Students Protest April Fools' Issue

When I was forwarded images of the April Fool's Days Hoya, I laughed. I thought someone must have been pranking the Hoya -- there was no way, I thought, a team of White Georgetown students would write an April Fools issue with so many racist jokes directed against African-Americans.

How on earth did this overwhelming White group of priviliged, upper-middle class kids think it was OK to make racist jokes against African-Americans and other minority groups on campus? Especially in the wake of the Jenna 6 F-up last year? Yes, I get that these were "jokes." But they were still racist jokes directed against non-White people by White people. As I understand, there were also jokes directed against Muslims, GLBT students, and other minority groups on campus who rightly feel marginalized.

How on earth did they think that there would not be an overwhelmingly negative response?

This story will get picked up by other media. I am sure that this is just the beginning.

The stupidity of the Hoya staff is mind boggling. Their poor judgment is astonishing.

But most of all, their complete lack of understanding about how their words affect others is deeply disturbing.

To the posters: It is also outrageous to blame this on African-American students for not joining the Hoya. Georgetown students should know NOT TO BE RACIST. It is so sad that some are suggesting that Georgetown students need African-Americans around to tell them not to print racist jokes. Good God. Is this 1950's Alabama? I thought this stuff was common sense. Apparently not.

I hope everyone who worked on this issue takes a sebatical from the Hoya. Their behavior has been disgraceful and a discredit to Georgetown. They obviously have A LOT of growing up to do.

Re: Stop Diluting the Value of My Degree,

The problem here, though, is that there isn't a clear and easy definition of what "racist" is -- if there were, this wouldn't be a problem. Clearly, many many many people do not consider the Hoya's April Fool's edition to be "racist," they think it's reasonable lampooning of campus culture.

I can tell you that many white people on campus think that black students are incredibly racist against them. Many white students think that affirmative action is racist. Many white students find groups like the BSA and NAACP to be racist because they are far less diverse than even groups like the Hoya or NSO and they are focused on the needs of the black community. What makes the BSA less racist than, say, a "White Students Alliance"?

Okay yes I know you're going to have a clever answer, like "the history of slavery and racism in this country" or "if you can't realize that then you don't have common sense." My response would be that MANY people here, then, don't have "common sense" or don't agree that slavery 150 years ago justifies explicitly racist groups like the NAACP and BSA.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, in which racism is suuuuuch an easy thing to identify. My purpose here is just to problematize racism for you. It's not that easy to know what crosses the line, because the line is entirely subjective.

Your response demonstrates that you clearly haven't thought about this from any perspective but your own. If you really do believe that a little 'intelligence' is enough to arrive at a fair, independent and crystal clear definition of racism, I'd gladly thank YOU to stop diluting the value of MY degree.

You know what we should do, BAN JOKES! NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY OFF COLOR REMARK/JOKES EVER AGAIN! That oughta make them happy. But the next time I hear a black student say cracker or something, I'm going to perform a SIT IN! And MAKE A FACEBOOK GROUP! There, that oughta make a difference!

Get a life losers.

Of course it's okay to get offended. We all have a right to our own opinion. I respect the fact that people who are unhappy have spoken up, but I want to make sure to give credit where it's due on both sides. Neither side is totally right or totally wrong.

Let's get a sense of perspective here. The Hoya isn't trying to hurt people. The paper didn't say, "I hate black people." Many are acting as if the staff of The Hoya are evil people who AIMED to hurt their fellow students. They wouldn't have run these jokes if they knew they were really going to do damage to an individual's sense of self-image or comfort at his/her own school. We're all just students trying to do our best, and no one at The Hoya would ever do that on purpose. If you don't think the jokes were funny, okay. If you think they were in bad taste, fine. But I'm starting to get really frustrated with the fact that you can't work for the student newspaper without being called a racist. The kids who work for The Hoya work until 2, 3, or 4 in the morning several nights a week, and it seems all they get from this campus is criticism. Let's try to treat them with the respect we owe any person, no matter what we think of their jokes. The Hoya has shown its respect for its opposition in the way it's handled this situation. It's taken their views seriously and addressed them very openly.

Also, the staff of the paper made fun of themselves as well- just check the staff list on the inside. Kids' names were replaced with jokes about those kids' stupid drunken moments and personality quirks. Hoya writers are willing to take just as much as they dish out, when it's a joke.

I think The Hoya deserves credit for running a critical editorial in its own pages. Just check the latest copy of the opinion section- there's an editorial written against the paper in which it's printed. How often does the New York Times do that?

