f*cked up $hit

A little long, but worth the read...

When one of the first-year University of Texas law students who
participated in a "ghetto fabulous" party posted pictures on the Web, we
saw the ugly face of white privilege and the racism in which it is
rooted. But the depth of the white supremacy problem at the University -
and in mainstream institutions more generally - is also evident in the
polite way in which the University administration chastised the
students.

While the thoughtless actions of young adults acting out the racism of
the culture are disturbing, the thoughtful, but depoliticized, response
from the law school is distressing. The actions of both groups in this
affair are a painful reminder of the depth of white society's commitment
to white supremacy.

This controversy is not unique to UT. It seems that every year students
at a prestigious university - the University of Chicago last year,
Cornell in 2004, and Texas A&M in 2003 - hold one of these parties, in
which white students revel in what they believe to be the behavior of
the black and brown people of the "ghetto."

The student from the UT party who posted the photos has taken them off
the Web, but news reports describe a party in which the students
"carried 40-ounce bottles of malt liquor and wore Afro wigs, necklaces
with large medallions and name tags bearing historically black and
Hispanic names." No one has contested that description.

The motivations and views of participants may vary, but these parties
have two consistent features: One, white people mock African-American
and Hispanic people through stereotypes of the residents of low-income
urban areas, while at the same time enjoying the feeling of temporarily
adopting these poses. Two, the white folks typically do it without
pausing to ponder what right they have as members of a dominant racial
class to poach in this fashion on the lives of people in a subordinated
racial class.

In other words, white people find pleasure in insulting non-white people
while at the same time safely "slumming" for cheap thrills in that
non-white world, all the time oblivious to the moral and political
implications.

Also typical is a tepid reaction from administrators, who tend to avoid
the contentious race politics at the core of the problem. At UT, the
e-mail that went out to all law students from Dean Larry Sager is
revealing.

Let me be clear that this critique is not focused on the dean, or any
other administrator involved. Sager has a distinguished record as a
teacher and is a widely recognized constitutional scholar who has
published important work on civil liberties, especially freedom of
religion. He consulted other administrators and students before
communicating to the entire student body, and his commitment to equality
and diversity is clear.

Still, Sager's characterization of the incident is troubling. His e-mail
to students doesn't use the terms "racism" or "white supremacy." The
only reference to the racial politics of "ghetto fabulous" is the
description of the party as being "named in a way that was easily
understood to have negative racial overtones" and a reminder that being
"racially insensitive" is inappropriate. While many of the students at
the party may not have thought they were being racist, it's essential
that we name such activities as rooted in white people's sense of
privilege and entitlement, the result of historical and contemporary
racism in a white-supremacist culture.

This language is crucial. Even with the gains of the civil-rights
movement, U.S. society is still white supremacist in material terms
(there are deep, enduring racialized disparities in measures of wealth
and well-being) and ideology (many white people continue to believe that
the culture and politics of Europe are inherently superior). To pretend
that things such as a ghetto party are not rooted in those racist
realities is to ignore fundamental moral and political issues in an
unjust society. It's not about "negative racial overtones" - it's about
racism, whether conscious or not. It's not about being "racially
insensitive" - it's about support for white supremacy, whether intended
or not.

The dean's e-mail to law students goes on to give three reasons the
party was "thoughtless."

First, Sager suggests that some students "might be seriously offended by
the party, and especially by the pictures taken at the event." No doubt
many people were offended, and we all should avoid unnecessary offense
to others. But the key problem is not that such images are offensive but
that they are part of an oppressive system of white supremacy. In a
pluralist society, we all can expect to be offended by some things other
people say and do. Such offense becomes an important political issue
when connected to the ways in which some people are systematically
devalued and discriminated against.

Racist, sexist, and heterosexist images and words are a problem not
merely because they offend but because they help keep non-white people,
women, and lesbians and gays in subordinated positions. Framing the
problem of oppressive systems as a question of offensiveness often leads
people to argue that the solution is for the targets of the offensive
speech or actions to be less sensitive, rather than changing the
oppressive system. Sager's e-mail doesn't suggest that, but it could
play into that common feeling among people in the dominant classes. We
live in a world in which the legitimate concerns of non-white people
about racist expression and actions are often met by white people
saying, "Stop whining - get over it." In such a world, white people
trying to resist racism should be careful not to do anything that could
contribute to that.

