Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

Georgetown University’s Newspaper of Record since 1920

The Hoya

CHOLVIN & CHRISTIANSEN: A Dangerous New Era of Double-Think

Here’s a list of seven things that happened last week that deserved Facebook statuses longer and more emotional than those about a beaten horse cartoon:

1. The potential shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security at the hands of the party that claims to value security the most.
2. The probable assassination of a major member of the Russian opposition party in the streets of Moscow.
3. The third season of “House of Cards,” which is just OK.
4. The implementation of net neutrality rules, which, among other things, means that I can continue to enjoy complaining about “House of Cards” without paying astronomical fees for streaming Netflix.
5. The dress (“It’s blue, goshdarnit.” –Tom. “Who cares? Also, who says goshdarnit?” –Tucker).
6. Kanye West apologizing to Beck, which is outraging mostly because Kanye was right for once (“Long live the Queen!” –Tom. “Who cares about the Grammys?” –Tucker).
7. The end of unions as we know them in Wisconsin, and the frustration of Scott Walker getting his way with anything.
8. Bonus: the series finale for “Parks and Recreation.”

The list could go on — in fact, just Google “this week’s news” and almost every return will be more deserving of sustained discussion than the horse cartoon published by the Georgetown Voice.

Now we are not saying this to suggest that the cartoon was not offensive, nor are we saying that hundreds of years of racially motivated violence should be ignored or forgotten. The consequences of those historic injustices are still much too real — think Ferguson, New York, or actually any municipality in the United States — and still much too deserving of our attention.

Likewise, violence against women is not a laughing matter, and Georgetown’s own history (so recent it could just be called “current events”) of sexual and other violence against women deserves real administrative action as well as dramatic changes in student, especially male student, attitudes.

The cartoon was in poor taste and merited an apology. The dialogue that led to the apology, as well as the apology itself, should have looked something like this:
Georgetown: “Hey, I see what you were trying to do with your editorial cartoon, but you probably shouldn’t depict images of violence against black people or women, especially if they are being perpetrated by white males who are now our GUSA executives.”

The Voice: “Oh my gosh. We are so sorry. I can’t believe we didn’t catch that.”

End of dialogue. Everyone moves on to more important things, like videos of Youtube celebrity Alex Boye’s senior citizen remix of “Uptown Funk.” (Note: Alex Boye is a Mormon. Super exciting.)

Instead, unfortunately, the dialogue looked something like this:

Georgetown: “By publishing this you actively uphold a white supremacist order and the fact that you don’t understand this and did it either shows you don’t care or that you don’t understand — meaning that it passed through multiple editorial chains of command and all of them thought it was OK to publish.

“Have you no conception of the deep historical roots of white oppression via beating, lynching and killing, among other forms of brutal violence, of black people in our nation? And on our campus?”

The Voice: “I don’t want to contribute to racism, and I don’t want to make anyone feel afraid. It is not my intention to spread a message of hate. I want to help silence the message of hate, and it is apparent that I still have a lot to learn in order to do so. So I invite you, please come up, introduce yourself to me and teach me.”

This entire episode is reflective of a much broader, more malignant trend toward a “millennial liberalism” that emphasizes tweet-length logic over nuanced thinking, is wildly reflexive (and reactionary), and is — above all else — self-indulgent.

Most worrying, this form of group-think shuts down dialogue without even contributing much in the way of new ideas. As a consequence, we espouse beliefs because we think them politically correct, not because of the robustness of their underlying logic.

This new strand of Twitter-driven progressivism manifests itself in many things, but particularly alarming is whitesplaining, where wealthy white people take upon themselves the cross of pointing out instances of oppression on behalf of the actually oppressed.

Now there’s an image worthy of a cartoon.

But, most dangerously, this new idea of millennial liberalism actually blinds us to the real issues at stake — instead of focusing on actual bigotry deserving actual condemnation, we instead pounce on proximate trivialities. Real bigotry — against ethnic minorities, women, the LGBTQ community or minority religious voices — deserves real vitriol. But not this.

The event is now over: apologies have been issued, the marchers have cleared and Forbes has already chimed in. We realize that by writing this we ourselves are probably guilty of, ahem, beating a dead horse.

But, then, maybe all of us are.

#jesuisdeadhorse

Tucker Cholvin and Thomas Christiansen are seniors in the School of Foreign Service. Culture Clash appears every other Tuesday.

