Let’s be honest here. The effect of this forum is going to ultimately be that of inhibiting discussion. If I were writing for just about any publication at this point, my reaction would be not to talk about race. Ever. It seems clear that even satirizing racists (as in the cross-burning piece), or suggesting that *both* sides of the divide could be doing a better job (as in the BSA piece) will immediately come under intense scrutiny, the easiest solution is just not to talk about race at all. Even if the community eventually comes to a consensus behind the Heckler, the trouble that this has caused would simply not be worth it. I’ll tell you this much, I’d be willing to bet a large sum of money you won’t see race-relations showing up in the pages of the Heckler for the next few years.

If we really want to have a community that is in open dialogue about these issues, part of it’s going to require not having a witch hunt every time somebody expresses a view on race, especially when it’s pieces like the Heckler’s that are condemning racist attitudes.

just as a correction its “anti-oppression”, in regards to workshops that some people do

and this wasn’t a witch hunt, it was a discussion in which people were very respectful of one another, honestly. holding people accountable is not inhibiting discussion.

and time and time again people said in the forum that they didn’t think the heckler itself, or the writers were racist, but the product was. people should not have to apologize for being offended. in this instance they went too far.

anonymous, were you there?

“The events documented in an attempt at satire are in reality fictional”

Wait… so the Hoya staff members didn’t actually burn crosses? This changes everything!

Anonymous – did you attend tonight? I dont think people left with the impression that race is taboo and no one should open there mouths about it, the point is that this type of thing happens when there isnt conversation on campus between groups. This wasn’t an exercise of consensus, it was a conversation that many people missed (some because of finals, others because anonymous internet sniping is easier than confronting privilege and racism) that wouldn’t have otherwise happened. There was no witch hunt, and I defy you to find me a single person who thinks the Heckler, or the Hoya for that matter, are THE underlying problem.

Yall cry foul if we protest, degrade our open conversations, ignore our programs (and then claim that we self segregate) and THEN insult our intelligence. But i’ll concede that point – we would appear fools to keep trying to engage white people in these conversations in any format, even for their own sakes. They just got so much power, we have no choice but to try. I hope rather than degrading the attempts of those who ARE trying, some people might experiment a little more with what it takes to make a positive difference, in the face of people like you who are happy with nothing but our silence on these issues.

50 people showed up to the forum. That represents .7% of Georgetown’s total population. And I’m sure some people showed up to support the Heckler. So . . . yeah, huge outrage here.

As to the students – well, I’m not surprised. It’s the professors quoted in the “press release” I’m miffed at. From their responses, it’s abundantly clear that they just read choice quotes and commented off that, without looking into the context or other views. Huzzah for intellectual thought, guys!

“If this is supposed to be a humorous reaction to political correctness then one has to wonder how low one needs to go to create political humor. The editors and the writers need to do a self-examination of their deeply rooted racism, anger and sarcasm, and anti-Christian attitudes.””

Reaction to political correctness? What? And accusing the editors and writers of “deeply rooted racism” and “anti-Christian attitudes”? That’s professional of you, Professor Palacios.

Or Professor Roshwald, Chair of the History Department, who said that the Heckler “glorif[ies] violence against minorities, and thereby to encourage[s] it.” What the fuck? You’re the CHAIR of the fucking HISTORY department — shouldn’t you be able to distinguish The Heckler from Der Stürmer?

And of course, the recurring claim that this is a University-sponsored publication, which literally even a cursory glance of any website page would tell you was false. Nice fact-checking, Ms. Gunderson. But I suppose that might get in the way of crying wolf.

you are a coward.

keep people’s names out of your mouth if you aren’t willing to share your own.

“I have consulted with senior colleagues and we condemn these attempts at humor,” Olson wrote.

The Lord of Comedy/Vice President for Student Affairs has spoken.

The Heckler is no longer, and in fact, was never funny.

Not unless Olson, after consultation with the highest authorities (DeGoia?), decides it is.

I love racism, but I hate the Heckler. Is there any place in this argument for me to get involved? Thanks.

Anonymous: “I’d be willing to bet a large sum of money you won’t see race-relations showing up in the pages of the Heckler for the next few years.”

I am greatly in need of quick cash after my ponzi scheme was uncovered by the SEC. I accept your bet. $5000. Cash. Small bills. If the Heckler has a single article on race in its next issue I expect payment. If not, I will wire you the money via my soon-to-be-defunct Foundation for the Progress of Improvement in Issues.

Whatever makes you feel better.

Look, is there racism at Georgetown? Yup. Did the Hoya show it? Yup, and it deserved to be roundly condemned. It showed the level of unintentional racism and lack of racial understanding was still a pretty big problem at Georgetown.

Is the Heckler racist? No. The Heckler’s point was specifically to highlight the lack of racial awareness at the Hoya (and by extension, the school), by exaggerating it to the extreme.

The fact that people are deliberately ignoring this angle and accusing people like Stuef of “deeply seated racism” is ridiculous at best and, instead of helping the cause, only makes a mockery of it.

If you want to reach out to white students (or non-Black, or non-minority, or whomever the target is), blowing up out-of-context quotes to attack from a satire magazine that is actually making your point comes across as petty and self-aggrandizing. Especially when you create a “press release” and blast it out to local media containing direct attacks and distortions about the authors.

So, yes, there needs to be a dialogue on campus about the issues the Hoya April Fools edition raised. This is not it. And I think if you surveyed campus, the overwhelming majority would agree (minorities included).

(FYI: same Anonymous as the first post)

Jheanelle, “Alicia,” I was not there. Contrary to what Ms. McLaughlin says, Finals WAS the reason I wasn’t there. I had been keeping it on my calendar, but simply did not have the time. My comments were directed more at the reaction as I’ve seen reported in Vox, and in reading the comments. And while I can’t comment on the meeting itself, the Press Release sure seemed to give quite an impression.

Believe me, I recognize racism is a problem on this campus. Personally, as a white male I’ve never experienced it or seen it, but in talking to friends who don’t share my same background, their experiences are undeniable. I do engage in these sorts of discussions about race relations at Georgetown. But the Heckler was not being racist, it was satirizing racists. Put simply, there are a lot more legitimate targets to direct this energy towards, and revolve these conversations around. More to the point, when, as you say Jheanelle, everyone agrees that the Heckeler and its writers isn’t racist, and it wasn’t trying to be racist, but somehow what they wrote turned out racist, the signal I get is that one can attract a great deal of unwanted attention and controversy to oneself by talking about race, even if one is only attempting to constructively add to the dialogue. I think it’s important to talk about these issues, and I do. But if expressing an opinion with any nuance or complexity is going to get me called in to the VP’s office, have dozens of students convinced I’m a racist, and professors say I’m anti-Christian and glorify violence, then to be 100% honest, I’m going to say it’s not worth the trouble, and that there are plenty of other issues important to dialogue about. I wish that weren’t the case, but I feel like the fact that the Heckler aroused this sentiment, and not all the intentionally racist activity that goes on, just has this effect.

I will be thrilled to read the results of your survey as to what should be done on campus. when you do that work, and actually try to make a positive difference, I will be overjoyed. But don’t insult the intelligence of the people you are degrading. We are all Georgetown students. Black kids arent dumber than you or incapable of understanding satire just because they find it offensive. thats just conceited… and racist, btw

And don’t tell me or anyone else what to do, while you and all the other cowards lobbing critique’s at people who are trying to make a difference from the sideline. post your research on the voice blog or the hoya. im sure they would love to make a mockery of that too. have fun.

