University response to racist "ghetto fabulous" party is less than fabulous

By Robert Jensen
Created Oct 16 2006 - 8:52am

An edited version of this essay ran in the Daily Texan on 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.

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson