Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Tale of Two Posters

September 28, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

At Tufts University, one student’s brand of political satire smacks of racial insensitivity to a number of his fellow Asian-American students.

Two weeks ago, In-Goo Kwak, a freshman studying international relations and an immigrant from South Korea, put up a series of posters around his dormitory parodying the campaign poster of Alice Pang, another freshman of Asian descent who was running for the Tufts Community Union Senate. Kwak was not actually running for a student government position, but posted the parody next to Pang’s at the encouragement of his dorm mates. who thought he was right to poke fun at the air of political correctness he perceived on the campus.

Pang’s poster included the campaign slogan, “small person, big ideas,” with the exclamation “hurrah!” next to her portrait. Kwak’s parody poster looks strikingly similar in design to Pang’s and includes the slogan “squinty eyes, big vision.” Next to Kwak’s portrait is the word "kimchi!" -- a traditional Korean dish. Additionally, where Pang's poster read "vote on Thursday," Kwak's said, “Prease vote me! I work reary hard!” in deliberately broken English. (A picture of both posters side-by-side can be found in The Tufts Daily, the student newspaper.)

Photo: In-Goo Kwak

Kwak's controversial poster.

Though some on campus have expressed great concern about the poster since it was posted, Kwak defended his actions and noted that none of the concerned students approached him directly to voice their distaste before informing campus administrators about the incident.

“Though this was a satire of [Pang’s] poster, this was not a personal insult in any way,” Kwak said. “I thought it would be funny to satire the oppressive environment of political correctness at Tufts. I think it’s unhealthy that people feel afraid to express their views. One of the Asians on my hall saw the poster and showed it all over campus and eventually the director of the Asian American Center contacted me, but not one of the students who found this offensive contacted me directly. Instead, they had someone else do it.”

Linell Yugawa, the director who contacted Kwak, said she did not wish to comment on the matter, and hung up during a call requesting an interview. Still, days after the incident, she did send an e-mail to the entire Tufts community denouncing Kwak's parody, which she called “racist.”

“Many Asian/Asian Americans and individuals of other racial backgrounds have been angered, hurt, and offended by these posters,” Yugawa wrote in a letter co-signed by directors of other groups at the university, such as the Latino Center and the LGBT Center. “The posters not only mocked an authorized campaign poster, but used negative and racist stereotypes that correlate with the discrimination and dehumanization of Asians. These posters go beyond affecting one individual or group, but offend all who have an understanding of how racist stereotypes impact our lives.

"Some may argue that we need to ‘lighten up’ and/or ‘reclaim’ the stereotypes and words that have harmed us and our communities. While it is one thing to mutually engage in this type of conversation, it is another to post stereotypical and racist language that is open to interpretation and hurtful to many. We cannot truly know how the content of these posters have triggered members of the Tufts community.”

The Tufts administration had a more reserved response to the matter, preferring to let student groups facilitate the discussion Kwak’s poster has stirred.

“We are writing to express our view that the denigration of any individual or group based on race or ethnicity is not consistent with the kind of civic discourse that makes for a great university community,” wrote Robert Sternberg, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, and Linda Abriola, dean of the School of Engineering, in a joint e-mail to students. “A vigorous exchange of ideas is best conducted when individuals and groups honor the values of community, respect and civility. How we treat each other reflects our ability to understand each other, respect difference, and grow. This incident is an opportunity for us all to learn about the persistence of racial and ethnic stereotypes and that education can enable us to rise above them.”

The week after Kwak’s poster was discovered, the Asian-American Alliance, a student group, organized an open group discussion for students about the incident. Members of the organization did not respond to requests for comment, but Kwak said he attended the meeting without being noticed to hear the student response to his parody.

“They organized this meeting like it was an emergency session of Congress,” Kwak said of the student group’s discussion. “There seems to be a lot of double standards out there. For instance, there was one student who said it was okay for one Asian student to call another Asian student a ‘chink’ but that it wasn’t OK for a white student to do so. At the same time, one girl just kept on saying, ‘I heard he isn’t getting punished. Why is he not getting punished?’ I was interested to sit and hear some of those views, even thought I respectfully disagreed with some of them.”