Well, that’s it. Now that race is off the table, the Heckler will have no choice but to turn its full satirical attention to those damned, pugnosed Irish.

anonymous – have you ever been called into the VP’s office for participating in any of those dialogues? if you didnt invoke the KKK, burning crosses or hanging strange fruit, I’m guessing you successfully avoided such “unwarranted attention and controversy”

@Anamolous:
1)I said “*unwanted* attention and controversy”
2) my point is that forums like this seem to make unpredictable what will or will not merit such responses. If it was simply a matter of avoiding crosses, the KKK, and fruit, that would be perfectly acceptable in terms of clearly defining what does and does merit such attention. Unfortunately, I no longer feel comfortable saying that expressing a view about racism (including a negative one), in a way not intended to be racist, from someone who is not racist, is entirely safe from this sort of reaction.

“It’s not because of finals [that they're not here],” said Margaret McLaughlin (SFS ‘10). “It’s because they don’t care to be part of the discussion.” Other forum participants complained about the attitudes of internet commenters, including some from Vox Populi.

I wasn’t there because of finals; events like this shouldn’t take place during finals week (I thought they weren’t supposed to, anyways?).

I agree completely with Anonymous’s comments above, and past history shows he’s completely correct. This has happened many, many times in the past.

For example, during the Jena 6 protests, a Hoya op-ed writer wrote a piece about how he, as a southern white guy, was afraid to even talk about racially-tinged issues because he would be automatically and knee-jerk-ily accused of being a racist. What happened? Why, after the column appeared, he was denounced as a racist!

Seriously, go read the column: http://www.thehoya.com/opinion/jena-rhetoric-stops-progress-stifles-debate/

Choice quotes:
“The reason I didn’t want to write about the Jena Six was because, like many people, I’m AFRAID to talk about it.”

“At Georgetown, like everywhere else, the issue has already become saturated by racial overtones, and no conversation about it now can be taken seriously unless it includes a racial opinion. … any legitimate complaints are quickly becoming clouded in the caustic and polarizing atmosphere that surrounds conversations about race.”

“And while conversations about race have the potential to discuss why and how we could learn to ignore our visual differences and create a better society — and eventually stop worrying about race at all — it’s an all-too-common occurrence that those who are afraid to let the notion of race die will kill the discourse by labeling someone with whom they disagree as a racist.

And once someone calls you a racist, you’re screwed.

If I even dare to take a position in this column that doesn’t agree with the loudest voices, I will be accused of the one thing which can destroy any American’s reputation, and of which so many people are easily accused.”

In response, people called him racist, called for his resignation or censorship, vandalized copies of the Hoya by scribbling “RACIST” and hurled a brick through the editor-in-chief’s window. Yeah, that’s dialogue.

Ditto with the Hoya April Fool’s edition. While I think the issue was terribly misguided and unintentionally racist, the newspaper editors had to meet with and appease high-level administrators. Many of the attacking students (and some professors) wanted to censor the Hoya or punish the individual authors.

Does anyone think this creates dialogue or helps people talk about race? No. What it does is create a set of “approved” talking points that no one should deviate from on pain of public censure and harassment. You get a Potemkin Village of “acceptance”, while behind the scenes the real issues of racism are left unaddressed and festering.

So, yeah, I completely agree with Anonymous above in saying extreme reactions like this stifle any public debate — the very thing you set out to accomplish.

And there we go — that took seconds!

The point that some “people are deliberately ignoring this [anti-racist satirical] angle and accusing people like Stuef of “deeply seated racism” is ridiculous at best and, instead of helping the cause, only makes a mockery of it.”

Was turned into:

“Black kids arent dumber than you or incapable of understanding satire just because they find it offensive. thats just conceited… and racist, btw”

So now questioning whether the Heckler is actually racist . . . is itself racist. And people wonder why they stay away from these debates.

I am truly disturbed by the faux outrage generated by these professional victims over what was a well-done satire of racism. Their complete and utter lack of humor is as pathetic as it is alarming for the future of free speech on campus.

Are these people even aware that the Heckler isn’t affiliated whatsoever with the university? Are they now on such a power trip that they want to censor any individual expression whatsoever? Under this precedent, anyone could post something online and be hauled off for “discussion” over race/gender/class/sexuality insensitivity before an angry mob of over-empowered “victims”.

I am worried for the university that the administration, so afraid of being accused of insensitivity towards minorities, now completely bends over backwards to accommodate this nonsense. I hope that Georgetown students stand up for their right to free speech against this oppression of political correctness run amok.

Long live the First Amendment!

This is the stupidest “outrage” yet. I am shocked that so many in our campus community are dumb enough to mistake satire that mocks racists for being racist itself. I have never been slow to criticize people for being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. when it’s actually warranted, but it’s not warranted here. Thank goodness The Heckler is not affiliated with the University and can publish its satire without official and serious sanctions.

Just because some minorities *think* something is racist does not mean that their perceptions are correct. While it’s important to consider why people are offended, if the reasons they give are ridiculous (as they are in this case), there is no further reason to take their claim to redress seriously. Unfortunately, false claims to victimhood are too regularly turned into some sort of privileged access to truth that inhibit rational debate.

I honestly think the whole situation couldnt have played out any more ironically if the heckler writers had planned it themselves.

I agree. I hope there’s a follow-up edition about it.

I’m wondering if Kesten and Brown are trying to make a name for themselves by bringing this up with the Heckler issue. I bet that would look real good for them, showing “leadership” during their time at Georgetown and standing up against the “injustice” and “racism” of the Georgetown Heckler.

http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2009/12/16/in-defense-of-satire/

[...] « A recap of Tuesday’s Heckler forum, with written reactions from Todd Olson and students Dec 16 2009 [...]

Since so many people are proposing that they want to participate in dialogue, I hope that next time the opportunity presents itself you will all be there. As a person who has attending various dialogues around campus about various issues. Unfortunately it is the same group of people who attend many of the dialogues. So if you claim that dialogue is the key please make sure that you make an active effort to attend these programs. I know for a fact there are dialogues that will be happening next semester so please make an effort to be there if you are serious about these dialogues.

Putting aside all criticism here, if you really want a productive dialogue with the people you actually want to address, don’t do things like what happened here. Seriously — I’m not trying to be incendiary.

Why don’t people want to show up? Well, finals had some to do with it, I’m sure, but another point is that the rhetoric of the people calling the forum has been anything but neutral and unbiased. You’ve pre-judged the acceptable outcome. Why should people who disagree come and have their opinions pilloried or disregarded? You’re taking up a valuable commodity of theirs — time.

Breaking off into focus groups with a selected number of students to ensure diversity of opinion could be one way to engage. Get an equal number of students who agree with the issue at hand with those who disagree, so no one feels like their opinions are in the minority. But, again, if you pre-judge the outcome, no one opposed is going to come.

If all you’re creating is an echo chamber of a choir of yes-men and yes-women, you’re helping no one — in fact, you’re actively hurting the effort by driving dissenting voices away. Especially if many who are neutral or even leaning positive on the issue are turned off by heated rhetoric — you may win the battle, but you lose the war.

Just my two yen.

Wow…way to completely miss what I said.

I was looking forward. In no way did I reference the people who came or were not able to come to the forum. I was challenging people to actually participate in these dialogues. This is not the only dialogue that has ever happened on campus, therefore for me to solely look at this dialogue as the sole representation of dialogue at georgetown would be facetious.

