Racially-Themed Sorority Party

     A sorority at Colombia University is facing criticism after organizing an Olympic-themed party in which members of the organization- Kappa Alpha Theta- represented various racial groups by wearing racially stereotypical costumes. When “representing” Mexico, members of the sorority dawned sombrous, fake mustaches, sets of maracas, and in one case, a bottle of tequila. The party made headlines after pictures of the event were posted on various social media outlets by the partygoers themselves.

     The party held by the Kappa Alpha Theta marks one of many racially-themed parties held by predominantly upper-class Caucasians Greek life organizations on US college campuses. While reading this story, a few questions came to mind: What is the driving motivation behind hosting/attending a party that seemingly has the sole purpose of offending a marginalized group of people? Do the attendees post the pictures online in hopes that it will bring attention to their organization based off of shock value? Also, would these kinds of stories be news worthy headlines had the attendees not been predominantly Caucasian?

     The latter question makes one think of the 2002 comedy film “How High,” in which one of the supporting characters is an Asian exchange student that befriends the two African American protagonists due to his liking for hip-hop music, baggy wardrobe, and usage of Ebonics. The movie was a nation-wide hit, yet many seemed to ignore that an Asian character used stereotypical tropes in order to be accepted into the black culture. The simple reasoning to this could be attributed to lack of political correctness being placed on a comedy- but if so, why isn’t the same logic applied to the Caucasian students in the Kappa Alpha Theta case? How High has been syndicated on cable channels for over 10 years without having to be edited for its racial insensitivity. Kappa Alpha Theta has released photos of their racially-themed parties for less than a week and many are already calling for the sorority to be suspended.

     That’s one side of the argument. On the flip side, many can note that Caucasians generally have had (and arguably still do) an upper hand in the socioeconomic sense. Seeing privileged Caucasian college students at an Ivy League school mock racial groups that face disadvantages in the United States (with an addition to being historically oppressed by Caucasians) can be seen as social insensitivity, rather than humorous.

     As a minority, an incident such as this instinctively irritates me. Not just from a racial standpoint, but also in terms of what people find amusing. There’s been countless of incidents of racially-themed parties that were intended to be funny. At this point, for me at least, it’s less offensive and more just incidents of hacky humor. Perhaps certain critics (including myself) would be less inclined to condemn these types of parties if the means of portraying a group of people aren’t the exact same lackluster renditions of played-out stereotypes that have been seen/done in incalculable amount of times. Then again, if the party goers had the comedic wits to think outside of the racial box, they probably wouldn’t be attending these parties to begin with.   

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/columbia-sorority-party-offensive-olympics_n_4847827.html?utm_hp_ref=college

The Westboro Baptist Church and The First Amendment

                The first amendment of the United States constitution protects one’s rights to peacefully assemble and freedom of speech.  With that, US citizens have the right to take vocal stances for or against issues- ranging from the mundane to controversial- via public avenues. The first amendment is one the founding staples of the United States, many citing it as one of the most significant asset to living in the United States.    

                The Westboro Baptist Church is an organization that opposes any form- whether it be another organization, music, military etc. - that “tolerates” or promotes homosexuality. The WBC are known (and heavily critiqued) for their relatively radical tactics taken in spreading the organizations message. Such tactics include protesting funerals of US soldiers with signs that contain eye-grabbing messages such as “God hates fags,” “America is going to hell,” and “Thank God for dead soldiers.” The name of the organization’s website is GodHatesFags.com.

                In 2011, Albert Snyder filed a lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church after the organization protested Snyder’s son’s funeral. His son- Matthew Snyder- was a member of the US marines.  Albert Snyder sued the WBC on claims that they inflicted emotional distress. Although court officials sympathized with Snyder, the lawsuit resulted in a 8-1 ruling for the WBC; over the protection for the organizations right to freedom of speech. Being as how the Westboro Baptist Church protested within a 1,000 feet from the actual funeral and did not cause any physical harm to the mourners, the court deemed their demonstration as a peaceful assembly protected by the first amendment.  Although Matthew Snyder was not a homosexual, the WBC believes that God is punishing America in killing US soldiers for the country’s progressing tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals.

                Although the first amendment gives people the right to freedom of speech, there are (often blurred) boundaries. For example, if what’s being said is unequivocally a false statement, it can fall under slander. In terms of intellectual property, one can copyright infringement can have an effect on whether not someone’s freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, many have argued that public protest that contains anti-gay signs can fall under a hate crime. Some would even say that the demonstrations can be considered as “fighting words.” Although one does not necessarily agree with either of those claims, it is clear that these protests are meant to provoke shock and are aimed to spread intolerance.

                When I read stories such as this, it makes me question whether or not alternations should be made towards the constitution. On one side, the amount of emotional/psychological damages that the actions of the WBC leave on families of the victims- along with society as a whole- are repulsive and having stronger regulations on what they can and can’t do can be beneficial in promoting tolerance. That said, one recognizes that doing so would breach their freedom of speech. As tasteless as their message may be, taking away their rights would be almost as unethical as their organization. Would tweaking the constitution result in making modern society a better place or would it mean that arbitrary rules being set for particularity group of people (aka, discrimination)?