intimmidated by African Americans, to the point where I was basically afraid of coming across a them in my halls on my way to class, or in the bathroom. My parents raised me to see people without looking at skin color, but certain behavior of those people of another "race" brought me to the realization that skin color does count, because people make it count. If everyone wants to stop racism and discrimination, maybe they should stop perpetuating their own ostracism with continual references on their own behalf to their race. I'm talking about this in regards to EVERY so-called "race."

  • There are TWO n-words here...
  • Posted by Sparrowhawk on October 28, 2005 at 4:36am EDT
  • Firstly - CONSTANTINE: Fix the links on your blog already!

    Secondly - I am white, so I cannot possibly know what goes on in the mind of a person of color when they hear the N-word spoken by a 'white' person. I assume the reaction is mostly anger, or perhaps surprise at the incredible presumtion in the use of a word that belongs to people of color.
    I can, however, explain my reaction to the N-word occasionally applied to conservatives - Nazi. It sickens me to be compared to Nazis, it fills me with an unreasonable fear that someone will take the accusation seriously and actually think I am a Nazi, which I most certainly am not. I am Roman Catholic, and Hitler would have wasted no time in killing me. I am occasionally called racist for expecting people to be judged based on their intelligence, wisdom, and abilities, and not on the color of their skin (or their ancestor's skin) and I am occasionally called sexist for expecting women to be held bound by the laws that proscribe punishment for murder. My gut reaction is always a mixture of fear (for possible consequences of my being associated with the label thrown at me) and nausea. (for the incredible ignorance it shows when someone ends intelligent discourse and descends to name-calling)
    I would rather be called the N-word that people of color find so insulting, a word that in my experience has only connotation, never denotation, but may have at one time simply meant "person from the country Niger" or "ignorant person." At least when I am called ignorant, debate doesn't necessarily screech to a halt.

    In closing - yes, Vassar has a speech code, but as long as they enforce it arbitrarily and not uniformly, (The Misc actually printed the N-word I referred to above, and I don't mean Nazi) they open themselves up to legal action against their ill-considered censorship of the only conservative voice on campus.