I have always believed that the point of dialogue was to explore various sides of an issue. It is not about two people talking at eachother, but actually creating a space where we people can have an actual conversation. In order for that conversation to happen, people who think differently must come together if we are to grow in any way. I won’t say that dialogue is easy and I won’t say that people don’t get upset in the process, but as long as both parties continue to be open-minded and actually LISTEN to eachother there is a lot of growth that happens.

Furthermore,

The purpose of my post was to let people know that constructive dialogues do happen on campus and if you are interested, you should make to effort to participate.

No, I’m agreeing with you. This isn’t about tonight’s forum specifically. But if the same people, or the same groups of people, are calling future forums – and they’re likely going to be largely representative of the mix there – a lot of people might not come because they’re afraid their opinions are going to be drowned out or discounted. Perception turns into reality.

So, in order for these dialogues to work, there needs to be some way to evenly balance the views so it’s not just the same people showing up all the time. You need a critical mass of other viewpoints before the airing of such viewpoints becomes welcomed.

This applies to any area of debate and dialogue. If you’re one of two or three guys in a thirty-person women’s study class, you’re probably going to be reluctant to voice your point of view if it disagrees with the rest of the class. If it were 15 out of 30, then you might be comfortable talking. Or the only Republican in a class with Democrats, or atheist in a class of strongly religious people, etc.

From what I’ve seen in prior dialogues, the majority of people who show up (and are usually the most vocal) are committed ideologues (I use the term non-judgmentally, only to point out that they are the strongest advocates for the issue). So people who show up with other opinions tend not to voice them (or moderate them heavily), while others just don’t show up at all because the outcome is essentially a foregone conclusion, like if the College Dems debated “Should condoms be sold on campus?”

In any case, there are various other reasons why people don’t show up — varying levels of interest, lack of how attendance would make concrete effects, etc., but the one thing that most pressingly needs to change is to make sure other viewpoints get equal representation. As I suggested earlier, instead of one large dialogue, pairing off smaller groups so as to balance out viewpoints could help. So while, for example, I’d probably be uncomfortable addressing a room full of committed ideologues on the Heckler issue, I’d be much more comfortable expressing my viewpoint in a group of, say, myself, a Heckler editor/author, one or two people who didn’t think the Heckler was racist, and three or four people who did.

hoya 12, straw man attacks are not in anyway constructive. challenge viewpoints all you want, because that’s needed and its appropriate and we should be smart enough to do that. but character judgments…really?

I see what you are trying to say, but I think you are not really understanding what a lot of the people who try to create a space for dialogue are hoping to gain. I will admit that there are some people on both sides who are very passionate about there beliefs, but the points of a dialogue is to share experiences so that people look beyond what others believe, but really understand what their beliefs are rooted in. I definitely understand the value in small group discussions, but at the end of the day the problem is rooted in people not attending these discussion. As someone who helps construct dialogues, I would love to hear what concrete things you think we could to ensure the people who are on various sides of different issues will come together.

It is important to challenge all the groups of people to step outside of their comfort zone and participate in these dialogues. You advocate for equal representation, but you can’t force people to come. All you can do is invite people to come and hope that they will show up. And from experience I can tell you that usually doesn’t work so I am genuinely asking for concrete suggestions.

Do these interest groups ever stop and realize that they truly are caricatures of what the left has become in America? Professional Victims. Couldn’t have said it any better.

This has nothing to do with “the left” and everything to do with the incompetence of the Heckler’s critics. I’m really far to the left and this little outrage strikes me as ignorant and ridiculous.

I think a lot of the problem is being caused by people combining issues that are not at all related. Saying “I was offended by the Heckler’s ironic use of lynching; therefore, it is racist,” is nonsensical. You were offended, okay. That doesn’t make The Heckler racist. That would mean The Heckler poorly chose its topics for satire, which is a whole separate issue (and one about which I would disagree, but I don’t want to get called, well, you know).

Please use the word “racist” for people who actually deserve it, or we’re going to spend forever fighting people like “sfs senior” who think that the left has turned into “professional victims.” I’d rather not have to fight that attitude to get real racial equality in this country, thanks.

Professional Victims? Wow…yes please let us all trivialize the issue to “oh there go those minority students complaining about something AGAIN”. I wish you could even begin to understand the experiences of those people you claim to be professional victims. I somehow feel that after you have been called a N****r or not been let into a party because of the color of your skin or had to sit in a class everyday where not one person looks like you than you would realize that being a “professional victim” is not a job that anybody wants.

What’s interesting is that in all this talk about this one ‘racist’ article, we’ve lost sight of the other Heckler articles that have also caused controversy. They get one sentence in this post: “Some students focused on other groups they thought were attacked in articles about hate crimes or the “Cuddler” sexual assaults.” I imagine that’s because no one really brought them up at length at the meeting. However, I don’t think any of Stuef’s responses can explain away the tasteless, pointless, offensive op-ed: http://georgetownheckler.com/wp/2009/11/op-ed-it%E2%80%99s-not-a-hate-crime-if-you-love-doing-it/.

I’d like to know what this is satirizing: “I love the sweet smell of perfume from his freshly shaven neck right before I serenade him with calls of “What are you, some kind of faggot? Hey, faggot, I asked you a question. You suck dick?” And oh how I love the dulcet tones of flesh meeting perfectly moisturized gay flesh, reverberating in the air like bells on the Pope’s wedding day.”
or this
“Some people look down on them for sucking dicks all the time, but they love doing that. They couldn’t live if they didn’t have a dick in their mouths every five seconds. And I couldn’t live if they weren’t walking around alone all the time for me to beat into a bloody puree.”

I realize I should’ve been at the meeting. But that shouldn’t immediately disqualify me from airing concerns. Has anyone who has read the entirety of this article think its funny in any way? Others have claimed it’s satirizing Georgetown University’s general lack of response to hate crimes. How?

Furthermore, if the next issue of the Heckler comes out with another gay-related piece like this, but doesn’t have an article about racial minorities, will there be any similar uproar? When the Heckler published an article earlier this year about Take Back The Night surrendering to the Cuddler, and included a lot of victim-blaming rhetoric that was not satire at all, only United Feminists responded. It was met with widespread indifference.

So far this semester, each Heckler issue has included let’s say a controversial article. Why do we continue to care about what they’re saying when they don’t represent us? I don’t believe we need the Heckler to be our moral backstops, reminding us of what Georgetown needs to do better, when we already know. It’s not news to anyone that a lot of people think Georgetown has racial issues. And we certainly don’t need someone satirizing hate crimes as something not hateful. Just because you are allowed to say stuff like that, and pass it off as “satire you can’t figure out,” doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t make it something of which to be proud.

Whether or not it is funny is a matter of taste (it is), but you’d have to be stupid or purposely obtuse to think that it’s not mocking and criticizing the homophobic “bros” that are violent to lgtbq+ members of our university. It’s pointing out the hypocrisy and insecurity that’s often behind hate crimes. I don’t think you get satire.

[...] Georgetown Voice's Vox Populi blog covered last night's on-campus forum organized by students upset over a recent article in the satirical Georgetown Heckler about a [...]

holy shit this is annoying….. the ironic thing is, if it was a black guy who wrote the KKK/crossburning article, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. don’t anyone else think coddling minorities is just as insulting as being overtly racist?

this issue is only being used as a “productive” distraction from finals (on both sides). does anyone actually care? i’m willing to bet not many.