View Comments (16)
More to Discover

Comments (16)

All The Hoya Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • T

    Tom ChristiansenJul 18, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    Not that anyone cares about any of this anymore (least of all me), but I think what bothered me most about this entire incident was that the cartoon was trying to point out that Connor and Joe Luther were being huge dicks to Chris Wadibia and Meredith Cheney—and they were—and that the attacks were particularly repugnant because Connor and Joe were white males while the Chris-Meredith ticket was far and away the most diverse ticket running that year.

    And it seemed to me to be hugely unfair for the campus conversation to divert away from an actual injustice—Connor and Joe using The Heckler (a newspaper that Joe ran) as a vehicle for humiliating one of their co-competitors in ways contrary to the spirit of what GUSA elections should look like. And the cartoon, I think, was making a fair and just point—that Joe and Connor needed to calm down and stop being such tools.

    And I just didn’t (and still don’t) understand why the campus conversation wasn’t about this specific incident of ongoing injustice, and was instead about the charged image attempting to shed light on that injustice.

    Reply
  • A

    AraceliMar 6, 2015 at 8:35 am

    You have all given me much to consider.

    According to you and the first five comments, this is not a real issue that merits so much attention. In your own words: “fake race controversies”, “screaming lunatics”, and, of course, the article’s attention to all the things that do matter, five of the nine being two television shows, mainstream and YouTube celebrities, and a viral dress. I will give you (Cholvin and Christiansen) the benefit of the doubt here. I believe you are using humor here – however unfunny it is to me and other students. I believe you speak from a place of frustration and defensiveness.

    But so does the other side.

    This is not an isolated event. Burr is correct in pointing out that there are times some members of the Administration “screws” its students over. Three years ago, I was close to transferring because of the way Housing treated me when I spent an entire month begging that Department (and any other that would listen) to help me with a pre-existing condition of my room. When I reported threats to my safety for a separate incident, DPS did nothing, but it certainly conducted a full investigation four years ago when a group of my friends engaged in “suspicious activity” – you know, walking on campus late one weekend. Apparently, you do stand out if you are heading to a study session in the ICC sober and dressed in sweats. I won’t even begin to touch on the subject of micro-aggressions. Racism is not limited to lynching, hiring/admission practices, nor practiced by a single group, and it is not defined by the presence or lack of “media fire storms.”

    Instead, I see this as a culmination of a very real problem on and off campus. What’s more upsetting is to see it dismissed so lightly:

    Cholvin and Christiansen, your article traces how a discussion should have gone and when it should have ended. Why should it have ended with an apology when Cutler commendably invited his peers to “teach” him where he went wrong? Why is further discussion so undeserving of your attention (unlike Kanye and Beck)? This is not the first time an incident like this has occurred, and I highly doubt it will be the last. Instead of reacting to incidents, maybe we can proactively avoid them by learning more about what it means to be in a diverse campus? We are all Hoyas and certainly can agree to the preamble to Georgetown’s speech and expression policy.

    Burr, you refuse to acknowledge your peers are responding to any real bigotry. From your comment, I can see you have reflected a great deal on the subject. I may not agree with your point of view, but I thank you for sharing it. I only encourage you to consider that maybe part of the issue is the way these conversations are ignored and shut down. So again, thank you for participating.

    Glen, you defend the use of violence claiming “some people can’t be bothered looking beyond the superficial and seeing the actual message of a scene or a piece of art.” As such, I encourage you to see the actual message of the scene of “screaming lunatics” demonstrating at Red Square. I could be wrong, but I think it has at least as much meaning and thought as the cartoon.

    Instead of anticipating attacks against non-minorities, please consider the protests for what they are: outcries against the acts themselves. This isn’t you versus us. I would like to see Hoyas work together against their prejudices and hypocrisies. Idealistic? Sure, but men and women for others are bound to be idealistic, no?

    What is artistic and funny to you was considered offensive and in poor taste by enough people to blow up into the controversy it is today. Just because something is well-intentioned does not mean it is good for any group of people. At least two of you easily saw a slippery slope effect when it came to “political correctness” but not when it came to the implications of this particular cartoon. I am glad this is getting so much attention because it means you are thinking about the issue. You can (and probably do) disagree with me. You may not even care about my undergraduate struggles. However, at least I (and several of your peers) do not feel invisible.