Kwak also said that he has since apologized to Pang, explaining the purpose behind his poster, and that she graciously accepted his apology. Pang did not respond to requests for comment.

Though the debate roused by Kwak’s poster has faded in the weeks since the incident, Kwak said he hopes his satire will teach those at Tufts a lesson about what he perceives of as the ills of political correctness.

“People are so afraid to talk about this or to express their support of my poster because they’re afraid of getting in trouble with one of the groups on campus,” Kwak said. “And this is happening on a college campus, where people should be comfortable sharing their views. I mean, I was [comfortable]. I put my name on the poster in big letters. There’s this taboo against the discussion of racial issues. I’m not going to be afraid to talk about them, and I’m not going to back down.”

Rosalind S. Chou, a sociology doctoral student at Texas A&M University and co-author of The Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism, offered restrained praise for both Kwak and Tufts in their handling of the incident and subsequent debate.

“You have to commend [Kwak] on his bravery to do this act of resistance, and you have to commend Tufts for reacting quickly and having its students feel comfortable enough to have a dialogue about it so soon,” Chou said. “Not to take anything away from the individuals who this may have brought pain, but there are some positive things about this. Of course I don’t condone actions like this to where it hurts feelings and brings pain, but it says something that the envelope can be pushed at Tufts and they can use it as an opportunity to talk about race. If this had happened here at Texas A&M, it would have been swept under the rug immediately.… If we want racial progress, we have to talk about these things.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Tale of Two Posters

  • A Tale of Two Posters
  • Posted by Steve Finner on September 28, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • The discourse that has followed the posting of the "offending" poster is far more important than the original act itself, if only to educate those calling for Kwak to be punished as to the meaning of the first amendment.

  • I Implore You ... Don’t Write Satire
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on September 28, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • There are not many issues that would inspire me to post in InsideHigherEd these days, but satire is one of them. Specifically, I want to come to the defense of In-Goo Kwak.

    First, is my advice to young scholars, both students and faculty. You young folks, undergraduates, graduate students, and those of you in your first positions as assistant professors; however you structure your careers, do not, under any circumstances, write parody or satire. Eschew irony! Take my word for it, you will be writing in an environment in which sarcasm, biting wit, and paradox will confuse your colleagues, anger your chair and dean, and infuriate your president. And the legislators who vote on bills providing financial support for your university ... well, d’oh. Were Jonathan Swift your colleague, “A Modest Proposal” and “Gulliver’s Travels” would forever impede his progress toward graduation or promotion and tenure.

    It’s not that these academics and legislators object to satire and irony, per se; it’s simply that they don’t understand it ... they are forced to take it at face value ... the curse of the intellectually challenged. We live in a time in which many of the works of Voltaire, Mark Twain, Aldous Huxley, Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Lewis Black, and Dave Chappelle will blow right past your Provost.

    Perhaps I’m overstating the case, but I’d wager that the best many of your colleagues can manage will be along the lines of Jeff Foxworthy and Bill Cosby. They probably love the poetry of Edgar A Guest. Some will think the Harry Potter and Lemony Snicket series are subversive.

    The Language Police have been patrolling outside academe for years. Now they’re firmly entrenched inside. I implore you ... don’t write satire!

    Isn’t it remarkable, for example, that David Moltz was compelled to explain to us that “kimchi” is a traditional Korean dish and “Prease vote me! I work reary hard!” is deliberately broken English ... as if he’s reporting this incident to a bunch of numbskulls who may not understand some of Mr. Kwak’s satirical tools.

    And putting it kindly, Linell Yugawa is one of those intellectually challenged, up-tight, Language Police to whom I referred earlier.

    The (in my opinion) outrageous joint communiqué by Robert Sternberg, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, and Linda Abriola, dean of the School of Engineering that “A vigorous exchange of ideas is best conducted when individuals and groups honor the values of community, respect and civility” reminded me of Paul Goodman’s take on the matter; to wit ...

