Other Carols?

The piece doesn’t say much about the other Carols that were published, or the reaction to them. Without knowing if there has been selective outrage in reaction to only this particular Carol, it is hard to discern if the issue is really free speech or just Left leaning indignation.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 6:30 am EST on December 12, 2006

Conservatives? at Tufts

The “Christmas” carol published by the Tufts students is disgusting and should have been removed. Satire, if that’s what was the intention, should be subtle, and, more importantly, funny. These kids need to get a life and worry about their own grades!

feudi pandola, at 8:10 am EST on December 12, 2006

a new carol

I think the African-American students at Tufts should band together and write a carol about all the legacies and children of rich (and primarily white) parents — students with little intelligence or substance, but who had the advantages of the best schools, SAT test prep activities, and rich parents. The carol could mock how they got in despite their lack of merit, intelligence, or scholastic aptitude. Now *that* would be funny!

PS, at 9:05 am EST on December 12, 2006

Responses

First Craig C.: Tufts’ The Primary Source Christmas Carols’ feature is an annual tradition ... if indeed we are “allowed” to maintain traditions at this “whatever-kind-of-season” it is.

In this year’s edition there are eight carols, and, at the moment, there are 42 comments. All of the comments are about “Oh Come All Ye Black Folks.” The Primary Source has removed “Oh Come All Ye Black Folks” from their site, but fortunately you can access it at DesignofLove’s MySpace site. Thanks Designof Love (nice music). It would seem that The Primary Source’s carols critiquing feminism, poking fun at administrative spending, expressing disgust at overweight nudes on campus, supporting campus conservatives, and even its self-parody were not sufficiently offensive to inspire comments.

Now for Professor John F. DeFelice. In my opinion one of the tragedies of our time is the decline of satire in academic – and even in intellectual – circles. Thankfully, satire is alive and well within the world-wide community of comedians. I would list my favorites for you, but InsideHigherEd doesn’t have sufficient space ... just spend a little time watching MTV. It strikes me that our young people today are wallowing in satire. For the most part, it defines their sense of the world in which they live and it certainly defines their political perspective. I mean, without satire, who could possibly appreciate the almost incomprehensible rationale of “The Decider?”

But in academic circles, satire is verboten. I haven’t decided yet if that’s because there are so many intellectually challenged academics these days or if it’s because there are (as we used to call them when I was in high school back in the early 50s) so many tight-asses there.

Enough of that. For the rest of you IHE readers, I am quite confident that, were Jonathan Swift publishing “A Modest Proposal,” “The Battle of the Books,” or “Gulliver’s Travels” today, Professors DeFelice and Pandola would be right there at the front of the protestors shouting “Blasphemy, Indecency! Disgusting! Inappropriate! ... ”

And if anyone brings up the quite disgusting diatribe by Michael Richards in this discussion ... well you’ll have to deal with me.

Anyway ...

RWH, at 9:15 am EST on December 12, 2006

I think the African-American students at Tufts should band together and write a carol about all the legacies and children of rich (and primarily white) parents — students with little intelligence or substance, but who had the advantages of the best schools, SAT test prep activities, and rich parents. The carol could mock how they got in despite their lack of merit, intelligence, or scholastic aptitude. Now *that* would be funny!That’s the answer... two wrongs make a right. Respond to a racist/classist satire with another racist/classist satire! (Not to mention it would be as sterotypical as the original carol.)I’m always amazed at the credence people give to such occurences. If I got worked up everytime somebody called me a sp*c or fag*ot, I’d never get anything done. I’ve got far more important things to do than worry about the small minds of such people. They are entitled to their opinion just as I am entitled to mine. Not to mention, I was raised in the “sticks and stones” tradition. To each his own, I suppose. I just think giving such attention to these folks is as narrow-minded as the act itself.