I agree with John. There is a very small subsector of students at this school who thrive off of victimizing themselves. I think that the large silent majority on this campus is extremely sick of these people victimizing themselves. Yet here’s the thing, the administration and student body can’t do anything about it without being labeled as racist or enabling! It’s absolutely absurd. Oh while we’re on it, the existence of a “black house” is equally as absurd, why should there be a house for one specific ethnic group? I grew up going to a highly diverse public high school and we never had to be this sensitive. Ever. I think Brian Kesten and Co need to get a life, and leave the rest of us the hell alone. Transfer to Brown you wannabes.

@ John….

I feel that no matter the race, ethnicity or gender of the writer, the discussion and content of this article went far beyond lines of acceptable and appropriate press. Its one thing to address an issue, but there are ways that you go about doing so. In doing this as was done in the Heckler, the message gets lost in the delivery in addition to offending and hurting the very group of people who you originally “intended” on advocating for. To suggest that if the person were black it would be something different is to first deny the existence of white privilege regardless of anything else, and to ultimately assert that the content of the article was acceptable in nomenclature to the improvement and betterment of a people who had been oppressed by these same examples such as lynching, the KKK and hosing.

There is no gratitude in being the victim of oppression, but neglecting to see that shows that there is some privilege in that statement, but that is something to take up with one’s own personal beliefs and moral scale or compass.

I think what the campus left wing (and let’s be clear, the people organizing such a sit-down are indeed ideologues of the left) is missing in this outrage is that the majority of people _don’t care_ about race anymore. We want to talk about people based on their merit. However, this principle applies universally, so you can bet that every topic is open to satire and discourse of other kinds. That is what a liberal (in the classic sense) society is about. The freedom to talk about ideas should end NOWHERE.

When members of society only take this maxim to heart when it suits their feelings, we very quickly wind up with a hamstrung populace that finds it too discouraging to have any honest discussion at all. I thought the article was funny. It stands on its own as a piece of humor. If you don’t like it, you aren’t allowed (at least you shouldn’t be allowed) to organize institutional machinery to silence it if you also believe in a free society.

Let me also elaborate on why I view groups like the Black Student Alliance, GU Pride, Solidarity, etc. as “professional victims.” Mainly it revolves on these groups’ main task – complaining. They do it for a living. They make complaining into an identity and it becomes pitiful. They get jobs with groups like the NAACP which long ago accomplished its goal of curing generational racism in America and now only stands to create trouble where none exists. They take it past complaining and will use any means necessary (the state, the university, etc.) to cure their hurt feelings.

And it is a style of complaining that rails against a problem that does not exist. America really no longer is racist – believe it. If you are an employer and you systemically do not hire/promote blacks or women or gays or any other minority in accordance with merit, you can bet your ass that you will be competed out of the marketplace by those who do. It is the reason why baseball very quickly integrated after Jackie Robinson entered the league. This principle extends to social life. If you fail to make friends due to your racism, you suffer the consequences of a foregone friendship.

I encourage members of the BSA and other complaining organizations to evaluate if their positions are synchronous with a free society. I would also encourage, as some other posters have mentioned, that they consider this sort of thing a wise use of oxygen when it may distract from legitimate beefs that do (rarely) occur in the future.

Your thoughts and beliefs scare me ….. sense when has it been acceptable to “other” individuals. “These people” shows that you inherently don’t see racism out there in the world, on Georgetown’s campus and maybe even within yourself.

Are you guys even serious right now. Individuals who are willing enough to even respond to such notions as suggested by “man” and “common sense” are doing too much because those who do not understand often try not to understand. I am appalled and cannot believe that you in anyway feel that you are warranted to speak on issues I am sure you know nothing about. Just as well as I wouldn’t speak about an organization such as the BSA if I know from the meeting last night that none of the Georgetown white community attend any of their events so we know nothing significant about them.

Sorry, but you’re an idiot. Racism exists, classism exist, homophobia exists, sexism exists, and they all exist at Georgetown. Largely because of halfwits like you who think they don’t exist because the magical “market” solves everything. The world sucks and people who want to change it aren’t necessarily victims. Your soapbox lecturing and self-righteous preaching is far more annoying than just about anything the left does. And, to be clear, this isn’t the left getting all up in arms. It’s a small cohort of moron students who don’t get satire at all.

BUT… That’s not to say that this isn’t an absurd issue. The Heckler was clearly mocking racists and prejudice. It was mocking people like you who don’t believe these problems exists or who can’t recognize their own complicity in them. That anyone would try to victimize themselves over an article that clearly in their favor is absurd because it’s contrary to their interests. That’s why this is dumb and it’s why your “Oh god the PC leftists are at it again” mantra is irrelevant.

This issue has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with groups of people who willingly make themselves into victims – whether or not the distinction is valid. In the process of making themselves victims, they play a part in making society less free by creating ludicrous outrage where none is warranted. This nonsense impinges on OUR free society, so, yes, I feel quite entitled to voice these views.

People may harbor racist or other ist views, but, once again, they DO pay a premium. Don’t hire qualified blacks as a middle manager and wind up with inferior employees? You’re fired. Don’t have a lot of friends because you select them based on skin pigmentation? You are unhappy and have a needlessly small social netowrk. And let me also be clear that i am not at all defending right-wing politics. Far from it. I am defending one of the core liberal views that the left in America used to defend: freedom of expression.

OUR? I would imagine this is everone’s society. Let me guess, you have never heard of the study that was done that demonstrated that a white man with a prison record is more likely to get a job than a black man. Hmm…read up my friend…

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S11/23/70K64/index.xml?section=newsreleases

If you honestly think that these people a advocating for issues in the minority community then feel very lucky because it just means that your priviledge allows to ignore these issues. However, don’t forget that we are not all that lucky.

@man are you even reading what you are writing before you press submit? Could you see how someone could take your thoughts as racist? Individuals with view like yours make me sad to be human, much less white!

@Believe in human rights!

Um… ok.

So yea… I think it’s pretty obvious you have no freakin idea what you’re talking about. Any idiot can vomit words the way you just did. Good for you. I’m sure your parents would be proud (I’m sure your professors hate your papers, but that’s another story).

Obviously there are racists on campus. Whites are scared of blacks, blacks are bitter at whites, [removed by editor], etc. Obviously there are people who thrive off victimizing themselves. Blacks, whites, latinos, hispanics, asians, gays, rich, poor, catholics, muslims – every group does it. The problem is, the numbers aren’t as high as they’re made out to be. So really, the rest of us are just caught in the crossfire (including the administrators, who you can be damn sure don’t give a shit and only show up to make sure we don’t drop in the rankings). This happens on campus, and this happens out in the real world.

The problem is when you [removed by editor] make me and the school deal with it. I don’t care about your insecurities and I don’t care about your ulterior motives. Stop overreacting. I, and I’m sure many others, will help you if there’s actually a problem. Until there’s a real problem, though, quit heaping your “self discovery” issues on us – we’ve got our own problems to deal with.

And just for the record, this applies to @man too… I agree with some of what you say, but being a Reagan-loving-bible-thumping-bro is equally [removed by editor]. Shut up with the GOP talk, it’s because of you that my tuition’s going up.

@Whoever dared call me racist.