    “It is my thesis that the agent of this clinch is administration and the administrative mentality among teachers and even the students. It is the genius of administration to enforce a false harmony in situations that should be rife with conflict.

    Historically, the communities of scholars have perennially been invaded by administration from the outside, by Visitors of king, bishop, despotic majority, or whatever is the power in society that wants to quarantine the virulence of youth, the dialog of persons, the push of inquiry, the accusing testimony of scholarship.

    But today Administration and the administrative mentality are entrenched in the community of scholars itself; they fragment it and paralyze it. Therefore we see the paradox that, with so many centers of possible intellectual criticism and intellectual initiative, there is so much inane conformity, and the universities are little models of the Organized System itself.”

    Tufts, bastion of conservatism that it is – and I use that phrase affectionately – could probably use a little racial enlightenment, but the good deans Sternberg and Abriola’s remark, “This incident is an opportunity for us all to learn about the persistence of racial and ethnic stereotypes ...” misses the point by a mile. Tufts doesn’t need another reason to contemplate what many perceive to be racism on campus – remember their Christmas carol fiasco of 2006 – what they need is a week of Satire Awareness in which every student AND FACULTY MEMBER is required to read and discuss Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and then write a five-page, single-spaced, Times New Roman, 12 pt essay satirizing a national or a campus issue.

    Way to go Mr. Kwak. I hope you have a very successful career at Tufts. But, in the absence, of a Tufts’ Satire Awareness Week, don’t write satire!

    P.S. Read this ...

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/12/tufts

    especially the posts by RWH.

  • Posted by KM on September 28, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Perhaps no one contacted Kwak about being offended by the poster directly because they weren't sure he was responsible for it. While I sympathize with a certain amount of impatience with a humorless emphasis on "correctness" which can make people feel as though they don't have room to say what's actually on their minds, I think this satire is poorly done and reflects a disregard for how the actual student running for office, Alice Pang, would feel having her campaign mocked and being (least feeling) maligned in this way.

    Kwak says he's addressing a climate of "political correctness" but I wonder if he's aware of the alternative to making a special effort to talk about people respectfully. I would direct him (and anyone else interested) to this vlog post, which encapsulates some of the difficulties of talking about race in modern American culture: http://www.illdoctrine.com/2009/05/asher_roth_and_the_racial_cros.html particularly 1:07 and 1:58.

  • definition of racism
  • Posted by Bradley on September 28, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Remember folks, it's only racist if it comes out of the mouth of a caucasian person.

  • Perpetuates the stereotype
  • Posted by Alex Lim on September 28, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Mr. Kwak certainly has the right to display his poster, but in doing so he perpetuates the asian stereotype. And why would he think that Ms. Pang would not be personally insulted by having his poster displayed along side hers? It's mocking and insulting to her desire to serve in the student senate. His explanation that he "thought it would be funny to satire the oppressive environment of political correctness at Tufts," is ridiculous.

  • The Subject of a Teaching Moment
  • Posted by Joe Beckmann , Student Services at School/College Liaison on September 28, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Intriguing problem and dialog. In skirting the substance of a satire, the resulting dialog seems to sharpen its fangs and deepen its bite. One of the few comments two years ago about a similar lack of irony at Tufts regarding black-white "satire" that did identify the teaching moment was - to the effect - that satire is appropriate when it targets the most powerful, and both inappropriate and insulting when it targets those with less power. It is neither a matter of free speech nor humor; it's a function of taste and wisdom.

    That's what makes such a question so tender, and the "teachability" of the moment so sadly mis-used. Of all universities, Tufts uses "wisdom" as an ancillary criterion for admission (see Dean Sternberg's WICS model, here http://tinyurl.com/yaou97f, and its application in admissions, through Project Kaleidescope, here http://tinyurl.com/kuxe2b). That criterion, in the official schema, reflects "anticipating consequences on behalf of other people," which is a brilliantly concise and humane formula. The strange and sad thing is that neither the satire nor its critique applied that formula. And this irrelevance is painfully apparent precisely where it is a magic key to admission! One wonders at the ostensible gravity of that criterion since it is so blithely ignored in this - and the earlier - controversy over satire.

