The Ivory Soapbox: Wash. U.’s witch hunt
By this point everyone who doesn’t live under a rock without any WUFI—which, admittedly, may be several people—has heard of the racial episode involving Sigma Alpha Epsilon pledges last Tuesday night that rapidly exploded into the biggest campus-wide controversy that I, as a senior, have ever seen. It outweighs outrage at attempts to bring Bristol Palin to Wash. U. to speak about teen pregnancy on college campuses (ha!) or several black students being evicted from a food establishment in Chicago due to their race. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is the most controversial episode at Wash. U. in over a decade, exposing as it did racial tensions where many of us believed they did not exist.
Far from dealing with the incident in a careful, intelligent manner, however, the administration reacted in a reactionary, flailing way that is perhaps indicative of larger issues it has with fraternities. Instead of doing anything to calm tensions or use this episode to teach the unwitting about the harmful effects words can have in certain contexts, the administration has instead reacted in a shameful, inappropriate manner that wrongfully portrayed the events on Tuesday night and serves as a prime example for why it is necessary to think before acting.
The administration is guilty of two egregious wrongs. Wash. U., by acting in under 24 hours, refused to wait for all relevant information to be collected and thus adopted the attitude—perhaps because that is what it wanted to believe—that SAE was guilty of targeting black students with racist activities. As further information came to light not a day later, it appears that pledges, not “new members” of SAE as Vice Chancellor for Students Sharon Stahl’s email erroneously claimed, were responsible for, at worst, unknowingly offending several black students by repeating a rap song with racially-charged words in a setting in which the black students could hear. It is worth noting that the scavenger hunt sheet provided to Student Life and the University says nothing of where the recital needed to take place, so it is entirely possible that the brothers of SAE are not even responsible for the public setting. However, neither at the time of the University’s action in suspending SAE nor now does the administration acknowledge that there is absolutely no evidence—none, zero, null set—that anyone, pledge or brother, in SAE acted to offend, and the fraternity remains wrongfully suspended.
Even worse than unfairly targeting members of the Greek community, however, Wash. U. inflamed tensions even further at just the time when emotions needed to be calmed. When Stahl declared in her email that the University had received reports that “new members of… [SAE], engaged in racially offensive behavior directed toward a group of students of color” and that SAE had subsequently been suspended, the administration endorsed an unsubstantiated narrative that could only serve to upset students at a time when even this publication had retracted accusatory language. Thus, the University bears a large part of the responsibility for the misinformation that was spread and the angry, hurt reactions that followed. To date, it has not apologized for doing so.
As more time passes and evidence suggesting that SAE is a hotbed of racism fails to materialize, it becomes increasingly and embarrassingly obvious that the University behaved in an unprofessional, discriminatory fashion and was overly eager to believe the worst of its students and punish them accordingly. As a first step toward repairing its credibility, the University must lift its suspension of SAE immediately and send another mass email apologizing both for unfairly shutting down the third fraternity of the year and for the critical role it played in informing every single member of the student body that SAE was involved in racist activities. Then, the University should lead the process of healing not by doling out punishments as if they were Mardi Gras beads but by promoting a campus-wide discourse on the importance of racial sensibility.
In my 3 1/2 years at Wash. U., I have experienced a broad spectrum of emotions for my school, ranging from annoyance to delight to exasperation. Never before have I had cause to be ashamed.
Just one question: Is the song, from which the “offending” lyrics were taken, banned from being played on campus?
If not, why not? Isn’t there a concern that if someone is playing the song someone may inadvertently hear it and be offended?