Second, the e-mail suggests that the partygoers didn't consider "the
potential harm they were causing to UT Law" by doing something that
could make some people "feel uncomfortable simply because of who they
are." Most would agree that it's important at a public institution of
higher education for all people to feel accepted as part of the
university community, but the real harm is not to the institution but to
the people who are targeted. By highlighting the effect of this on "UT
Law," Sager risks elevating the institution above the principles
involved and may well leave people wondering if the university isn't
worried most about its image.

Finally, and most important, the dean's message warns the partygoers
that they failed to consider "the extraordinary damage they could do to
their own careers" in a society in which those who employ lawyers might
not want to hire people who engage in such conduct. Sager warns that it
is "genuinely foolhardy to engage in conduct (and even more foolhardy to
proudly disseminate proof that you have done so) that could jeopardize
your ability to practice law." That's certainly true, though it's also
true there are many places in Texas (and around the country) where the
good old boys in power would find no problem with this kind of "harmless
fun." There are no doubt lots of practicing attorneys who enjoy similar
kinds of fun themselves.

But whatever the case, should we be stressing to students that the
reason they should not be white supremacists is that it might hurt their
careers? What does such a message convey to students and to the
community?

Framing the problem of oppressive systems as a question of offensiveness
often leads people to argue that the solution is for the targets of the
offensive speech or actions to be less sensitive, rather than changing
the oppressive system. Sager's e-mail doesn't suggest that, but it could
play into that common feeling among people in the dominant classes by
focusing on offensiveness instead of racism and white supremacy.

What's missing in this official response is a clear statement that these
law students, many of whom go on to join the power elite running our
society, have engaged in behavior that is racist. Whatever their
motivations in planning or attending the party, they have demonstrated
that they have internalized a white-supremacist ideology. When these
students are making decisions in business, government and education, how
will such white supremacy manifest itself? And who will be hurt by that?


Here's what we should say to students: The problem with a racist ghetto
party isn't that it offends some people or tarnishes the image of UT or
may hurt careers. The problem is that it's racist. When you engage in
such behavior you are deepening the racism of a white-supremacist
culture, and that's wrong. It violates the moral and political
principles that we all say we endorse. It supports and strengthens
social systems and institutions that hurt people.

These incidents, and the universities' responses, also raise a
fundamental question about what we white people mean when we say we
support "diversity." Does that mean we are willing to invite some
limited number of non-white people into our space, but with the implicit
understanding that it will remain a white-defined space? Or does it mean
a commitment to changing these institutions into truly multicultural
places? If we're serious about that, it has to mean not an occasional
nod to other cultural practices, but an end to white-supremacist
practices. It has to mean not only honoring other cultural practices but
recognizing that the wealth of the United States and Europe is rooted in
the destruction of some of those cultures over the past 500 years, and
that we are living with the consequences of that destruction.

We white people can't simply point to the overt racism of neo-Nazis as
the problem and feel morally superior. We can't slap a few law students
on the wrist with a warning about being thoughtless and think we've done
our job. The problem is that most of us white people, myself included,
are reflexively hesitant to surrender control of institutions which,
presently, are predominately white. Real change - the process of truly
incorporating a deep multiculturalism into our schools, churches, and
businesses - is a long struggle. The more I make some progress in my own
classes, for example, the more I see how much I have left to do and the
more aware of my mistakes I become.

An easy place to start is by clearly marking racist actions for what
they are: expressions of white people's sense of entitlement and
privilege that are rooted in a white-supremacist system. We can start by
saying - unequivocally, in blunt language - that such racism is morally
wrong, that white supremacy is morally wrong, and that we white people
have an obligation to hold ourselves and each other accountable until we
have created a truly just multiracial society.

We'll know we are there not when white people have stopped throwing
ghetto parties, but when we have built a world in which there are no
ghettos.

We have a long way to go.

Jensen is an associate professor of journalism.