    Quite clearly the satire was funny to some, painful to others, and neither side "anticipated consequences on behalf" of the other. Just as clearly, those in power sought distance rather than use a real opportunity to address this as a serious educational event. Given that wisdom is supposed to be so central to the task of admissions, and that admissions so central to all the qualities that make a university good, great, or self-serving, it is remarkable that those in charge missed a remarkable opportunity to tune their institution and student body to the tone and timbre of a real and rare collegial event.

    The satirists failed to recognize the basics of satire require an unassailable stature, and targeted a peer rather than "superior." And the outraged failed to recognize the irony of their attack undermines the free speech central to open dialog. All of this was a superb opportunity for the university to raise the level of satire and for students to discover their shared investment in learning. Unfortunately, only the satirist and his subject managed to rise above the churning and mis-directed dialog of charge and counter charge and ... make peace.

    This failure is worth some serious examination, since WICS and Tufts have become so entwined and so distinctive in admissions and measuring student qualities. The fact that the Deans failed to focus on such an "unwise" kind of satire, and thereby remove its sting and clarify it's offense; that they failed to cite the earlier experience, and the critical quality of status that makes satire both funny and effective; and that they lacked the irony to acknowledge that students are ... students and there to learn in the first place, is very sad and very disappointing.

    These failures highlight Tuft's own lack of self-awareness both within and, far more ironic, outside, in their larger community. The very unfortunate reputation of the university, among its closest neighbors, is that of "legacy admissions," earned through money, politics, history and power, rather than through those very qualities of wisdom-intelligence-creativity-and-synergy that are now at the real heart of a seriously innovative admissions policy. It is undoubtedly now a false reputation, given the remarkable students of current classes, but it was earned by generations of drunken and rude, class and racially isolated rich kids, puking in our gardens.

    Would that the leadership actually lead, and show the best and brightest the real errors of misplaced satire, thereby demonstrating the value of wisdom in their own leadership and teaching style, and the merits of a seriously diverse student body achieved through an innovative, brilliant and challenging system of admissions. In this respect it is a really sad yet "teachable moment" to all of Tufts, it's surrounding community, and those who respond to misplaced satire with inappropriate sanctimony.

  • Kwak is right
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on September 28, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • And maybe Frizbane Manley (comment above) is right, too. Don't write satire. Especially when it has anything to do with race or ethnicity.

    It's good to see that Mr. Kwak knows how to handle the situation. Judging from his comments, he's not going to be intimidated by the likes of a Linell Yugawa who can think of no better way to handle this non-situation than by hurling the 'racist' epithet (i.e.name-calling) and lamenting about people's hurt feelings.

  • Posted by stm60 at UConn on September 28, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Fritzbane,

    You are spot on, as you so often are.

    However, you may have missed the Yugawa quote that expressed her shock that the post "mocked an authorized campaign poster". The problem, perhaps, was that the poster was "authorized" and so under the protection of the L'Academie Tufts.

    Since In_Goo Kwak's poster was unauthorized I assume it could be mocked as long as the mockers submitted the paperwork to make their poster authorized.

  • Posted by The Little Dean on September 28, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Funny is the new smart. Perhaps some people don't get it.

  • Three cheers for Kwak
  • Posted by Anne Pierce , Adjunct lecturer, History at UNCC on September 28, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • The damn thing is funny - mainly because it sends up all the, dare I say, lame political posters with their meaningless yet vaguely inspiring slogans.

    Frankly it sends a shudder through me that posters have to be 'authorized'. Wasn't 'authority' what had us in the streets in the 1960s and 1970s? Political statements (and Mr. Kwak's poster is just that) are only acceptable if they are approved by the powers that be?

