Wed 14 May 2008
What if Williams organized a star chamber and no one showed up? Williams Speaks Up is a “Web site on which campus members can report and share incidents of unwanted, abusive, or harassing behavior.” (See background here.) Turns out that only one brief comment has been submitted after several weeks of advertising. Possible conclusions:
1) The WASP patriarchy of Williams is so powerful that the oppressed fear even recording their complaints.
2) There are very few actual bias incidents at Williams.
3) There is abusive behavior, but victims are too lazy report it or too cynical to think that any good will come from their reports.
I choose door #2.
No one denies that there are actual incidents of racism at Williams. Indeed, I have gone out of my way to document and report them. Without my efforts, few would know that Professor Aida Laleian used the term “nigger” to attack Professor Layla Ali in an Art Department meeting. Without my reporting, the identity of the creepy boyfriend behind Mary Jane Hitler would have remained a mystery.
The issue is: How common are such events? Not common at all, hence the lack of participation in the Williams Speaks Up star chamber.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Begging your pardon, David, but I must be looking elsewhere than you. Where did you get this info?
May 14th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Pat yourself on the back, why don’t you David? For a dubious honor, indeed.
In fact, I venture to say that this line regarding rascist incidents:
“Indeed, I have gone out of my way to document and report them.”
Should instead read:
“Indeed, I have gone out of my way to exaggerate and exploit them.”
But don’t worry…hwc will be on at any moment to take full advantage of an opportunity to rail on Williams. You will get your ‘heated’ thread for sure…which seems to be your no. 1 priority…and which has very little to do with the best interests of Williams, and all its inhabitants.
What a sham.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Hey. Leave me out of this. I’ve never commented on this Williams Speaks Up website.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:55 am
David, you are a regular Simon Wiesenthal!
May 15th, 2008 at 7:09 am
comment of the month goes to Frank …
May 15th, 2008 at 9:11 am
to me, the fact that at least once a year, there’s a legit scandal involving racist/sexists/homophobic statements leads me to pick option 3 instead of 2. what evidence leads you to 2, david, other than optimism?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
David:
I want to apologize for my comment (#2). I really didn’t mean for it to come off the way it did. It really sounds…nasty.
I’m not very good at this blogging thing. Basically, I push ’submit comment’ too soon. I do that with the ’send’ button in email as well (if I could oooonly learn). I think you know where I’m coming from, though.
In fact, I would like to hear your thoughts per Rory’s query (but only if they’re positive). You know…some unicorns and dewdrops, maybe?
May 15th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Rory said
So does this prove that “racism”, etc. exists at Williams? Or that bad manners exist at Williams?
Is there any evidence of institutional discrimination to be offered? Patterns of bias which result in negative real outcomes for the victims as a class? Or rather bad behavior which hurts feelings?
‘Claiming Williams’ will occur next February, all toward the goal of improving the manners of the College’s students. Is Williams perhaps a finishing school for the country’s future ruling elite after all . . . ?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Gee, David, I wouldn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions…
Time will tell.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:14 am
It proves that there is a consistent trend of racist/sexist/homophobic behavior, and that such a trend and it is a signs of a deep flaw in the williams community.
I said nothing of institutional racism or why there is such a trend (in this thread). But that such a trend exists and is known to exist leads me to think that it is more likely that people don’t expect things to change (it’s been like this for at least a decade) than that we’ve uncovered all of the examples. Time and time again in these legit scandals, we hear that the final “scandal” is often more of a straw that broke the camels back, which also lends credence to option 3 instead of option 2.
I know during my years on campus, there were many incidents that weren’t reported because the victims did not want to deal with going public, recounting their stories, or complaining when:
a. they’re at williams and it likely will never get any better in their lives than the environment there
b. nothing much will happen in all likelihood
c. it is just going to be posted online and little else would come of it.
So all I’m saying is that where David is the optimist, I’m the pessimist. That you respond so defensively is interesting, though not surprising.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Rory,
Based on discussions I have had with my frosh about incidents involving slurs and grafitti, I have been given to…’understand’ (somewhat) that much of what many of us label as offensive just isn’t so with the majority of current students. That for the most part, the level of ‘toxicity’ that we imbue certain words and actions with, just isn’t the case anymore. Which could mean, that a lack of “reporting”, or “going public” is not because they think “nothing will happen”, but because most of them, aren’t feeling “injured”.