    Perhaps that is a big reason why so many students are this upset with the cartoon? Out of the comments here, you appear to believe it was simultaneously an expression of freedom of speech and of defense of the candidates. Maybe your peers are outraged that such an expression had to come in this way? I believe they would have expected solidarity to come in a more considerate manner, especially in light of everything else that is happening in the country right now. I also believe that the “Social Justice warriors” took action after seeing yet ANOTHER disrespectful act – not just because of this particular one. This isn’t their first time requesting a diversity requirement, and it isn’t their first time asking for you to participate in this kind of dialogue. Could this be the first time it has reached your newsfeed and writing with this much immediacy? Maybe these “warriors” aren’t trying to shut down conversation – maybe they have felt ignored for a very long time?

    I may not be a black and blue dress, but I thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts and for allowing me to express mine. I do not, cannot, and will not speak for everyone. I am still learning about the experiences of others. Whether these conversations end up in the curriculum or in agreement/disagreement, they should happen when incidents like these occur and when they don’t. If these are people who will have an impact on the real world, shouldn’t they be engaging in real world discussions? After all, I think at least three of us agree that:

    “Where historical wrongs exist, our job is not to trivialize them but to shine a light on them.” – Cholvin & Christiansen

    Reply
  • N

    Nikole ChizMar 6, 2015 at 3:36 am

    This is seriously the best commentary on the recent debate-stirring cartoon depiction. Despite the touch of a slight satirical tone to the beginning, I personally feel that this article has appropriately asked this question: “Why did we have to needlessly remind ourselves of the fact that ‘we can even be racially biased?'” Cliche???

    I’m a Zambian male, black, and also bracing myself to attend Georgetown this fall for my freshman year and I was beginning to worry about the kind of debates I might just find myself being a part of, …well, until this commentary. Besides, rather unfairly,(and you need to trust me on this) Georgetown is not particularly famous for the diversity of it’s student body. So who needs a better reason to worry about racial biases on campus right?

    Well, regardless of whether or not there are bigger issues to take up the space on timelines – and indeed there are! – I’m one with the view that ‘positive discrimination’ (whatever that means) is as effective in heralding the otherwise infamous “we’re somewhat different” message as would be a gravely racist remark, or an ‘intentionally’ biased cartoon depiction against a minority group on campus. I hear a lot of Americans and pips in America rightly pointing out that a “change of mindset” is what we need to annihilate biases against minority – and in certain cases, majority – groups but bringing the world to the attention of a cartoon depiction that clearly only deems all beings equal and perhaps worthy of any depiction is not, to me, a good mindset. I don’t mean to be oblivious to potential segregation, but fortunately enough, I’m assuming that the depiction was genuinely out of ignorance about racial discrimination: which would be a great thing right? Or otherwise the entire editorial team has to be in on it and I cannot possibly begin to imagine an entire department of a great campus publication at such a great university to intend to marginalize a minority group by ……….. no.

    And, I like this:

    “Now we are not saying this to
    suggest that the cartoon was
    not offensive, nor are we
    saying that hundreds of years
    of racially motivated violence
    should be ignored or forgotten.
    The consequences of those
    historic injustices are still
    much too real — think
    Ferguson, New York, or
    actually any municipality in
    the United States — and still
    much too deserving of our
    attention.”

    Come on guys! As I always say, “Life is much simpler than that.”

    Reply
  • A

    AnonymousMar 6, 2015 at 12:59 am

    Should we not take into consideration that this was written by two white males and is positioned in a place of unique privilege? Who are you to speak for the sub-altern and to define what is “trivial” or “self-indulgent” in regards to issues of race / class / gender.

    Reply
    • S

      SFS'15Mar 14, 2015 at 9:10 pm

      If you can’t actually address the points made, it’s always a proven strategy to resort to ad hominem attacks.

      Also – that you’re apparently critiquing Tom and Tucker’s “white male” identities ironically aligns with their point about whitesplaining.

      Reply
  • N

    Nora WestMar 5, 2015 at 11:11 pm

    You do not get to decide what is harmful, you do not get to trivialize people’s lived experiences. The people most impacted get to determine their feelings and their actions. It is your job to reach out to people and learn about their experiences. The most impacted party gets to react in whatever way feels best to them.