    Mr. Kwak earned more of my respect by going to a meeting on the situation and just listening to his opponents. I'm particularly amused by the student insisting that 'he must be punished'. Yes, let us punish those who publish things with which we disagree.

    The whole incident gives me a 'teachable moment' -- but perhaps not the lesson the Tuft administrators would support.

  • Posted by Bob on September 28, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • I agree with stm60 and to allay KM perhaps Kwak should have added a line to the poster to wit: I am Kwak and reary approve this message.

  • Kwak
  • Posted by DFS on September 28, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • An-de-sum-ni-da. Also, Frizbane is correct.

    Further, academics are notoriously short on the requisite sense of humor.

    Just witness the birthing place of 'political correctness.'

    They all look for a girly-fight anywhere they can.

  • To Joe Beckmann
  • Posted by E.Moran , English Prof on September 28, 2009 at 9:15pm EDT
  • "that satire is appropriate when it targets the most powerful, and both inappropriate and insulting when it targets those with less power. It is neither a matter of free speech nor humor; it's a function of taste and wisdom."

    Joe, the above statement is called "an opinion" (and wisdom is such a slippery fish). Of course it's a matter of free speech. And it may be necessary to go beyond good taste to purge the idea that everyone's life must be free of insult and offence.

    Global warming may be good for the homeless.

  • Don't pick on me - I'm not that mousey
  • Posted by Joe Beckmann on September 29, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Of course making fun of people is fun, but it's not funny to joke about a one legged man crossing a street, nor about the blind leading the blind. I would have hoped that an academic would understand that satire is a nuanced form of humor, involving more intelligence in its target than in its execution. That apparently says too much about your class - and class could be understood as a bunch of kids in a room or a dinner party with the "right" people.

    Of course the targeting of satire is a matter of taste, but so is eating your leg while you're walking! And the perfect place to have this kind of a discussion is a university, where people are, supposedly, learning just these kinds of nuances. Let Glenn Beck think he's satirical! It doth not make it so.

  • His poster didn't serve his message
  • Posted by mykalroze on September 29, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • He is correct that people don't really discuss racial issues, racial tensions, etc., as openly and deeply as they should on college campuses, but all his poster did was perpetuate stereotypes.

    What will people's reaction be to it? Will it get people who are not of Asian descent to think deeply, to think that we all need to discuss race and racism on a deeper, intellectual level, or will it just get people to laugh.

    When I see his poster, I just see a shallow parody of Pang's political campaign posters as it borrows old, tired stereotypes of people of Asian descent. I imagine most people will just laugh at the parody poster. If it was meant as satire, the poster did a bad job at it.

    In satire, no matter how hidden the satire may be, one can still discern the message. He just seems to be mocking Pang's poster, and mocking Asian-Americans. There's more to satire than mocking someone. And merely mocking someone while using, again, old and tired stereotypes isn't satire. It's perpetuating stereotypes. If someone who wasn't of Asian descent made this, what would people's reaction be?

    So, ultimately, he needed to convey some sort of message through this poster, but he didn't. He seems to be perpetuating stereotypes. He needed to lay on the sarcasm to make this work.

  • Posted by Jonathan Lee on September 29, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • This is absolutely ridiculous. How unsurprising that the majority of people posting here defending In-Goo Kwak will call what he did courageous, and it's safe to assume most of the people commenting here are Asian.

    Lets change this situation around. Instead of Alice Pang running for Union Senate, lets say it was a black girl named Alicia Taylor. Instead of In-Goo Kwak, it was an African immigrant named Olusegun Zuma. Olusegun wants to parody this by putting up posters of himself with slogans like "big lips, big vision" and "fried chicken!" Suddenly now this is an enormous controversy, easily making statewide television news. Now would all of you be so quick to defend this African man's actions as courageous, enlightened and progressive?

    Congratulations. You have just set a double-standard for Asians in your perception of what is acceptable and what is not, and you are racist. I fully support freedom of speech, which includes hate speech no matter how tongue-in-cheek or violent, but all of it should carry the same stigma and the same consequences. If you really think what In-Goo Kwak did was courageous then don't be a coward and hide your tail behind your legs when it happens in a Black American, and suddenly switch on to "liberal sympathetic white professor."