The staff of The Hoya definitely recognizes there's a diversity problem. And every new Editor-In-Chief tries to remedy it to no avail. There's nothing the staff of the paper can do if underrepresented students don't show up to represent themselves. By writing, taking pictures, and putting in the time and effort to become editors.

Finally I'm remarkably impressed with the subtlety of many of the opinions expressed here. Kudos for having a real discussion, guys. I'm proud to be part of a school where we can recognize that labeling people Racist and then ending the discussion doesn't accomplish anything, but also where students take the time to speak up when they feel wronged. This is a complicated issue, and it's being treated as such. I respect that.

Just because you make a joke about a particular race doesn't mean you are racist.

Two quick things from a veteran of The Hoya. I am happy to share additional thoughts at a later time:

1) Mr. Swan already covered how in instances like these, it is standard practice for the paper to cover itself. I second that.

2) To the poster who questioned the use of "said" in the lede and made the point that in this case, the violation is not "alleged," this is still standard journalistic practice to write about an issue in terms of how the subject(s) of the story reported feeling or what they report(ed) feeling. If the "said" had not been included, it would be injecting the author's own opinion into the story, and even if Ms. McKenzie felt the issue was offensive, this story would not be the place to state that. As Editor-in-Chief Dwulet's Letter From The Editor says, those in the paper's leadership realize they seriously erred. But in the tenor and tone of a NEW story is not the place to let that be known.

3) On that note, one earlier commenter said that the worst problem is that The Hoya is unaware that it made a mistake. I take serious issues with that, and I am sure if you wrote Mr. Dwulet, he would reiterate that. In no way does this make up for the fact that the original mistakeS were made, but I do believe that it is inaccurate to say that the staff of The Hoya remains unaware of why folks are offended.

heaps@thehoya.com

Nicely put. You have a right not be discriminated against. You don't have a right to not be offended.

Along with the racist content of the paper, there were articles making fun of sexual assault and domestic violence.

Please explain to me (because I'd really like to understand) the humor in the phrase "she can't reject you if she's comatose" That phrase means "when a woman has passed out, go ahead and do whatever you'd like to her---she can't say no." Just the message we need to spread on a college campus.

As a black, female, sexual assault survivor, I found more than enough problems with this issue to lead me to avoid the hoya for good. A question to the writers of this issue---- would you have these articles in your portfolio as examples of your work? What do you think the parents of prospective students (on campus throughout April) will think of this issue? And why wasn't it available online?

It wasn't online because they're cowards who don't want a record of their racist, sexist dribble. Too bad people already scanned the articles and put them on facebook

What the hell are you babbling about?

Basic reading comprehension--My response is not the same as that of Ben--Class of 08. You've conflated the two in a way that reflects a pretty pathetic inability to understand this issue in any perspective but your own (OMG, I'm sooo clever!!11) Your response clearly demonstrates that something communicated even through a basic visual medium such as a fucking line break will not stop you from setting up a convenient straw man. Look up what that means.

No, the comprehensive question of what constitutes racism is not easy to answer. Luckily, the *basic* and minimum definition of it is actually quite easy to understand and stereotyping an entire race of people in a hurtful and violent way qualifies exactly as such. You're not problemitizing a damn thing when the Hoya itself fucking APOLOGIZES for its abhorrent behavior.

This entire episode of the Hoya, as a representative of the views of a the student staff of a prominent national university espousing racist views takes place on such an appalling extreme end of the spectrum your self-delusional attempts to conflate it with issues such as affirmative action don't hold.

Your professors might be paid to indulge you but let me say it: if you think you're discriminated, AS A WHITE STUDENT, at Georgetown University in the District of Columbia you're a fucking idiot.

It really frightens me to think that you are a professor here, Enough. For one who calls for a heightened level of maturity, you are a grown woman engaging teenagers and young adults in a childish manner.

Just to clarify, the above response from Stop Embarrassing Yourself it directed at whoever replied to my initial post under Stop Diluting the Value of My Degree.

Take heed of both imperatives. And by all means, do yourselves and society at large a favor by pulling your privileged, delusional, self-entitled heads out of your asses.

I completely understand the cause for the outrage, except the article about JTIII taking Pops' advice. I very well might be missing something, but that was a direct quote from Pops saying that we need more thugs on the team. I don't believe he meant it racist at all, just that we need some of the guys to play hard ball. I mean hey-Nikita probably was the biggest "thug" by that definition on the team this year

Man, is it hot in here!

Oh wait, that's just the heat emanating from my burning effigy of Andrew Dwulet

Long ago, I was managing editor of the Hoya. It helped cement my interest in journalism as a profession and led me to pursue a master's in journalism at the University of Missouri.