Sir or Madam, I don’t care who you are. But if you had called me racist to my face, then we would have exchanged more than harsh words. Aside from the fact that you can’t spell, you immediately jumped at my using the phrase “these people”, [removed by editor]. You’re the kind of person that wants to make me give no money to this school when I graduate because it allows people like you to have their way. Oh btw, when I’m using the phrase “you people” I don’t mean blacks. [Removed by editor].

How can you prove that someone is not hiring you based upon your race and not because of this so called merit that you speak of. Recruiters and hiring managers make decisions based upon how they FEEL about the candidate, why do you think networking is so effective? Therefore if we live in a society where racism or even prejudice is still an issue (which we do), it is dumb to actually think that it does not happen.

Let me quickly clarify that I am about as atheist and libertarian as you can be. I attack the Left from that position. Definitely not a bible thumping reagan loving bro here. Alright maybe bro qualifies.

Well then, sorry for my overreaction – maybe we can be friends after all.

I hope you read my response to you. I actually don’t believe you are racist…just ignorant.

I support the Heckler more than ever.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if this were not a black v. white issue.

I think we have our answer in the reaction to the “Not a Hate Crime if You Love Doing It” article. It was much more poorly done and not funny. The satire in the latest article was pretty clear: Hoya writers engaging in acts of racism without realizing it while the administration casually looked on. The satire took the April Fool’s edition to the level of the absurd. The Heckler made sure no one forgot about an issue that had to a large extent disappeared.

The homophobe article… well… just didn’t do a lot of these things.

Hi all,

I encourage you all to take a minute to look at Vox Populi‘s comment policy, which discourages “hateful or excessively crude language,” before commenting.

I really appreciate that people have taken an interest in this discussion and I hope it will continue, but in a constructive way. As editor, I try to apply our policy as sparingly as possible so that this can be an open forum for conversation. However, recent comments have used what I felt were unnecessarily harsh words and phrases, and I felt compelled to censor parts of them.

If you have concerns that any of the comments above violate our comment policy, you may e-mail me at blog@georgetownvoice.com, and I will reevaluate them.

Thanks for reading and reacting,
Molly Redden

Re: “This issue has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with groups of people who willingly make themselves into victims – whether or not the distinction is valid. In the process of making themselves victims, they play a part in making society less free by creating ludicrous outrage where none is warranted. This nonsense impinges on OUR free society, so, yes, I feel quite entitled to voice these views.”

You’re at least right that the people complaining here haven’t been made victims because of their race. They’ve been made victims because they simply don’t get satire at all. Not one bit. That’s the problem: the people who are complaining about the article should be celebrating it. That’s why this is insane.

Again, there is has to be a giant “BUT” here. BUT your views are ridiculously dumb. Like, comically stupid. Your claim that racism has been “cured” is delusional, your view that the market “solves” racism because of Jackie Robinson is ignorant of history, your tirades against the “anti-freedom PC left” are cliched and irrelevant. No one wants to hear you preach your libertarian stupidity, your tried-but-failed maxim of “deregulate everything”, your ignorant views that, despite 400 years of direct racial oppression, we should now be “colorblind”… and that all seems to be lurking behind your posts. No one wants to hear your outlandishly childish political philosophy that has been refuted empirically in so many places that I would need to purchase pens in bulk just to scribble out a cursory list.

The only thing that you get right is that freedom of expression is good and that people are overreacting here. Freedom of expression is good because we can mock people like you, which is what the Heckler article was doing, and because we can work to solve the problems that you think no longer exist. And you’re right that people are overreacting. Not because racism isn’t a big deal, but because they don’t understand satire and don’t get the Heckler article. That’s about it for what you get right though.

Admittedly, my beliefs about liberty are second-level concerns. I am glad you share my wish to defend a free society.

However, I point to the election of a half-black man to the presidency. Is this not a sign that things are _radically_ different now? I know it seems almost too obvious to note here. But it is worth repeating: we have a black president. He won by almost ten million votes. Big changes can happen very quickly when people think seriously about ideas like “being racist, in addition to being ethically wrong, impoverishes me.” Such ethical improvements are the low-hanging fruits of progress.

(and this is completely unrelated) I would also encourage you to find me one country that undertook *honestly* a policy of “deregulate everything” that also suffered for its moves to an overly free economy. You will be searching for a very long time. The facts simply do not agree with you on that matter. Humans have never been in as free or as rich a society as we have today (obviously we could be growing in spite of or without connection to our overall expanding freedom, but I find this unlikely.) This freedom is actually not the natural state of the world though, and is worth fighting for (at least I feel inclined to do so here where, hopefully, some people’s minds will be changed.)

The election of Obama was an important milestone for racial progress, especially when compared to just 40 years ago. It’s a sign that reform can do good things and that society’s attitudes have changed enough to make it possible. But it doesn’t not mean that things are “radically” different. There is still widespread racist sentiment (just look at videos of any pro-Palin campaign rally). There is still the structural oppression of black people and other minorities. There are still race-motivated hate crimes. There is still loads of institutional racism. White privilege is quite alive and it’s invisible to white people since they don’t have to deal with not having it. To think that society can reverse course so suddenly and so thoroughly to undo 400 years of direct racial oppression and systematic impoverishment is naïve and borders on idle utopianism. Racism is a problem in this country, and it’s a problem at Georgetown. Naïve optimism and wishing it weren’t so doesn’t make it that way.

And, to a large degree, you don’t seem to get satire either. The entire point of the Heckler article is to make fun of the obliviousness of people to their own racism. To mock those who maintain racist attitudes, policies, institutional barriers, etc. without realizing it. It’s making fun of people like you who think racism is over now that we’ve elected a reformist, pro-corporate black man who, despite his rhetoric of change, won’t do much of anything to actually change the structural conditions that resulted from and contribute to racism. It’s aimed at folks like you.

I’m not going to debate deregulation and the free market with you here because it is irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t think your views are corroborated by recent evidence or by statistics concerning worldwide inequality, but, again, that’s another discussion for another time. The point being that no one wants to here you repeat tired libertarian clichés motived by your political solipsism.

hear*

Looks like the Heckler-is-racist story just got picked up on the national wire. http://bit.ly/7WsdKK [AP URL via Google shortened by Editor].

Congrats, guys. Looks like that overblown press release really did its work. Hoya Saxa!

yay! Now the whole world knows that Georgetown doesn’t understand how satire works!

But let’s get back to the real point, here. As Marc points out, a very small but vocal portion of Georgetown students don’t understand satire.

Perhaps they can argue that regardless of intent, using the KKK in anything is wrong. I disagree, but I’ll entertain the notion. But, instead of contacting the editors at the Heckler first, understanding the back story, or reading any of the previous posts (including Jack Stuef’s rant against the Hoya for its racism), they instead put together a press release with highly-incendiary quotes and ridiculous charges of “deeply-seated racism” from both professors and students and distribute it to the local and national media as well as Georgetown administrators.

And then, of course, call for censorship and punishment by the administration and Media Board (which the Heckler is not even affiliated with).

And then they wonder why other people are not sympathetic to their cause.

The amount of irony in this situation is head-spinning. It’s almost like this is a satirical article playing out in real life. the best part is that the very people who argue that the heckler was offensive in its word choice even in pursuit of a good intention then turn around and use equally offensive language in pursuit of an ignorant intention to describe the writers of the heckler.

it is incredibly unfortunate that the ap has picked this up. one can only hope the rest of the world has been educated on the goals and methods of satire.