    Reply
  • A

    anonymousMar 5, 2015 at 6:13 pm

    Thank you, Tucker and Thomas, for providing a contra viewpoint instead of sticking with the typical “student” view. I look forward to reading your column every time.

    Reply
  • C

    Claire DerriennicMar 5, 2015 at 3:40 pm

    I would argue that it is not “whitesplaining,” when a white person suggests to other white people that something is offensive. Racism affects all of us, and calling it out should not be the sole burden of people of color. Pushing against racism is a constructive use of white privilege. While whites should not speak for or drown out people of color, they should most certainly be part of the conversation.

    Reply
  • T

    Thanks!!!Mar 5, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    So grateful to these brave white men for mansplaining to the rest of us how we should react to sexism and racism! I love it when my feelings about my own oppression are further subjugated. Kudos, you two!

    Reply
  • S

    SFS FreshmanMar 5, 2015 at 11:47 am

    The potential shutdown of Homeland Security? Kanye West apologizing to Beck? What can Georgetown students do about those events?

    But what can Georgetown students can do is change the culture at this school where students do not check their privilege. Minority students are complaining that they feel Georgetown students are insensitive to race issues. Then don’t you think there might be a race issue at Georgetown?

    Let me make this clear. Minority students do not want to bash Georgetown. We want to better Georgetown. When our major school newspapers keep printing insensitive editorials, it shows us we have some work to do.

    Freedom of speech? Yes everyone deserves that. In the spirit of JS Mill’s “On Liberty,” instead of disregarding the minority view and instilling a tyranny of the public opinion, I ask the authors of this article and everyone who agrees with them to participate and continue the conversation. We can all better inform ourselves about race issues. That would be real change.

    Otherwise, go ahead. Take your chance convincing Congress to continue Homeland Security. Maybe they will be more willing to take action.

    Reply
  • K

    Kala DMar 5, 2015 at 11:37 am

    This article shows the lack of sensitivity that Georgetown students have and their ignorance of issues on race,power, and privilege. If the intent of this article was to kill the situation, it failed because this proves the point that a diversity requirement is much needed. We can not ignore issues that are prevalent on campus because people feel uncomfortable. This article is insensitive, uninformed, and biased.

    Reply
  • G

    Glen JonesMar 3, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    “but you probably shouldn’t depict images of violence against black people or women”

    Erm…why not? They weren’t supporting the violence at all, they were criticizing the verbal abuse. Besides, it was a play on an idiomatic expression. The cartoon was extremely clever in its use of this expression, its parodying of a campaign slogan, and its exposing what a shameless example of self-service that Heckler article was.

    I just don’t know where, if ever, you draw the line nowadays. Can movies no longer show a minority getting hurt, even if it is a vital component of the plot? Can women no longer die in books because that might offend those who have experienced domestic abuse? Freedom of speech is one of the bedrocks of our society. We cannot curtail it simply because some people can’t be bothered looking beyond the superficial and seeing the actual message of a scene or a piece of art. If the artist in question was advocating violence against these minorities, then by all means remove the cartoon. It’s just silly that he is being hung out to dry when A. the violence wasn’t real or graphic, B. he didn’t target women or African Americans, the two candidates in question just happened to fit these descriptions (to his misfortune), and C. he was writing/drawing in defense of these individuals in question.

    I see very little creative art at Georgetown, and it’s really no wonder when harmless but meaningful pieces get torn apart like this. I can’t image what would happen if somebody released something that actually pushed the envelope. That might provoke a raucous demonstration in Red Square with lots of cardboard signs and screaming lunatics, and nobody wants to see that…or maybe I’m wrong.

    Reply
  • B

    BurrMar 3, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    BTW guys, good piece. Not as awesome as your recent one on GUSA, but still good.

    Reply
  • B

    BurrMar 3, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    “But, most dangerously, this new idea of millennial liberalism actually blinds us to the real issues at stake — instead of focusing on actual bigotry deserving actual condemnation, we instead pounce on proximate trivialities. Real bigotry — against ethnic minorities, women, the LGBTQ community or minority religious voices — deserves real vitriol. But not this.”

    What you say in this quote is the key point of the whole sad episode. Though real bigotry can also occur towards men and non-minorities, two groups you miss. Perhaps you just forgot to include them?