“I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is the most controversial episode at Wash. U. in over a decade”
Not quite. You may have heard that there used to be a Taco Bell on campus. From April 4 to April 22, 2005, Wash U students held a sit-in in South Brookings Hall (admissions office). In order to secure living wages for staff of the university (janitors, etc.), they slept in Brookings for each of these nights. It was part of a larger effort to better represent the interests of labor at Wash U. Taco Bell was essentially voted off campus by students in March 2005 because the wages of tomato farmers were too low.
http://www.studlife.com/archives/News/2005/03/21/SWAconsidersTacoBellremovalavictory/
http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/5068.aspx
http://www.studlife.com/archives/News/2005/04/06/OnsiteattheprotestOnereportersexperiencewithSWAdemonstrators/
on one hand the investigation is about hazing, something you seemed so against in the article you wrote about dartmouth. you stated that “hazing is coercive, psychologically damaging and has led to a few infamous deaths; its ban at Washington University and most peer institutions is entirely justified”. the hunt seems small in comparison but these sorts of things only get worse once accepted as okay in the first place.
i’m also thinking about how angry we all would have been at the school if something worse had come to light after the fact. we would have all thought the university should have acted sooner. right now the investigation is ongoing and a *temporary* suspension seems appropriate given the situation
right now i’m more concerned with the discussion after the fact, but it’s unfortunate that it took a fraternity investigation to cause the campus dialogue we’re having now
http://www.studlife.com/forum/staff-columnists/2012/04/02/hazing-at-dartmouth/
Let’s take another scenario. I’m not sure if people will stick with me on this one but let’s try and see. On the list given to the SAE pledges it says “video of a poetry reading of a rap song Criminal by Eminem” The pledges (see I say pledges not members) get this list from I’m guessing the SAE pledgemaster, who IS a member. It says nothing about where the song must be recited, just like the current list. The pledges could make the video in an empty dormroom but they make a little mistake and make the video one busy night in BD.
The pledges make the video at a table by themselves. In a table across from the pledges, students who identify as LGBTQIA overhear a group of pledges saying lines from the song “Criminal” The pledges say: “My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge. That’ll stab you in the head whether you’re a f-g or a lez or the homosex…Pants or dress-hate f-gs? The answer’s “yes.” The LGBTQIA students are upset and angry. The words are derogatory. No effort had been made to skip over the offensive words or better yet not say them at all. The video is made but one of the pledges noticing the upset students, comes back and apologizes to the students, saying it was simply a pledge activity. The song was not directed at the students and an apology was made but these students have suddenly realized that the peers that they had grown comfortable with, the peers that they felt safe around would say offensive words because a piece of paper told them to. Yes, the pledge apologized but was the action that required the apology necessary in the first place? Was the safety and comfort of these offended students a simple casualty in an effort to fulfill a scavenger hunt?
The students who felt offended and attacked by such inflammatory language tell their story to the administration and to all that are willing to listen and they are met with backlash because people say an apology was given and the language was not directed AT them. They just unfortunately happened to be around when the song was recited. The organization that made the list detailing an offensive action, that said it was ok to put their name behind such a list that had not only the poetry reading but other sexist and heteronormative actions are lauded as the victims, the ones that should be apologized to. Did people forget that though the pledges were not part of SAE, those that were part of SAE were the ones that wrote the list, that sanctioned this hunt?
Maybe it’s difficult for people to think of race and to understand the seriousness of what happened because we cling so closely to our view of a “postracial society,” and want to sweep this under a rug as simple, unintentioned ignorance. But imagine a different song, a different group of students at a table but the same anger, pain and hurt.
What the pledges did was wrong, through and through. What SAE did, by allowing such a list was wrong. It dismays me that this article fails to realize this and continues to justify their actions.
Sorry for the long post but I really had to get this out there.
Sorry I have no sympathy for the “fraternity boys”. Besides, they had to learn sooner or later that their sense of entitlement is a false security blanket. Can you imagine them trying to explain their rational for doing the exact same thing in a public place outside of the universities borders? I am sure that most of the fine citizens of this country would understand as well. Just because one has the freedom to do a thing doesn’t infer that one aught to. It is not too much to ask to think if the words that are coming out your mouth may be insensitive to others. That is why we curb our language (particularly profanity) in certain environments. Why not try that with racially offensive words to. I forgot, they don’t teach that here or obviously at home so how would they no what affects others, they assume its cool because they saw it on BET:) Insensitivity is utter ignorance so maybe they were calling themselves the n-word???