Quick, someone get together a forum to lambast the racism in this: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/african_americans_go_from

I totally understand what the Heckler was going for, but the fact remains that they really offended a lot of people.

What I don’t understand, is why the Heckler can’t just officially apologize? Clearly they are opposed to social problems that exist on this campus such as racism and homophobia, and they didn’t want to offend any black or gay students with any of their writing. I just don’t understand why they can’t just say ‘We overstepped the mark. We’re sorry’. It’s not all or nothing here- just because you apologize to people you deeply offended, doesn’t mean you have to apologize for/stop writing satire,

All people want is an apology. People understand what satire is. That’s not the issue here. What is preventing the Heckler from apologizing? Not for satire. Not for criticizing racism. Not for being shocking. I’m talking about apologizing for hurting the very people Jack himself called the intended ‘heroes’ of the KKK piece. Clearly the article was a huge failure if this many people are as upset as they are.

Another thing I’d be interested to know: how many of you who are claiming the people who are offended don’t understand satire, are making too big a deal out of this, etc etc are actually black? I’m honestly curious to know. It upsets me that anyone who is offended by this article should ever be told that they’re overreacting or being too sensitive. That’s not something that the Heckler has ever said, and it’s not something that anyone else should say either. Does anyone really think it’s appropriate to be telling someone who may be related to a person who was actually lynched, or have other connections to this issue, that they’re not allowed to be offended by this use of such a graphic image, if nothing else? It’s not a far fetched concept that students here have those connections.

Regardless of my own reaction to the article, I cannot see that so many black students (and white students too for that matter) are so upset by this and just tell people to get over it, or continue to defend satire. What’s more important here?

@Katherine:

The press release said that the “the Heckler clearly intends to trivialize the legitimate concerns that minority students have concerning their repeated marginalization in major campus news sources and, with its references to racist torture and murder, completely mocks and demeans the legacy and sacrifices of the struggle for civil rights in the United States.”

This is false and demonstrably wrong. So, yes, when we say the authors of the press release don’t understand satire . . . we’re correct. If you read that piece, with knowledge of the Hoya April Fools edition, and thought it was aimed at attacking blacks or trivializing the goals of the BSA et al instead of highlighting the oblivious racism of the Hoya, you did not read the piece correctly.

Also, as pointed out above, should a satire magazine have to apologize every time anyone misinterprets an article or gets offended? Should it issue an apology because some Catholics may have been offended at the piece on Georgetown’s “half-assed Catholic traditions”? No.

It’s time to realize that the press release doesn’t speak for every minority on campus (indeed, some of the Heckler writers are themselves minorities).

they shouldnt apologize bc to apologize is to accept responsibility and say that you actually did something wrong, which they didnt.

The article was not racist. It was anti-racist. It did not belittle black people. It took up the cause that many black students and others championed last year, which was condemning the racism of The Hoya. The Heckler had no intent to cause racial offense and, by any sensible standard, the article should not have done so. As such, the Heckler cannot be at fault for the misperceptions and slothful reading of some on campus. Whether or not someone is black does not change the plain-as-day fact that the article was not racist. Since offense was not intended and only came about through the manufactured misunderstandings of a select few, The Heckler owes no one an apology for the article. If anything, the slow-witted organizers of the forum and press release should apologize for wasting everyone’s time and embarrassing Georgetown as a supposedly elite school that can’t even properly understand satire.

I don’t believe Dolphins are fairly represented on campus? Should I set up a forum on that too? I’m so offended I think I need to force my viewpoints on someone else to feel better about myself!

i wasn’t offended by this… but at the same time i would be loathe to include my real name due to fear of being called racist…

Did you even read what I wrote? Either of you? I have never implied that the article was racist, nor that the Heckler is racist. I was at the community forum for two hours last night, and the argument people were making was NOT that the article itself was even racist. Many people made the point that the article was insensitive and went too far in including the image of the cross burning in particular. People totally got that the Heckler was CRITICIZING racism. That’s not in dispute.

@Congratulations- There have definitely been misinterpretations of the article since it was published. I am saddened that this situation is made even worse by implications that the article mocks any struggles African Americans have faced in the past. But there are a lot of people who DO understand what the article was trying to say, and trust me, we discussed it at length last night so there was no confusion. If many people do have an understanding of this, are under no impressions that the Heckler is racist, and are still upset, don’t you think there’s a problem? Can you accept that the issue here is NOT that people don’t have a good grasp of satire? Is that the only possible way they could be offended by this? Do you think that at Georgetown, there’s some special elite group of people that understand satire, and everyone else is just stupid and doesn’t get it?

As for your comment “If anything, the slow-witted organizers of the forum and press release should apologize for wasting everyone’s time and embarrassing Georgetown as a supposedly elite school that can’t even properly understand satire.” .. I don’t even know what to say to that. This is the problem right here. This is not about satire anymore. What don’t you understand about that? Are you really going to tell me that I should tell my friend who’s mother witnessed a cross burning that he just doesn’t understand satire?

The great thing is that we DO have SOME people on campus who understand great satire!

‘Angered’ has a great grasp of the concept, as you can see.

“I don’t believe Dolphins are fairly represented on campus? Should I set up a forum on that too? I’m so offended I think I need to force my viewpoints on someone else to feel better about myself!”

I was responding to your call for an apology and explaining that there are no conceivable grounds on which The Heckler should apologize. And, yes, I would indeed suggest that you tell your friend that he “just doesn’t understand satire” because, if he understood satire, he would realize that the image was being used to highlight how racism works now. That is, racism’s highly visible or “spectacular” manifestations (e.g.: cross burnings, lynchings, etc.) have decreased, but racism is still prevalent in less “spectacular” – but still fully abhorrent – ways. If your friend understood satire, he would realize that by arguing that the picture should not have been included that he is diminishing the force of the critique against racism in its less visible contemporary forms.

No one has to read the Heckler or care what they write. I would not be offended by anything in it that mocked Italians or people from New York or The Hoya because it is a silly humor magazine that prods campus issues and individuals. A silly humor magazine run by half a dozen students in their free time that runs articles infrequently.
I cannot understand why people get so upset and offended when others with whom they had no previous connection do something which is, all of a sudden, ex post facto “offensive.” I think a lot of things are offensive and in bad taste, so I do not read them or support them.
Something like The Heckler hardly drives campus debate, is not ubiquitous on campus, has no power or authority and is not even a Media Board group. These students should be left alone, and their Web site ignored by those who find it offensive and enjoyed by those who see the humor in it.

@Katherine:

@Katherine has it right above. The Heckler is a satire magazine. Invariably, satire pokes fun at racy and edgy topics. If it had to cater to everyone’s whim, it wouldn’t function.

For example, I’m Jewish. I have relatives who perished in the Holocaust. Yet I still find Ricky Gervais’ bit on Nietzsche and Hitler hilarious. Many in the Muslim world were very offended by the Mohammed cartoons, but it made a cogent point.

I mean, let’s just take a stroll through the pages of the Onion currently – http://www.theonion.com

Things that would offend:

1. Women Domesticated — may offend feminists
2. Gap unveils new ‘for kids by kids’ clothing line – offensive to child workers
3. Industrial revolution provides millions of out of work children jobs — ditto
4. Deaths of 550,000 confirm which mushrooms are okay to eat — offensive to someone whose relative died of mushroom poisoning
5. Socialites without borders teaches Rwandans how to mingle — makes light of the genocide that killed 800,000

Etc.