It also helped teach me that humor is an inherently dangerous pursuit. One person's humor can make others cringe and even incite anger.

Racial issues are a particularly dangerous topic for humor -- particularly at an institution like Georgetown that hasn't attracted as many minority students as one might hope.

That being said, I do give the Hoya staff credit for fessing up and realizing that their actions were not appropriate. Might it have also been better for the NAACP chapter and any others involved to take the paper up on its offer for dialogue? Perhaps the paper could begin to make amends with some serious reporting on the underlying issues?

As far as the April Fool's Issue is concerned, while it has a long tradition at the Hoya, perhaps it is a tradition best laid to rest. At very least, it must be treated gingerly.

Pat Early, C'74

To those offended by the Cuddler interview:

I work for The Hoya, and I can tell you that NO ONE there thinks sexual assault is okay! To insinuate such is very unfair. We're all aware that "the Cuddler" as we call him does not just cuddle. That's a pretty scary thought from someone like me, a female who lives off campus. But by calling him "the Cuddler" we as a campus community have made this scary situation into a joke. I'm glad we've been able to find a way to laugh about something so terrifying. The Cuddler has become its own image - perceived separately from the real criminal- and many people have been treating him that way. I mean, I know several people who dressed up as the Cuddler for Halloween. I was not offended by the issue, and I have never felt that the seriousness of sexual assault is minimized at The Hoya.

Lets look at some definitions of racism found in dictionaries.

Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary: Racism, by its simplest definition is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Random House: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

Princeton University WordNet: The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.

In my mind, and in the mind of of the regional news media who are now picking up this story, some of the statement in the April Fools' issue fit with these definitions. In particular, the joke about "adding some milk to coco puffs," which is based on the premise that light skin is superior to black skin fits the definitions of racism listed here. The idea that pale skin is superior to dark is completely socially constructed, and it is socially tied to ideas about racial superiority. This is just one example.

I wish there had been more jokes that made fun of racist stereotypes. Instead, these jokes reinforced racist stereotypes.

As to your point about White people being discriminated against at Georgetown: I'm very sorry you feel that way. Did you ever go to an NAACP meeting and complain about their lack of diversity you found there? If you had, you might have noticed that the NAACP had a White president last year. Most of the founders of NAACP were actually White, and the organization is still open to peoples of all backgrounds.

As for BSA, Mecha de Georgetown, South Asian Students Association, etc: These groups exist for a number of reasons. They provide a place for individuals on campus who feel marginalized or voiceless because of their group identity to support each other; they ensure that minority cultures on campus -- be they Chinese, African American, or even Southern American culture (Southern Society of Georgetown) -- find expression and are not drowned out by the majority.

If White people truly were oppressed by a powerful black minority, then a White Students Association would be urgently needed. However, this is not the case. Furthermore, "White culture" is not voiceless at Georgetown. I have never met a Georgetown student who regularly feels uncomfortable on campus because he or she is White. So what purpose would a White Students Association serve? It would simply be a way for the majority -- which already control campus media, the campus administration, campus organizations, student government, and the faculty -- to create an organization that strengthens solidarity amongst the majority and excludes the minority.

Also, affirmative action is clearly "discriminatory" -- in the UK, it is called "positive discrimination." This is because it favors one group over another. However, this does not mean it is racist. Affirmative action is intended to counter several centuries of the institutionalization of the belief "that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." It does not support the idea that one race is inferior to another. It acknowledges that this idea has limited the opportunities of African Americans through poor educational opportunities, housing discrimination, the criminal justice system, and other avenues.

Another form of discrimination in college admissions is the legacy system. This system causes many unqualified students to be admitted. It mainly benefits White students. Also, wealthy parents who donate lots of money can get a piece of the "affirmative action" pie. If you think race-based affirmative action is bad, I hope you also think class-based affirmative action has problems.