I think much has changed within the last few years. If you think about the threads having to do with the white boards, and the language that is part of everyday street life, movies, music, even WSO, I think this change, this ‘thicker skin’ that has developed, is being illustrated.
Granted, there are exceptions- of students who are offended, and hurt- and granted, this is reason enough that it shouldn’t happen at all. But this ‘change’ may help to explain the reason that much of it goes unnoticed and/or unreported.
Of course, my comment will bring forth those that say this isn’t so. And most probably it will be those who have suffered or witnessed suffering. And this is as it should be. Because those that aren’t bothered need to learn where the ’soft spots’ lie with others…and define the boundaries in the process.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
You have just described a community that accepts hateful, bigoted speech and behavior. If “they” are offend, “they” should grow thicker skin is the oldest rationalization in the book.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I think what I failed to capture in my comment, and something I need to think about a bit longer, is the distinction between racist and offensive. How what is merely offensive, or annoying to some, feels racist to others.
Of course it has to do with intent, but there is such a wide range of connotations behind language these days, as to make discerning intent, all the more difficult.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:36 am
And of course, hwc, you completely missed my point.
I mean, SO completely, that I won’t even try to explain it or engage in what will now become the “hwc rant”.
Rory (and others),I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I will check in later.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
what i worry about is that things have not changed that drastically from my time at williams (not that long ago. 5 years, in fact). In that case, after feeling attacked/offended/victimized, many students didn’t report it because they weren’t sure it was indeed worth reporting because the campus environment was one in which such attacks weren’t seen as big deals. Who wants to be attacked and then publicly seen as complaining/making a big deal of nothing, especially when they’re just trying to enjoy their college experience?
It isn’t necessarily that non-white, non-straight, or female students grew thick skins, its that they felt (knew?) that they were expected to have thicker skins.
One of the main components of this, i believe, is a society-wide belief that “intent” matters significantly in cases like this. Did the person mean it as a racist statement, or were they just drunk? Was it personal, or was it a generalized racist statement? At some important level, that’s certainly valid–an outright racist is worse than someone who is drunk and mad that the cute girl is going home with that other guy who happens to be black (for an example). At the same time, though, the effect of that statement is, for all extents and purposes, practically identical: the dehumanization of the attacked.
If the discussion after an offense occurred focused more on that effect and less on the intent, I believe we’d see a much more open environment for the expression of the victims. how to do that is tricky and how to do it and still appreciate the nuances of intent is even harder.
and now, i have an weekend in which to write 30 pages on race, ethnicity, and immigration, else i get booted out of my program (no pressure, right? LOL) so I won’t be back for a while probably.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
FM, while I understand that most young adults have a greater tolerance than us oldsters for generally offensive or vulgar language, I think some of the slurs in question go way beyond that standard.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Rory:
I am running out and busy as well. But thank you for the response. I am going to think about this for a while.
But, I will leave you with this, My frosh’s comments are based on discussions and close relationships with a range of gender and race, and apparently, this lessening of ‘toxicity’ of language has less to do with skin color and gender, and more to do with other factors.
Good luck with your 30 pages. Would I love to read that!
May 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Let me put it this way. If I spent 18 years raising my child to be respectful of race, gender, and orientation and to not use hateful language only to have my child came home from a college (for which I was spending $45,000 a year) telling me that she has learned that this kind of hateful language is acceptable because the subjects of these attacks have “thick skin” at that college, I would be furious and questioning that college experience.
I don’t for a minute believe that the majority of students at Williams College are racists, bigots, or sexists. I do, however, believe that a visible minority is being allowed to set an undesireable tone of entitlement that does result in a negative experience for some.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
And on dkane’s star chamber riddle, I think there are probably elements of all three options at work here.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I’m far from convinced that a “legit” scandal involving racism/sexism/some other form of bigotry happens every year at Williams. I think there’s a very important difference between a racist action and an insensitive action–one implies some inherent racist beliefs while the other implies a lack of tact. Many of the scandals at Williams appear to be caused far more by students’ insensitivity or lack of tact than by inherently racist beliefs.