If you’re saying that humor writers have to completely take the KKK, or Nazis, or natural disasters or sensitive religious subjects or tragedies off the table, because someone, somewhere, may be offended by them, you’re dictating what they can and cannot write. It would be the death of satire.

I understand that the KKK is a charged subject. But the point of the article, as ably noted above, was about racism still being prevalent in less “spectacular” ways. It was completely different from the Hoya’s absolutely misguided and racist attempts at ‘satire’.

I totally agree that the article was completely different from the Hoya’s April Fools Issue. I also don’t think we’re in disagreement at all about what satire is, or that it has the potential to offend people and that’s simply inevitable. I don’t think the enemy here is the Heckler at all. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- I do not for one second think they’re racist, homophobic or sexist. Nor do I think the article was racist. I’ve read a lot of Heckler articles, and I think most are pretty funny, even when I have identified with the groups that could potentially be offended.

But there is such thing as going too far. As a white person, I am well aware that my positionality in this issue could potentially prevent me from understanding what is ‘too far’ in these kinds of context. I’m also not someone who writes satire, so I really couldn’t say how you draw that line in writing. I don’t think we need to take any of these issues ‘off the table’ either. So I’m wondering- is it that you don’t agree that there is such a thing as ‘too far’ in the context of satire, or that you don’t think the article in question crossed this boundary?

GET OVER IT. We elected Obama. We are in a post-racial America. Find something else to complain about…

The article did not cross the boundary of going “too far” at all. It used imagery of racists in a critical way to undermine racism. The image’s use was not gratuitous or self-serving because it highlighted the changing visibility of racism, which was the central point in the article’s criticism. I’m sure that we could sit around all day and brainstorm offensive satires, but the point remains that this wasn’t one and that calls for The Heckler to apologize for it are absurd.

Don’t you people have finals going on? Dear lord lau wireless must have gotten better in the last 6 months…

@Katherine:

Is it that you don’t agree that there is such a thing as ‘too far’ in the context of satire, or that you don’t think the article in question crossed this boundary?

I don’t think that the article in question crossed the boundary. And I think if we had to kow-tow to the least-common denominator, the most-easily offended, on these issues, everything would cross the boundary to someone.

In these you have to consider the objective sensitivity of the issue, the reason for the article itself, the use of the allegedly offensive use in context, etc.

If the use of the KKK or Nazi imagery was used off-handedly, I could see it being offensive. E.g., dressing up Dr. Olson or President DeGioia in a KKK robe or SS uniform in the context of some article satirizing the alcohol policy (“Olson wants to lynch fun!” etc.) This is the polar opposite.

So, no, I don’t think it crossed the line in the same way as I see almost everyone (except perhaps Bill Donahue of the Catholic League) saying that the Georgetown’s half-assed Catholic identity article didn’t cross the line.

As a Jew, I was certainly offended by “The Producers” because it mentioned Hitler! Mel Brooks is the biggest anti-Semite out there!

It seems a lot of the outrage that remains over our cross burning piece comes from the graphic and extreme imagery used (lynching, KKK, etc). I think people are forgetting that exaggeration is key part of satire, and is a means of pointing out the faulty logic at the base of an ignorant viewpoint. In the article you have President Degoia and Hoya staffers just calmly talking about cross burning and lynching as banal events and defending them on the basis of tradition. While this is going on, no one actually bothers to point out how wrong their actions are. What people found shocking are the inclusion of things like blackface and the kkk. But the point is if these things were occurring on campus, we wouldn’t be silent about them. But we know subtle acts of racism go on all the time, and we just go along with them and people keep doing them without even realizing it. The use of exaggeration is therefore a means to achieve our core point: that racism is wrong and its ridiculous to NOT say anything about it and to let it continue. The whole joke is explicitly predicted on racism being wrong, vile and disgusting, and that its ridiculous when people don’t realize that. The piece also doesn’t mean to single out The Hoya, because we all know the problem is much bigger; its a community that is frequently blatantly racist yet ignorant to its racism.
I think the important thing that I got out of today’s meeting is that it was somewhat ludicrous of us to include an image of the KKK and references to lynching and expect people to have a calm and calculated reaction to it. These images have profound meaning for many people and the very thought of using them in a comedy piece, regardless of intention, is hard to accept. I wanted to highlight that we didn’t use these images without considering their significance. In fact, it was the significance of these words that motivated us to include them. But I fear that in doing so, we may have lost the true meaning of our piece, and I do regret that.

Nevertheless, it is job as satirists to continue to shock people and challenge what we feel are flaws in our community. To call something morally wrong and to call it comically absurd are not mutually exclusive, in the language of satire they are one and the same. I do think last night’s discussion was productive, and both sides got a lot out of it. The important conclusion is that the problem we’re facing is not just the heckler and how it could be misinterpreted; its the fact that there is so little understanding between groups on campus.

I am glad, Katherine, that you agree that The Heckler and its staff are not racist. And I hope that, as you say, this was the consensus at last night’s forum. However, I do not believe that this accurately captures the initial reaction that sparked this entire incident.

In the press release – which admittedly represents only a small group of those were who offended, but nevertheless had many contributors and co-signers, including students, faculty, and alumni – the Heckler article is described at various points as “racist and ignorant” and “not only racist but an insult to Christians”; one professor even went so far to suggest that the Heckler staff members are plagued by “deeply rooted racism, anger … and anti-Christian attitudes.”

If what you say is correct – that there was consensus at the meeting last night that the articles in question and those who published them are not racist – then presumably those whose quotes I attached above (or, at least, those of whom were present at the forum) have changed their opinions. I’m glad to hear this, but honestly, it’s plain wrong to call somebody a racist as a kneejerk reaction, only to realize (or not realize) after investigating the matter, “Oops, I jumped the gun.” Calling somebody a racist is an extremely serious charge, and believe me, such charges have a very strong and painful effect on those they are aimed at.

My point here is not simply to call out those whose comments I quoted above – although, seriously, shame on those two professors – but to say that everyone, on every side of this issue, needs to turn down their suspicion meter from 10 to a healthy 5 or 6. A major reason why these misunderstandings – coming from all directions – continually occur at Georgetown is because racial suspicions on all sides run so deep, and people rush to judgment without first questioning whether their suspicions are correct. I can’t think of a better explanation for a society where Jack Steuf can be mistaken as a racist, and Brian Kesten can be mistaken as an, I don’t know, whatever the heck the infamous “Ryan Weston” article in The Hoya was going for. (In full disclosure, I am a former editor in chief of The Hoya, and was the chairman of its board of directors – a management, non-editorial position – during the 2008-09 academic year).

In some ways, this situation reminds me of the whole Henry Louis Gates incident from the summer (it’s actually most analogous to the New Yorker Obama cover incident from last year, but bear with me). I don’t think any of the characters involved in that incident hate any other people based on the color of their skin (except, maybe, Glenn Beck). But I do think that we all make judgments about people regularly based on their race, and if we don’t work regularly to overcome our prejudices and conform our beliefs with reality, then things can get seriously out of hand. While race relations in American are dropping more precipitously than David Paterson’s approval rating among white people who can’t coherently articulate a single reason why they disapprove of his performance, I believe that there’s some hope for progress at Georgetown because it’s such a small, insular community. But progress will not be made unless everyone can overcome their suspicions and listen to one another.