  • Posted by Elton on September 29, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Real rebellion has a point.

  • Joe
  • Posted by DFS on September 29, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Thanks for the 'class' about class. Your 'class' on this subject is lacking. I say this purely in the classical class about such 'class' classes. Else, I would look for a more classy approach about this classification of class.

    Enough, class. I know that you're not all children. We adults can form our own informed opinions about this.

  • Not Okay
  • Posted by Brown Walrus , Undergrad at Yale on September 29, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Sure, Kwak exercised his right to free speech, but he should have thought about the consequences of his "parody" poster on others: on the candidate he was obviously offending, and on others in the community by perpetuating racial stereotypes. For people who are Asian, it is offensive. Perhaps worst, for those who aren't as racially sensitive, its funny because to them it simplifies all Asians to a stereotype that they may actually believe.

    Also, did anyone else pick up on the fact that:

    "Kwak was not actually running for a student government position, but posted the parody next to Pang’s at the encouragement of his dorm mates. who thought he was right to poke fun at the air of political correctness he perceived on the campus."

    Did his dorm mates really want to make fun of political correctness? Or just make fun of Asians?

    And thank you Jonathan Lee for your post.

  • Dear Mr. Walrus
  • Posted by E. Moran , English Prof on September 29, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • "but he should have thought about the consequences of his "parody" poster on others:"

    That's your opinion, and, fortunately, for a while yet, Mr Kwak is defended from your opinion, even though you know what "should" be done.

    Kwak exercised his right to free speech, and he was offensive. Good for him, good for all of us. It's an offensive, uncomfortable, even dangerous world, not a place for weenies.

    I mean, just today I walked by a guy who was actually SMOKING a cigarette and I breathed in some smoke and I was like retching and my heart was pounding, and I'm like wondering how he can do that to the rest of us???

    Yeah. Time to man up, girls.

  • Unbelievable
  • Posted by Andy on September 29, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • How refreshing it is to read comments by Joe Beckmann and Jonathan Lee.
    Satire:

    1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

     

    2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

    Granted, how we understand human folly and vice is relative, all I see Kwak's poster doing is perpetuating outdated Asian American stereotypes.

    The double standard imposed on Asian Americans is indeed ridiculous. Just read Jonathan's post and seriously ask yourself, would I really defend racist work if the target was a black student?

    Only months after the whole Korean culture show practice debacle at Tufts, and Tuft school still reeks of racial insensitivity and hypocrisy. I can still remember posters screaming "RACE CARD"...

    I really hope Kwak grows up.

  • Eight Things
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on September 29, 2009 at 10:00pm EDT
  • First, while I thought Mr. Beckmann made some interesting observations about satire, I would like to take issue with two of his remarks; to wit …

    1. “The satirist failed to recognize the basics of satire require an unassailable stature, and targeted a peer rather than ‘superior.’”

    2. “... satire is a nuanced form of humor, involving more intelligence in its target than in its execution.”

    There is nothing that requires the object of a satirical document or action to be a “superior.” The object may be an ignoramus, a jackass, a bigot, a self-important idiot, a social organization, a political party, a principle, a former President of the United States … the list is very long.

    Although much satire is humorous, there is no requirement that it be so. In my opinion satire in a humorous vein is always appreciated; however, cleverness is much more important.

    Second, mykalroze said “[Mr. Kwak] needed to lay on the sarcasm to make this work.”

    That’s a tough call, because the satirist’s thesis must make its point and do so within the context of the audience’s knowledge and intelligence. Laying the sarcasm on too thickly implies the audience is too dense to get the point if the argument were made more subtly. In addition – and as was certainly true in this instance – being a bit obtuse about the point of a satirical action confuses the audience. Writing good (effective) satire is a talent that requires much study, effort, knowledge, and practice.