Additionally, rory, I am a minority and served on Minco for a year (so I heard many many complaints of racism), and am far from convinced that the “many unreported instances of racism” that occur on campus are anything more than students reading too far into others’ actions. For example, I once was accused of being racist for refusing to allow a MinCo group to use a space because it had already been booked by another organization. The MinCo group had thought they had booked the space, but for better or for worse, we obviously have to go by what is in the books, and somehow or another, they hadn’t booked the space correctly. Obviously, my actions were in no way racist…but I am sure that a number of people came away from the experience feeling that they had been denied the space for racially-motivated reasons.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
FM -
Not having a clue which of my classmate’s you parent (and finally confirming that you aren’t my mother :D) I can say from conversations that entries vary hugely - some have JAs that look out for this sort of thing and come down hard, some have JAs that laugh along (and no, I’m talking about my own JAs with either of these).
JAs set the tone for the entry, and for the rest of campus life.
As for a general culture where insults are more accepted - I think certain words have lost some of their power to insult, but insults remain as powerful as ever. The language is different, so things might SOUND different to people of different generations, but that doesn’t change the intention of the words.
If that made any sense.
And, of course, words mean different things for different people.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
No, Will, I am not your mother. Another frosh has that burden to bear.
I wanted to add, that I think it’s possible that much has changed in the last 5 years.
Isn’t Williams much more diverse? Wouldn’t broader diversity introduce a whole different set of issues? A wider range of cultural and religious backgrounds, gender and sexual preferences; a broader use of languages (with even more connotations within a given word), and more important, a much more intense need to find and recognize the boundaries within this broad range?
Add to this, a contemporary culture in which ‘mixed messages’ abound (about what’s okay and not okay), about language, sex, money, politics…you name it. At Williams, they aren’t just learning…they are ‘unlearning’.
Of course, proper values and good manners should be taught at home, but that isn’t always accomplished for a host of reasons. And those standards are subject to judgement in a whole different way in a multi-diverse setting.
All that said, I really believe these kids have a much deeper understanding of diversity and tolerance than most of us. And those that didn’t arrive at Williams with this understanding, are learning it there…some of it as a result of ‘campus incidents’.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
ok…my break is almost over, but i’ll respond.
indeed, i was careful not to say a “racist” but rather “racism”. using the n-word, whether because one is racist or not, is racism. there’s no denying that (to me, there’s also no denying one’s a racist once you use that term, but that’s a separate argument). response 15 goes over my argument that intent is overly privileged and effect underappreciated when we discuss racism/sexism/homophobia on campus.
Every year, there has been a controversy in which non-white and/or female students felt threatened/unwelcome at williams because of their identity. In some cases, those controversies may have been overblown, but more often than not, the hurt is not. The music cookout is a great example. The professor is (likely) not a racist, but that was racism in that the term “KKK” should automatically get a no-no the second ANYONE sees it on a flyer. intent was unclear, but the effect was undeniable.
ironically, when I was minco co-chair, i was accused of being racist because of a sarcastic statement being overheard not as sarcasm after 9/11. i was told i had to resign, but i also knew that was not a good resolution so we found a middle ground. it sucked. so i understand your story, ce, about being accused perhaps too easily of racism. but the one does not disprove the other–some people fall back on it as a crutch, others do not bring attention to it. it’s far too complicated for one website to prove conclusively either way.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
To 1980:
A little levity from Clyde Haberman
Subject: ” BAD WORDS”
Setting: New Yawk City
(where I personally learned that the “F” word could be noun, verb, and adjective…
and that it was INTENT that determined whether it was good, bad, or indifferent)
Read it. It isn’t long, but the funniest bits are in the middle (the soldier) and the end (the street guys).
May 16th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
What exactly is the result of “racist”, etc. speech at Williams? Are the studies of minority students suffering? Are they excluded from athletic or social clubs and activities? Are they more likely to be the targets of campus security? Or subjected to physical threats?
The May 7 Record article reporting results from the recent campus survey hopelessly conflates “discrimination”, “respect”, “unfair treatment”, feelings of “exclusion”, “prejudice”, “acts of bigotry” and a host of other terms. The “Claiming Williams” movement has been good thus far at demonstrating bad manners and hurt feelings. It has not been good thus far at demonstrating objective patterns of discriminatory behavior and deprivation.
If the latter evidence exists, I hope to see it posted to “Williams Speaks Up” in the near future.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:13 am
what is objective enough to satisfy? why is demonstrating offensive speech and feelings of unwelcomeness not enough? what needs to be deprived in order for you to feel that complaints are justified? Why isn’t the sense of pain caused because someone’s identity was the basis of an attack not enough?