I resent your assumption that all the pledges involved have a “sense of entitlement.” Do you know any of them? Well I do, and it is not true of those individuals. Are you aware that it was an SAE pledge who urged that the offensive song be stopped and apologized? Why is it okay to make blanket assumptions about a group of people because of the actions of one or two of them? No group likes being stereotyped, regardless of their skin color. What irks me here is that a constituency complaining about being treated insensitively–with good reason concerning the “N-word” but not concerning the photo IMO– can’t see that they are in turn doing the same to some of the pledges who are not responsible for any of this.
No one can really know what was intended by the accused apart from the accused themselves–and even then, the accused may not realize their intent when they act as part of a group. Sometimes group dynamics lead us to suspend better judgment and do things that we’d be embarrassed about later. It happens…eventually to all of us, and we end up with stories that we never tell. I’ve got stories.
In the end, we’ve got one group saying that they were offended and felt targeted. The other says they weren’t targeting anyone and were just repeating publicly accessible song lyrics–or at least, that’s what I’m gathering. On the one hand, we are a sensitive society and everyone’s got a word that they’d better not hear anyone say. And when we do hear it, we are expecting the National Guard to come rolling in to protect our right to never be offended by anything..except, that’s not a right, is it? To never be offended by anything anyone says is to be a hermit and live detached from interaction with all other people. As for me, I choose to live among people, and I accept that sometimes offenses happen.
On the other hand, it is hard to believe that one might think that repeating the N-word–as lyrics or not–in a restaurant in the general vicinity of black people (‘at’ them or not) would go well. Intent is not the mechanism by which we assess the wrongness of an action, unless we are talking about an accident. I don’t think this event can qualify as accidental. In this case we have actions that are intentional, but not intended to offend. This sounds like unexpected consequences. White people saying the N-word either to or near black people is well known to be an offensive act. Few in this country do not know that. Our nation’s history has made this so. The pledges say they did not intend to offend, but can they say they thought their use of the N-word would not be offensive? If so, how so?
I think both sides need to be more self reflective, more giving and more forgiving. Don’t look for opportunities to be offended and be intentional about not offending. Being either easily offended or carelessly offensive is how bachelors get confirmed and how friendships get disbanded. Let such things not be said of you.
Phenomenal article. Its really reflects the current opinion of the student body well.
I’m hurt by this article’s reframing of the incident to portray the offenders as the victims. Dean Stahl’s email simply expressed that the administration supported students who were affected by discriminatory behavior at a time when several communities on campus needed to know that Washington University had their back. Her email did not condemn SAE; rather, it acknowledged that the offending students were affiliated with the fraternity and thus suspended their activities “until the investigation is complete.” This is not an overreach and certainly nothing discriminatory, shameful, or unprofessional.
What concerns me most, however, is your interpretation of what happened that night. This is not about “unknowingly offending several black students;” in fact, students present on Tuesday night strongly suggest that the pledges “acted to offend.” At a time when Bears Den was crowded and there were plenty of non-black students to offend with their misbehavior, the pledges twice targeted the highest concentrations of black students in the establishment. Their reciting of derogatory lyrics after seeking them out as subjects of the performance was degrading and disrespectful. It seems clear to me that the intent was to harm. Regardless, however, what is most important is the impact that was made. The administration was correct to condemn quickly the offensive actions that took place that night, and there need to be further disciplinary consequences for the students involved.
None of this is an attack on Greek Life. What happened was that a number of students were disrespected on the basis of their race, and articles like this have continuously invalidated their experiences and reactions. There are students and communities that are hurting right now. Please don’t diminish them further by minimizing the harm they felt, or by shifting the blame onto the people who (rightfully) have their back.
This middle paragraph is making me cringe so bad that it hurts. Dean McLeod would have wanted this to be a teachable moment, but the lesson plan for this circumstance is not “one side teachers the other” (black teaches white). The lesson is to open dialogue across campus and learn from -those- discussions. I fear that the ability for this learning to experience is being blocked by your assumptions of what happened on Tuesday night. Yes, it hurt you, the black community, and the University community on the whole, but you were not there, you were not one of the people who “acted to offend.” How do you know? What privilege to you have to make these assumptions?