(As long as I have the floor – not to derail the conversation, but merely for sake of completeness by airing every single facetious political grievance that has been sparked inside me by reading about this incident – I think that the greatest irony in all of this is that the university administration condemns The Heckler for invoking the KKK in a satire against racial insensitivity, while it exalts a pope who was a member of the Hitler Youth.)

This blog post is offending me. I suggest we have a forum on it so we can complain further.

We are not in a post-racial America. We are maybe in a post-Bush America. The election of President Obama did signify that people cared more about finding a leader for our country whose views were similar to their own than about that leader’s race. Don’t get me wrong – it was huge – but let’s not pretend that it was an end-all… he had only 52.7% of the popular vote. (This map is from the year of his election: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp)

Yes, the article was exaggerating “to the extreme” the comparatively more subtle racism that is on our campus proper, but there is still many more blatant and violent manifestations of it. I am so grateful that you were raised in a place where race was not something that divided people, but am sorry to be the one to let you know that not all of us were so lucky.

Can one of the many people busy commenting on here help me write my paper/study for my finals?
I don’t even have the time to read all these responses; I don’t know how others have the time to play comment ping-pong (unless you’re already done with your finals?)

Please, considering that we liberals are so offended by everything, we’ll just have to complain to someone until we get our way. Like health care. I don’t want to pay for health care, so I’m going to complain to the government until its given to me for free. Just like I plan to complain to my teachers that I don’t have to study. If some other person in the class is getting an A, I feel that its my right that I deserve an A too. EQUALITY!!!

Responding like that to a comment that had nothing to do with politics whatsoever. But hey, just keep telling yourself the left has a monopoly on professional victimhood!

And Ankit… your responses are far too well-reasoned for anyone who criticized the Heckler to respond to. But it’s a mug’s game, my man.

Also, I just read the whole press release “sparks of frustration have finally burst into flames of outrage”… if these are flames of outrage, I would have expected the campus to have burned down during Jena 6 and The Hoya April Fool’s.

For those demanding an apology from Stuef, how about Ellie and John Lewis apologize for writing and spreading a press release accusing him of being a racist?

Finally, while we’re having the Media Board review publications not officially associated with the school in any manner, we should probably turn over to Georgetown all of our blog and social media usernames (I’m looking at you King Georgetown, George the Third and Venus Flytrap!!!) so they can track that activity and determine whether or not it’s appropriate.

apparently scunity thinks that this is the representation of georgetown that everyone in the nation should have
http://bit.ly/8JaS7V [AP link via Google shortened by Editor].
not to mention that this press statement was put out even before their own town hall meeting. i think the truly offensive people in this situation are the people who claim to be offended and then use that as an excuse to tear down others without understanding them. i definitely agree that stuef deserves an apology.

as the 100th post, let’s enjoy a music timeout

“everyone’s a little bit racist”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbud8rLejLM

“albi, the racist dragon”

@Marc
Honestly, that Avenue Q song couldn’t be more true. Everyone’s a little bit racist/sexist/classist/all zat not so nice stuff.

read through most of these comments… had a ton of finals or would have at least made an appearance and i’m not really sure how i feel about this situation. i was not personally offended by the article, though i could see why it is a contentious issue. i feel that the heckler editors were right in apologizing for offending people… and i think there needs to be some compromise on both sides

but mostly, i wanted to say how completely INAPPROPRIATE and IRRESPONSIBLE for professors, professional adults, to go to news outlets and to wrongly call students racist in public, recorded media. i would hope that these professional adults would know enough about media today than to accuse students of racism… those kind of things don’t really go away

I think if you define “lyniching” as trial by angry mob and take away the racial connotations, its shockingly clear which side got lynched here. The heckler got condemned in national media without even a cursory attempt at letting them defend themselves. the “tolerance” groups on campus have really become a caricature of themselves.

sorry meant “lynching”

As someone who actually is black, it is definitely still satire. I don’t find it racism in the least, and found it funny. It’s not like The Heckler is glorifying the KKK or lynchings, but simply making fun of the Hoya for being racist. It’s not like if the Heckler didn’t include the image of the KKK or mentions of racist actions that they would not have happened. I’d say that people who find it to be racist 1) don’t understand satire, 2) want attention, or 3) are oversensitive. I understand that you can’t just make someone not be offended at something – I get offended at things that are considered by some to be inoffensive, but they still offend me; in this case, it is clear that the Heckler is not being racist, but satirical. I don’t understand how anyone who understands what satire is can be offended by the article or use of images.

Ellie Gunderson needs to find a life and find herself some real issues to take up. This nonsense makes her, and everyone else who gets angry about these sorts of petty non-issues, look like real fools.

Nothing enrages me more than this crap that comes up at least once a year. I’m a young alum. While at Georgetown, I had several leadership positions, and I was accused of racism several times because my groups’/organizations’ memberships did not include enough minorities. Meanwhile, we had completely open public application processes. But no, minorities didn’t apply. Those who did apply were 100% accepted and treated the same as every other member, like entirely equal and welcomed members of the Georgetown community. Still, large portions of the minority communities at Georgetown would rather sit in the Black House or in a Diversity Action Council meetings and nitpick bullshit, and accuse every white person at Georgetown of “racism,” rather than get involved and make Georgetown a better place by diversifying groups on campus (the Hoya, the Heckler, GAAP, NSO, GERMS, Corp, etc.). If you have time to write “press releases” (also, who the hell are you, Ms. Gunderson, to write a “press release,” but anyway), then how about you get involved outside your little race-obsessed bubble. Use your time to shape the way these student groups operate instead of just taking cheap shots and lobbing “racism” at the members who just don’t know how to make you race-crazed groups happy.

A press release which libels the editor and writers of the Heckler as racists, homophobes and anti-Christians, without even first attempting to get an explanation from them. And now, when anyone googles Jack Stuef, his name appears in some 200+ news results that read like, “Georgetown Humor Magazine Accused of Racism”. And Ellie Gunderson moves on in the wake of her destruction, without a care or apology for the lives she’s ruined.

Who cares about those racists! My feelings were hurt! That is what matters most!

It’s the administrators and faculty members who lobbed obviously ill-informed and incendiary attacks who should really be ashamed of themselves. What kind of university vice president gives a quote to a national press release calling his own students racists? Todd Olson doesn’t belong at this college, or any other.

When will Todd Olson apologize to the students he called racist?

I’m assuming I’m not the only one who saw this…http://gawker.com/5429599/college-kids-refuse-to-censor-joke-about-racism-outraging-dumb-people

http://www.thehoya.com/opinion/personal-attacks-inhibit-opportunity-dialogue/?c=11745

[...] President John DeGioia made his first remarks in response to the December Georgetown Heckler issue, which many students thought inappropriately satirized race. He also said that he and Provost James O’Donnell have also approved the suggestions of the [...]

[...] Georgetown Heckler isn’t out of the woods yet. Following a letter from Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson, and two campus-wide e-mails—one from University President John DeGioia and one from Provost [...]

[...] went to the forum about the Georgetown Heckler when students condemned it as [...]

[...] of the Ku Klux Klan. The scandal prompted an open forum for critics of the articles and some extensive discussion about satire on [...]

[...] a truly sad day when the always well-received humor of Jack Stuef is [...]

[...] without writing a righteous blog post), which led to BuzzFeed‘s Jack Stuef, who has his own history of satirizing sensitive subjects, writing a critical profile on Inman. Inman responded, calling the [...]