May 17th, 2008 at 11:32 am
In answer to the last question in #26: Most likely since everyone everywhere at some (or many) point(s) has felt some degree of pain because their “identity was the basis of an attack.”
May 17th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
On the mean streets seldom does anyone step forward and attempt to ameliorate or otherwise remedy the hurt feelings of others. The effective defense against hurt feelings is the development of a thick skin. It behooves each of us, at least those who plan to live in the real world, to find his way through the solitary process of toughening himself. Face it - the universe is not much interested in providing surrogate mamas - cruel as that condition may be.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
to aparent: perhaps i should have said “race” or “gender” but i was getting bored of typing that. the white male who attacks does not experience the same attack at all ever in the US.
to frank: we don’t really expect that williams grads are off to the “mean streets” do we? very, very few go that route. besides, the people who get attacked at williams? they’re much more likely to be from the mean streets than the attacker.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Believe me - Wall Street is the unsympathetic, unempathetic, exploitive, unforegiving, expedient mean streets - albeit usually subtlely so.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Frosh Mom:
Whatever will you do when your frosh stops being a frosh (presumably in the very near future)? Will you reincarnate yourself as “Soph Mom”, or take the “current eph” route and keep your name even after it becomes inaccurate?
May 17th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
“the white male who attacks does not experience the same attack at all ever in the US.”
I disagree. There are many areas of the US (in southern, western regions) in which white males are not the majority.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
‘10,
I honestly don’t know. At the beginning, I thought I would make a few comments and say adios, and well…here I am yet!
There are advantages and disadvantages to a ‘new identity’.
What do you suggest?
May 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
aparent,
while they may not be the majority in that area, they still live in a nation in which whiteness is the top of the racial hierarchy. you don’t need to be a majority of the population to hold the power–just look at the republicans right now! (ok that wasn’t nice–but it’s true)
May 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
FM -
StillAMom
Momof2
P’11
EmptyNester
ExFROSHMom
FormerlyKnownAsFROSHMom
TeacherArtistMom
I’llTakeDewdropsAndPurpleUnicorns
HelloThere
(And, given what’s coming your way) TheLaundress
1P’11
EphP’11
1EphP’11
May 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Larry:
All good. Thanks for lending your wit.
I am leaning towards ExFROSH mom with perhaps a minor adjustment; XFROSH mom.
It lends a sort of ‘cyber game’ spin, don’t you think?…’XFM’…
Although, ‘Hello There’, certainly makes me smile…
May 19th, 2008 at 4:23 am
ExFROSH and XFROSH have a retro quality. College is all about anticipation. I like BIGMAMA, but you probably are not so obviously and unconditionally arrogant.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:14 am
“ListenUp” (this strikes me as a sweeter version of “BIGMAMA”).
“NowBoys…” wouldn’t be too far off. “NowNowBoys” might be even better.
My problem with “X” labels is that they connote that your son is an ex-Eph, not an ex-first-year (and very much an Eph).
I definitely like “Hello There” as it conveys warmth, civility, and openness and celebrates your sense of discovery (while linking you to a Williams hero - “His alma mater joyfully bestowed on him every honor it had to give….”)
May 19th, 2008 at 6:30 am
(In the train station)
I disagree with Larry - XFM seems perfectly clear to me. We all have to grow up at one point or the other.
Getting back to the original subject, there is no question in my mind that those my age have a different grasp on diversity, if for no other reason then the internet and its shrinking of the world.
The controversies about Women and college drive this home - there are many more girls applies than boys to college these days, showing that we’ve gone a long way from the stereotypical 50’s, but those changes have yet to permeate the entire culture, which is why the feminist movement doesn’t make a big deal out of how women are discriminated against in college apps - they don’t want to give the appearance that the battle is over. Note, however, that I stole a lot of this from the Chronicle of Higher Ed.
Williams is institutionally limited in what it can do at this point to mix n match - its up to us students to mix/learn from each other now. Given that such differences are an interest of mine, I can’t speak accurately about the success for other students beyond various anecdotal complaints I’ve heard that such mixing isn’t happening to perfect satisfaction.
The most often concern is humor - race can be used for great comedic effect (Katt Williams’s act about “White friends” being one example, but what’s funny for one person (or a way to deal with the tension) can be more offensive to another. The only recourse is better communication, and a willingness to speak up instead of being silently angry.