K.T., at 10:20 am EST on December 12, 2006

Satire

My most successful annual project is “The Parody Project.” Students take famous psychological research and figure out a way to parody it, putting their completed projects on CD’s or DVD’s. One year our kids got to exhibit their work at the Stanford Undergraduate Psychology Conference in front of an auditorium full of undergraduates and the professors whose work they parodied. One of the lessons of the project is that students must delve deeply into the issues in order to understand good parody. A second lesson they learn is that not all parody is funny and it is possible to cross the line from parody to ridicule.

Patrick Mattimore, Teacher, at 10:55 am EST on December 12, 2006

Conservative vs. Racist

If this carol attacked affirmative action it could be considered conservative satire. However, since it assumes that all 52 black freshmen had low grades it is merely racist and something more at home in a KKK publication rather than a paper that — I assume — is meant to foster intelligent debate. It’s also not very funny (a requirement of satire) since it is obviously just a mean-spirited attack on those particular students. Had they not made that reference, and perhaps — added another stanza going after legacies or students who got in because the development office was interested in them, then that might have been funny.

While nothing should be officially done about this (the paper has a right to make itself look stupid) the publishers and editors should know enough to apologize and most of the readership should complain and demand more from this paper.

Robert, at 10:55 am EST on December 12, 2006

Okay, Three Things ...

Larry, please cut me some slack. How could possibly lump me with those who are calling for censorship? Ouch!

Second, just to prove that Steve Foerster is right, here is my first verse and the chorus (sung to the tune of Jingle Bells) ...

I’m off to old Tufts U. My Beemer’s almost new ... My frat buds all are there ... and the chicks had best beware. I won’t have time for class ... but I know I’ll always pass “What fun!” I’ll cry while gettin’ high an’ checkin’ out her ass.

Oh ... Legacy, Legacy ... I’m glad my Dad’s got jack Otherwise I’m at Ball State on the wrong side of the track –ohhhh Legacy, Legacy ... I’m glad my Dad’s got dough Bet you’d guess it’s his largess that feed my large ego.

I’ll let Mr. Foerstor take it from there.

Third, an interesting response to The Primary Source article was from Jordana Starr, She wrote ...

“If you’re going to be offensive, you should at least be funny about it (and accurate). Like this example here:

‘Token Mi-no-ri-ty pa rump pa pum pum. Admitted easily pa rum pa pum pum. Give us diversity pa rum pa pum pum.To hell with unity pa rum pa pum pum, rum pa pum pum, rum pa pum pum.

‘Poor, white engineer pa rum pa pum pum. You are not welcome here pa rum pa pum pum. Unless you say you’re queer pa rum pa pum pum.Your special housing’s near pa rum pa pum pum rum pa pum pum, rum pa pum pum.

‘Won’t you please come?’

FYI: Removing this carol was not an appropriate response. That’s no better than removing depictions of the prophet Mohammed because of some Muslims who set some fires in the Middle East (so what else is new?).”

I’m with you girl!

RWH, at 11:55 am EST on December 12, 2006

Article Sheds Light on Continuing Racism in Society

I find the Tuft’s article refreshing because it exposes the continuing reality of racism in America. The Tufts students also present a strong argument in favor of more diversity and affirmative action on campus (these “misguided missles” obviously know no black people). While conservatives suggest that the problems of discrimination and racism no longer exist, this article clearly shows that we are plagued by those who take comfort in marginalizing and demonizing the most vulnerable in society. Ironically it is they who have benefited for centuries from the privileges that come from race and class-based preferences.

Shirley W., at 11:56 am EST on December 12, 2006

Satire...

is supposed to be directed at the powerful, not the relatively powerless. What purpose does satirizing the very small African-American student population at Tufts serve? Only to intimidate, to tell those students that they don’t belong at the school.

Asst. Prof., at 2:15 pm EST on December 12, 2006

It is okay to satirize the less powerful

Asst. Prof, Where do you get the idea that satire is supposed to only malign the “powerless.” But, assuming that you are correct, and that it simply is not satire if the powerless are maligned, does that deprive the students argument of its merit? Does that make their thoughts worth thinking? Are powerless people somehow immune from criticism? (If so, I hereby declare all lawyers to be victims, and declare that all lawyer jokes are off-limits.)