    Third, mykalroze claimed “If it was meant as satire, the poster did a bad job at it.”

    That may be correct, but, again, I will come to Mr. Kwak’s defense. Look, the guy’s an undergraduate – a freshman at that – and he’s taking on one of the most conservative, intellectually exceptional student bodies (and faculties) in the land. And he’s learning.

    I was an undergraduate at a very good, religiously conservative, liberal arts college ... although it was not even close to being in Tuft’s class. There, they gave us a free hand to experiment and learn in the absence of faculty and administrators constantly looking over our shoulders to judge everything we did. As it was, my wonderfully Christian college was racially segregated, and, over the years, I wrote several truly biting, satirical critiques about that aspect of the place. Looking back on my “essays,” they were fairly sophomoric … but they did improve rather markedly from year to year, and they did elicit responses from students and faculty alike. In the four years I was a student there, I did some remarkably stupid things; but the faculty and administration preached tolerance – I never recall “academic freedom” being mentioned … it was unnecessary to even bring it up – and the professors walked the talk.

    As I read the posts of Mr. Kwak’s critics above, I got the impression that if you gave this crowd of academic nebbishes a week to write a satirical essay about any aspect of the current healthcare debate going on in the U.S. today, the results would be embarrassingly amateurish ... and I’ll even give Ms. Yugawa, the Chief of the Tufts’ Language Police, an extra week to complete the task. There’s something about political correctness and satire that reminds me of oil and water.

    Fourth, Jonathan Lee wrote, “ … lets say it was a black girl named Alicia Taylor. Instead of In-Goo Kwak, it was an African immigrant named Olusegun Zuma.”

    Very clever of Mr. Lee to set up his own straw man, position him properly, and then knock him off his feet. Hmmm, lets say it was a hearing-impaired, overweight, Inuit Eskimo who … naw, forget it. And by the way, if you say Olusegun Zuma backwards and very fast is sounds like “Satire sucks!”

    Fifth, Mr. Lee also said “This is absolutely ridiculous. How unsurprising that the majority of people posting here defending In-Goo Kwak will call what he did courageous, and it's safe to assume most of the people commenting here are Asian.”

    Well, as it turned out, not a single poster said Mr. Kwak was courageous. Indeed, Mr. Lee is the only poster to bring up the subject, and was certainly the only one to use that word. In addition, I’m really impressed with a guy who looks at the names, Steve Finner, Frizbane Manley, Bradley, Joe Beckmann, Amy De Rosa, stm60, et al, and concludes that most of us are Asian. Hmmm … Lee? … Lee? … sounds remarkably Asian to me. What a LuLu!

    Sixth, Brown Walrus accused Mr. Kwak of “perpetuating racial stereotypes.” Yep, just like Jonathan Swift was perpetuating cannibalism. Whew!

    Seventh, Joe Beckman again. He wrote, “Would that the leadership actually lead, and show the best and brightest the real errors of misplaced satire, thereby demonstrating the value of wisdom in their own leadership and teaching style, and the merits of a seriously diverse student body achieved through an innovative, brilliant and challenging system of admissions. In this respect it is a really sad yet "teachable moment" to all of Tufts, it's surrounding community, and those who respond to misplaced satire with inappropriate sanctimony.”

    I love that guy … chastising the Tuft’s administration for not micro-managing the actions – and the thinking too I presume – of all the little boys and girls enrolled at the Tufts Day-care Center.

    Eighth, and finally, Ms. Chou (down there at Texas A&M) … you would be well advised to interrupt your analysis of Asian Americans facing Racism and spend a few months analyzing the hang-ups of academics who contribute to on-line chronicles.

    P.S. Oh yes, stm60, nice observation about “authorization.”

    P.P.S. I wonder how many of you actually tried to say “Olusegun Zuma” backwards?

  • Frizbane
  • Posted by DFS on October 1, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • This is why I have missed you over the last few months. Even though I disagree with you about half of the time, I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate your spot-on analyses.

    By the way, I would have eaten that onion first, then started firing.

    I like onions.