The problem with this approach is that the incidents that annoy students so much are often extremely minor, like someone crossing the street to avoid passing someone else on the sidewalk. By themselves, they don’t mean much, but they happen enough to some at Williams to cause concern.
I remember that one thing I noticed at Williams when I arrived was that the service workers were white (very different from GA) - does sharing that observation make me racist? Does it make someone else uncomfortable? I get different answers with every person I ask.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Try “La Mome”. Maybe a little pretentious.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Gentlemen,
Since open discussion on important matters is the aim of EB, I want to thank you for your valuable input on my ‘moniker issue’.
I am now leaning towards the obvious, SOPH mom. Much as I like BIGMAMA, it just doesn’t…uh…’fit’. And XFM could invite misunderstandings… enough of which (ahem) seem to come my way already. I love ‘Hello There’, but I don’t want to give up my mom-ness. So, still thinking…
Will,
I think your ‘train station’ comment nails a few ‘campus issues’ right on the head. It seems to me, that it’s all about finding the boundaries in a new, more diverse mix of humans. The campus might now be, a more apt microcosm of what lies outside of it. So whatever issues are dealt with and worked out there, can be carried out into life outside of the bubble; good for the students…and good for the world at large.
Congratulations to all the students for wrapping up ‘08, and safe journey as well.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
How about “Mom!”?
I think we’ve heard that in just about every imaginable tone of voice in our house over the years - it would always fit right in to however folks wanted to read it.
Still like “HelloThere” - add inclusive, welcoming — all the adjectives I associate with it remind me of ThePersonWeUsedToCallFROSHMom.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Larry,
We cross-posted.
Maybe if I took on “Hello There”, I could channel a bit of wisdom.
Then again, that could be way too much of a challenge for the lovely Faison. Nope…I can’t do that to him.
Thanks for the lovely compliment, though. Puts a smile on my face for sure.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
In #26, rory said:
The proper response, it seems to me, is “to satisfy what?”. I have yet to see anyone even attempt to demonstrate that the recent “racist” etc. incidents at Williams are in any way connected to the exercise of power. I am not saying that such a demonstration is impossible. However, any emphatic claim that “bias” and “discrimination” exists at Williams needs to be supported by evidence of the exercise of power. Without power, “bias” and “discrimination” are meaningless.
That does not mean that incidents of racial, gender, etc. insensitivity are unimportant. However, in the absence of the exercise of power they must be understood as socially improper behavior — in short, bad manners that embarrass the College, the victim and — even if subjectively unfelt — the perpetrator. Rather than examples of “racism” etc., these incidents would then been seen as akin to the rash of “bio-cleanup” cases at Williams earlier in the academic year.
Perhaps along with seminars on ablism and heterosexism, could “Claiming Williams” have a session on how not to spread feces, urine and vomit around public spaces, too?
May 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Just Me - I’m assuming this argument is coming from the formulation that racism/sexism/etc. = prejudice + power. While I think that defintion can be overly simplistic, I would posit that the “power” can be systemic and not just individual. Additionally, it is also about the perceived ability to exercise that power and not just the exercise itself (this perception dervied from the systemic power of whatever group).
Taking your argument to its natural conclusion, you seem to be saying that if someone hurls an epithet of some kind and threatens to do something to you, such a scenario is never actually racist or sexist or bigoted unless the party actually follows through? So if I threaten to beat you up because you are [attribute of choice] I am not a bigot until I hit you?
I think the exercise of power may be in taking advantage of your position in the power structure by making someone feel afraid, powerless, or threatened. It does not necessarily require actually causing physical harm to someone or following through on some further action based upon that individuals race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
To me, there is both a danger and an upside potential at this point in history. The danger is that it is harder to identify and combat prejudices that are more below the surface than in the past, where the power is not “exercised” in the same manner as the past. But the potential upside is that, particularly at a place a small as Williams, if the culture becomes one in which people believe that they are safe and respected (for the most part), then such threats or incidents are robbed of their power - perceived or otherwise.
BTW, I think there is a difference between socially inappropriate behavior in the sense of “bad manners,” yelling, peeing on the rug, etc. and any of that behavior that being directed at a particular group because of race, gender, sexual orientation. You can be jerk, or you can be a racist jerk. Both are bad, one is worse.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Bullshit.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Arguing anonymously over the internet about the definition of the word, racism - no wonder there are many who not unreasonably believe that Williams is effete.