However, I suspect that most anti-affirmative action arguments are not aimed at the students that benefit from them. After all, most successful students and faculty will take whatever handouts they are given, otherwise, nobody would ever network or hold Christmas parties for colleagues. Instead, criticism of affirmative-action-like programs are aimed at schools or, the proponents of such arguments assert, are not acting fairly or ethically.

Larry, at 3:05 pm EST on December 12, 2006

Satire

Larry, let me clarify. If something is witty, amusing, funny, or well-crafted it can get away with a great deal more. For example, the old TV show, “In Living Color” could get away with a great deal, but it was usually funny (albeit offensive) and it usually took shots at everyone. There was also some small bit of truth in what they were doing.

In this case I expect that, because of its mean-spiritedness and racist tinge, most people will not find it funny. While we do not have a right to live a life free of offense, I would dismiss this idiotic racist ramblings and be somewhat surprised that the source is a publication by Tufts Students. I’d expect more from them. (That being said, putting the carol back into context of the entire collection does have an ameliorating effect.)

Robert, at 7:10 pm EST on December 12, 2006

Affirmative Action for minorities is the easy target

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/img/archive/17_03/p-admi-large.gif

Kimberly, at 9:45 pm EST on December 12, 2006

Summing Up ...

“... this is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of respect and decency. And this publication failed the test.” ... John F. DeFelice.

Apparently it failed Professor DeFelice’s test, but there appear to be more than a few who gave it a passing grade.

“This is an issue of civic immorality that endangers us all.” ... Antonia Darder.

Damned straight Ms. Darder, I feel threatened ... and I hope the Bush Administration will institute a Department of Heartland Security to protect us from those Tufts’ terrorists.

And about satire ...

“Satire ... should be subtle, and, more importantly, funny.” ... Feudi Pandola

“Satire is supposed to be directed at the powerful, not the relatively powerless.” ... Asst. Prof.

“Satire is meant to make a positive point. Those in power are thus its natural target.” ... Asst Prof.

Satire that targets the powerless ... makes no sense.” ... Asst. Prof.

Frankly, it is no wonder someone who embraces such a narrow – and may I say inaccurate — view of satire would find “Oh Come All Ye Black Folk” either offensive or racist. I imagine these guys are amongst those who burned copies of Mark Twain’s racist tome, “Huckleberry Finn.” Seriously though, I’m wondering how much the writers have thought about the subject. I suggest that Pandola and Prof start by reading Ian Johnston’s analysis of satire in “A Brief Introduction to Restoration and Eighteenth Century Satire.”

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~Johnstoi/Eng200/satire3.htm

There they will discover a fairly good definition, to wit, “Satire is a composition in verse or prose holding up vice or folly to ridicule or lampooning individuals ... The use of ridicule, irony, sarcasm, etc., in speech or writing for the ostensible purpose of exposing and discourag[ing] vice or folly.”

Four or five years ago I read Darryl Dickson-Carr’s little book, “African American Satire: The Sacredly Profane Novel.” I can recommend that too.

I should also mention the succinct bibliography of readings in Rob Hume’s English 550 syllabus.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/h/b/hb1/550-2002/

Finally, I think it’s time for Scott McLemee to devote one of his long essays to interesting discussion of the nature and power of satire ... that is, provided he steers clear of academe. What a zoo!

RWH, at 5:20 am EST on December 13, 2006

This Is It For Me ...

I am an almost-70-year old Caucasian male. My friends – even my casual friends – believe I am an unrepentant, activist, flaming liberal.

I counted my intimate and very close friends today, and, lucky me, aside from family I listed eleven. Six are men, five are women, two are African-American (both women with Ph.D.s who teach at prestigious universities), one is Jewish, and my four oldest and dearest friends are from the boondocks of Western north Carolina and East Tennessee. If your looking for a “non-minority” class of individuals living on the cusp of poverty, just visit the Southern Appalachians. Perhaps you’ll even meet Charlotte Simmons while you’re there.

