[Peace-discuss] Ghetto Fab at U Tex + UI's Tequila and Taco = !

[Durango Mendoza]

Here is something that gives a different perspective on things like UI's 
Tequila and Taco incident. DM


"Ghetto Fabulous" Parties: the New Face of White Supremacy,
Racism and Cheap Thrills at the University of Texas Law School
By ROBERT JENSEN
CounterPunch
October 16, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have a long way to go.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin 
and a member of the board of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. He is 
the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and 
Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity. He can be 
reached at rjensen at uts.cc.utexas.edu

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This is a mailing 
of the Rethinking Schools critical teaching and writing listserv. If you 
would like to subscribe to this listserv send an e-mail message with the 
word "subscribe" in the subject field to 
RScriticalteach-request at lists.execpc.com.