I am hurting, but I knew that I could not properly heal and learn from this experience if I did not personally forgive the SAE pledges for committing an act that I do not believe they intended to commit (because I believe we are surrounded by more than 6,000 people with good intentions who, at their best, mean no harm to their peers; each of us falls from grace on occasion). Now that I have done that, and accepted that I was not there and do not know what truly happened, I’ve been able to think more critically about what steps our community can take to become more aware of the problems that were revealed on Tuesday night. This kind of critical thinking must happen, because the problems are not simply “he or she is racist,” as some of us have claimed. The problems are much more subtle and can only really be addressed if nobody feels attacked. We are all hurting, but we all deserve to heal. We can’t heal if we’re still accusing each other of making mistakes. We all make mistakes. We must help each other grow.
The students I’ve spoken to who were present on Tuesday tell a different story. Truly, this seems to have been the result of poor decision-making and circumstances than a targeted hate crime. The assumptions you’re making are significant, and important.
Have you spoken to any of the pledges? Do you personally know any of them? I have, and it is clear to me that nobody was targeted, and nobody was sought out. And the alleged “offenders” are, most certainly, victims of defamation and humiliation. Would you like to be publicly accused of racism? It offends me that your myopic view does not allow you to see that they too are suffering. I can see how the black pledges have been hurt; you should be able to see how the pledges are.
Why is it that people think only black students can be offended and marginalized? Trust me, the pledges are suffering here, just as the black students are, perhaps more so.
Sorry, I meant to say “black students,” NOT “black pledges in line 5.
Give Stahl a break. She does what she did and she gets this. If she had waited around, you’d all accuse her of not acting swiftly enough to punish some blatantly awful deed in an effort to hope it would go on the back burner.
This makes me so happy. Thank you.
As an alumni of a Greek organization from another University, I was immediately interested in this story that has made national news. Upon further investigation, I am shocked and dismayed at the actions of the administrator from Washington University. To publish an email to an entire student body blaming individuals for racism without any formal investigation or proof is despicable. She has ruined an organization’s name and many Washington University students’ undergraduate lives with her flippancy and reactionary attitude. The University should place her on suspension until her actions are investigated properly.
Thank you Outsider for clearly stating what a lot of us outsiders are thinking- both Dean Stahl and StudLife should be suspended but not before they issue a broad reaching apology to all of the Wash U community,including alum and parents. This has been the most upsetting week for all of us out here who have entrusted our faith in you.
Dean Stahl being suspended won’t help anything, just as students being suspended will only make this situation worse. Give her a break. What I do think needs to happen, and, frankly, should have happened already, is that a follow up email be sent out to everyone who received the first one. It should explain that the assumptions contained in the first email were unsubstantiated and that an apology is owed to some of the fraternity pledges and members. I think this should be done prior to Spring Break.
Today’s Studlife are a vast improvement from last week and are a welcome dose of common sense and decency.
But let’s be clear – the administration didn’t just endorse any unsubstantiated narrative of the incident, they endorsed Student Life’s unsubstantiated narrative.
The Student Life writers responsible for last week’s initial article had a critical hand in causing this mess, and owe a real apology to the Washington University community.
The only reason I am more frustrated with the administration rather than Stud Life is that I held them to a higher standard to begin with.
I could not have said this better myself Matt, and I agree with you 100%. I too am ashamed and embarrassed by the handling of this situation. Thank you for being a voice of reason when our campus is currently so full of hatred. I only hope that students and administrators alike will read this, take a step back, and begin to rectify the escalated situation that they have caused.
This.
preach
Bristol was coming to speak about abstinence on college campuses, not teen pregnancy. Its even funnier because she was clearly not abstinent (see her teen pregnancy) and had not/has not ever attended college.
Great article though. I’m sure it will offend many, but I think you provide a well thought out argument, and I agree on most fronts.
On a related note, I’m ashamed that the university has not realized the egregious levels of misogyny apparent in the scavenger hunt list as well as fueling the lyrics of the song. While you can argue that the rap performance was misdirected and stupid considering the placement of the N word, but CLEARLY had an unavoidable misogynistic agenda. Why is no one focusing on that? It seems to be the much larger issue here.
Finally, the voice of sanity! THANK YOU, Matthew. I hope the administration reads this and heeds your advice.
Very, very well-written, Matthew. I can only hope the administration takes note.