    At any rate, as you note, due to the uproar over the dead horse cartoon, real instances of discrimination will not be taken as seriously because non-black students now know that any interaction a non-black has with a black student that bothers the black student in any way, shape or form, will put the non-black student at risk of being considered a racist and being publicly shamed on the internet. Weirdly, that even includes defending them, which can’t be stated enough, and is what Dylan Cutler did with his cartoon.

    The results of this are not good for black people as a group. It’s like self-inflicted wound. Non-blacks will now be less likely to say anything in regards to black students, even constructive criticism meant to help, and which we all need in life to develop since no one is perfect. Such criticism is needed by everyone, regardless of background, to improve. When we are constantly reaffirmed as correct in everything we say and do, then we develop abnormally and don’t reach our potential, not to mention having a rather rude awakening post-graduation.

    And it may mean in the future that hiring is affected. Think about it: if you hire a white guy and critique or fire him because it was the right thing to do, then you’re not going to be publicly shamed as a racist. But if you do hire a black guy and do the same thing, because as with the white, it was the right thing to do, then you are now at risk of a civil rights violation and public witch trial, which will no doubt be bad for your bottom line. So why bother taking the risk in the first place? Better to send some shush money to Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton and let that protect you.

    This event has also caused people question whether or not racism actually is a problem on GU’s campus. Why hasn’t there been any media fire storms over a racial attack, or racial language used in class, or a student not being hired for a campus job due to their race? (We know whites and East Asians are discriminated against based on skin color in admissions thanks to affirmative action, but that’s another matter entirely).

    The answer seems to be that these events don’t happen, or if they do, then it’s at an incredibly low frequency that doesn’t warrant a mention. So, thanks to your Social Justice Warrior types on campus, in the absence of real injustices, pseudo-controversies like this one result.

    In part, it’s to keep up the fiction that they do occur and GU is an unsafe space. That allows you then to call for resources: money, special programs, attention, a diversity requirement, etc.

    The moral grandstanding also allows the millennial liberals to fill morally superior to everyone else. Perhaps, too, the lack of any real injustices in their context creates an emotional and spiritual void that needs to be filled with these sort of modern-day witch trials.

    It all fits a pattern.

    Ferguson wasn’t about a black kid getting shot in the back by a racist cop. It was about a man who had just committed a crime and then attacked the cop and tried getting the cop’s gun. After Brown was shot the race hustlers and grievance industry kicked into high gear. A similar thing happened with Trayvon Martin, who wasn’t some 12 year old kid with a cute smile and in a red shirt who was supposedly hunted down and murdered by a “white Hispanic,” but rather, a troubled 17 year old with a criminal past and a history of violence.

    And everyone knows about the UVA Rape Hoax’s non-existent “Haven Monahan,” or the Columbia Mattress girl’s story becoming unraveled a month or so ago once the texts and emails from her accuser were released to the media.

    One has to wonder why the allegations that get the most press and generate the most controversy constantly end up being hoaxes or grossly distorted narratives about what actually happened, abetted of course by a left-wing media complex I suspect we’ll be seeing more hoaxes and controversies like this in the future.

    Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the lack of guidance from university administrators. When the town hall and Red Square protest occurred, both Olsen and O’Brien where there reinforcing the belief that a racist hate thought crime had occurred. Rather the engaging the students to think logically and responsibly, they left them with the idea that they were victims of an injustice and needed emotional support to get through it, which is not a good way to prepare them for living outside the warm and comforting Georgetown where students treated like special children that are all above average.

    The thing that the protesters didn’t realize, however, is that while Olsen and O’Brien bowed their heads in prayer, they were probably smiling.

    After all, if you keep students distracted and divided with fake race controversies, then they won’t be so concerned with the myriad of other ways in which the Administration is screwing them over.

    Reply
  • A

    anonMar 3, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    I just want to copy a few lines because they are extremely well-articulated. I couldn’t agree more (well, except about Kanye).

    ““millennial liberalism” that emphasizes tweet-length logic over nuanced thinking, is wildly reflexive (and reactionary), and is — above all else — self-indulgent.

    Most worrying, this form of group-think shuts down dialogue without even contributing much in the way of new ideas. As a consequence, we espouse beliefs because we think them politically correct, not because of the robustness of their underlying logic.”

    Reply
  • J

    Jiang ZeminMar 3, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Bravo! This is the best commentary The Hoya has offered on this entire sorry episode.

    Reply