My very best friend of long standing, until her death ten years ago, was the first African American woman in the world to get a Ph.D. in physics.

That said, I am going to try to “defend” the decision of those Tufts’ students who are responsible for writing and publishing “Oh Come All Ye Black Folks.” My inclination is to quote Guido Calabresi, former Dean of the Yale Law School, and then leave it at that. Reacting to statements of protestors at Yale, he said, “It was tasteless, even disgusting, but that’s beside the point. Free expression is more important than civility in a university.” I’m afraid, however, that those who are “bent out of shape” by the satirical Christmas carol would not be pacified by that response. They’re looking for blood.

Tufts is an “almost-Ivy” with a student body of 8,500. It is almost evenly divided between undergraduate and graduate students, it has a very strong slant toward the sciences (it has the only veterinary school in New England), it has The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, the Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, and it has sufficient intellectual integrity not to have a business school. If you go to the University’s web-site, you won’t find “Athletics” displayed prominently in its primary menu.

In my opinion, the University – the faculty and students – has more social, economic, and political conservatives than most. The University’s mascot, for God’s sake, is an elephant. The “official” student newspaper is the Tufts’ Daily, and The Primary Source boasts that, at 25, it is the second oldest college publication in the country that promulgates and defends conservative thought.

The undergraduate student body, including its minority contingents, is decidedly privileged no matter how you define that term. I don’t have the statistics, but undergraduate, Adam Schultz, in his general critique of affirmative action, claims it is difficult to run into someone on campus who comes from a lower income background.

http://tuftsdaily.lunarpages.com/articleDisplay.jsp?a_id=1683

Nevertheless, and all of this aside, it’s a damned fine university, and had either of my sons decided to matriculate there, I would have objected only mildly (remember, I’m a flaming liberal).

http://www.tufts.edu/home/about/?p=pointsofpride

It is probably noteworthy that 38% of full-time faculty are female, 18% are “minority” (whatever that means) and 27% of entering freshman are minority.

Now for analysis of the content of “Oh Come All Ye Black Folk,” something that has been noticeably absent from this discussion.

First, you know and I know if those clever, but conservative, young people on the staff of The Primary Source had intended to make a racial slur, they would have done a Hell of a lot better than this. We all imagine that most of them have more than a little disdain for affirmative action ... and probably, as Mr. Schultz articulated it, not because it benefits African-Americans, but because it demeans them. Face it, these are very smart young folks, and if they were more racist than the rest of us – after all, we’re all racist – they could have truly embarrassed everyone in sight.

So here goes ... and it is so repetitious, there is no reason to print the entire carol.

“Oh come let us accept them” ... nine lines. Zzzzzzzzzz

Next, here is, according to me, the racist stereotypes promulgated in the carol ...

“Boisterous yet desirable”

“Sing [in] gospel choirs”

“[Have] brown skin”

More Zzzzzzzzz

“No matter what your grades are, F’s, D’s or G’s”

I suppose the implication here is that students admitted in conjunction with affirmative action policies have lower grades, on the average, than do the rest of Tufts’ undergraduates. That may be true ... and it’s probably also true of Tuft’s legacy students. Oh, but this parody is not about legacy students; it’s about minority students.

Next, and I think this is the clincher, one demonstrating that this carol is not directed at minority (actually African-American) students per se, but is directed at the admissions officers at Tufts ...

“Born into oppression”

“Born into the ghetto”

How many times have we heard admissions officers confuse the issue of race and poverty? How many times have we heard them boast about their minority enrollments as if these enrollments reflected a commitment to the poor? Well, the way it works at a great many places, and probably works at Tufts as well, is that most of their African-American students come from backgrounds almost as privileged as the rest of their undergraduates.

And then hitting the admissions’ officers squarely between the eyes ...

“All come! Blacks, we need you.”

“We need you now to fill our racial quotas.”

And the much maligned, “Fifty-two black freshman.”

The line, “Fifty-two black freshman.” is a fairly powerful statement, one that more than a few readers clearly misunderstood. It is actually a harsh critique of Tuft’s admission policies in which , in a single year, the number of African-American admissions decreased from 90 to 52. a decline of 58% ... and that doesn’t look like common-cause variation to me. To personalize that statement, interpreting it as a criticism of the fifty-two who enrolled this year is just bizarre. No wonder David Horowitz thinks academe is populated by more than its fair share of the intellectually challenged.

Were I a Black student at Tufts – and how stupid is it for an old, male Caucasian to begin a sentence like that – I would have read the carol, raised my eyebrows, shook my head, smiled sardonically, and thought, “Well, that’s Tufts.”

And, dear friends, that’s it!

RWH, at 12:20 pm EST on December 13, 2006

response to Shirley

Shirley, Nobody claimed that Tufts was violating the First Amendment. On the other hand, the Civil Rights Act does not obligate any college to censor a publication. No case has ever held that. The DOJ has never taken such a position, either.

Larry, at 2:15 pm EST on December 13, 2006

First Amendment

Actually Larry, Catherine did reference the First Amendment.... and it would be the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights that would investigate a complaint of discrimination. DOJ would litigate if the case went that far. Given the sorry record of this Justice Department in defending the rights of historically excluded minorities, I expect nothing from DOJ. However, I heartily support the filing of Title VI discrimination complaints when Bush is gone, to test the limits where so-called free speech rights cross the line and become racist harassment supported financially by a college or university.

Shirley, at 3:45 pm EST on December 13, 2006

Shirley needs to provide specifics.

Shirley, You need to provide specifics. No administration has ever litigated a Title VII case where private conduct, in the form of a letter, article, or other publication caused people distress under the theory that somehow such an article discriminated against people. This has nothing to do with any administration: for the government to claim that a school’s conduct is discriminatory, because it doesn’t censor a student publication, is, well, somewhat crazy, and probably would give rise to a First Amendment defense, since it is the government’s conduct that would be restricting speech. No other administration has EVER taken a contrary position.

Larry, at 4:15 pm EST on December 13, 2006

Racial Harassment

First, please note that I was referring to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not Title VII, which involves employment. Second, there have been numerous “hate speech” cases and controversies in past years involving colleges and universities where colleges have attempted to impose codes of conduct when harassment has occurred. To the extent that such conduct, even in the form of a publication supported by the university, constitutes racial harassment and creates a hostile environment, I would argue that it violates Title VI and a complaint could be lodged against the college or university that receives federal financial assistance. The US Department of Education would investigate. If it finds that the harassment is egregious enough to infect the environment, as, when there is a pattern of consistently racist articles published, it could take action against the university with the ultimate goal of withdrawing its federal funding. Usually, the college settles rather than running the risk of losing its aid. The complaint could force the university not to censor but to withdraw its support of that publication. It is a long shot, admittedly, and I would look for other acts of racial intolerance on campus to strengthen my case where the university failed to take corrective action. The analogous situation is the case of sexual or racial harassment, where emails, graffiti or literature is circulated that is so offensive it creates a hostile environment. This kind of “speech” could arguably constitute harassment which is discrimination. In the workplace employers have paid millions of dollars in damages and equitable relief because of harassment. Capiche?

Shirley W., at 6:30 pm EST on December 13, 2006

numerous cases?

Shirley, Okay, you were talking about Title VI. (My mistake, you did say “VI") First you claimed that there were “numerous cases.” But then you seem to concede that no school has ever been successfully sued (or proceeded against administratively) for failing to curtail even graffiti, yet alone a student publication. Perhaps if you cited specifics of where the government has taken action against a school for works in its publications, that would advance the conversation.

The fact that you would argue that the law should be interpreted on way isn’t too convincing, since no court and no administration has ever bought the idea that Title VI somehow trumps a student’s ability to express themselves, either within the context of the First Amendment, or a private institution’s practice of allowing all student expression.

Larry, at 8:00 pm EST on December 13, 2006