First of all, this is a gross abuse of the term "sit-in." To compare the articles in the Hoya (which, for the umpteenth time, were meant as a JOKE, and thus were not making fun of minorities, but rather racists) to the conditions under which sit-ins began is sheer stupidity. No matter how offended you were, the Hoya wasn't bringing back the Jim Crowe laws.
Would there have been a sit-in if the article had been about Devendorf and the Virgin Mary? After all, I have to believe the reason that Chris Brown was singled out was the fact that he BEAT HIS GIRLFRIEND, and not that he was black. If anyone should be offended by that article, it is Christians, and Catholics in particular. Its an unmitigated joke that the students at the sit in wouldn't even come down off their high horses to engage in dialogue with people at the Hoya, most of whom were probably genuinely interested in what people were offended about.
By the way, where were the "Bros" in the sit-in? They were mocked in the April fools issue as well, but apparently they have a sense of humor about it. Personally, I'm partially Asian and was unoffended by all the Asian jokes in the Hoya. Why? Because, one, its nothing I haven't heard before in good humor, and two, I understood that it was a joke. I didn't treat those as personal attacks because THEY WEREN'T.
Ultimately, I understand people getting offended. Some of the articles surprised me. But this has been blown way out of proportion. I guess the lesson learned here is that people who are trying to be offended will always get offended. I would urge every participant at the "sit-in" to reflect on the last time they said something racist (even benignly so- i.e. laughing commenting on an Asian's prowess at math, or something of that ilk), and think about how offended the target(s) could have been if they hadn't understood that you meant it as a joke. The Hoya probably should have been more careful, but nothing it did deserves the public beating it is receiving.

The Hoya didn't put the issue online because it NEVER DOES. The April Fool's edition is meant for the campus community and the campus community only. Maybe they should put it up online now, as it will do more good than harm, but for goodness sake, it wasn't out of cowardice.

I'm not saying that "only saints" have the right to protest, but rather that the protesters shouldn't act like saints. Again, I understand why people are offended; some of the articles were a bit much. I think its unfair to hold the Hoya so publicly responsible for issues (perceived or real) that are clearly not unique to it; indeed, the Hoya was trying to make the point about overall campus issues.
I am not in the heads of any of the Hoya editors, but I have to believe that they thought that their jokes would be funny because of the totally ignorant perspective of the "authors." I think us as readers were supposed to laugh at the dumb, ignorant ideas portrayed in those articles. The actual authors clearly don't hold those opinions, or they wouldn't have expressed them in such ridiculous ways.

To everyone who has taken issue with my "problematizing" of racism:

Again, I think you are viewing this only from the prism of your own experience, and I think your definitions of racism are both simplistic and hypocritical.

To Ben, according to the definitions of racism you provide, groups like the BSA, NAACP, and the policy of affirmative action ARE racist. Similarly, according to most of your definitions the Hoya's April Fools edition is NOT racist, because nowhere does it argue that one race is better than another. I think your reading of "milk and coco puffs" is paranoid; I didn't read it as saying that "white skin is better than dark skin," I read it as saying that mixed race people tend to be very attractive. I can tell you that there are plenty of stereotypes that White-Asian combinations are incredibly good looking or that White-Black or Black-Hispanic combinations tend to provide beautiful children. I hear that in rap and from black comedians all the time. I think this has to do with the fact that interracial children are fairly rare, so having a mix of the features of multiple races is by its own nature exotic. Whatever, I know this is itself a controversial statement in and of itself, but it is nevertheless a popular conception and in no way makes the argument that light skin is better than black skin. (The half-milk, half-coco puff baby would be more beautiful than BOTH, not just the black parent. It wasn't saying that interracial marriage would improve the black race, it said it would improve both.)

And again, yes the Hoya has admitted that it made a mistake by not understanding what reaction its April Fool's edition would get, but that doesn't mean it admits that what it said was racist (it has nowhere admitted this) or that even if they did this would necessarily change the question of whether or not it IS racist.

And you say that I am an "idiot" if I feel oppressed as a white student at Georgetown. First of all, that itself is racist by lumping together all whites and assuming that none of them could pooossibly have a legitimate case for feeling discriminated against, and also it's irrelevant. I did not say that white kids feel "oppressed", just that they think that groups like the BSA and NAACP are racist. (And yes I know Ellie Gunderson quite well, I am aware that the NAACP had a white president -- also irrelevant. And btw I have also been to an NAACP meeting.)

Plenty of white people do feel "oppressed" (maybe that term is a bit of an exaggeration) because of affirmative action. Fact is, there are lots of minority kids at Georgetown who wouldn't be here if it weren't for affirmative action; that's true at Harvard, Yale, UVA, Boston College, tons of other good schools. If you were a kid who didn't get into a school that you *deserved* to get in to because a less qualified minority got in, you have every right to feel oppressed and bitter. I'm not disagreeing that white people in general have it good and that black people have both a history of oppression and the modern remnants of that oppression, I'm just saying that we as individuals are not equal to our races.

Just because I may be white doesn't mean I haven't been discriminated against for being white by whites or by blacks. Yes, whites as a group may be pretty well off, but if you're one of those kids who got screwed by affirmative action then it's very little comfort that "oh well, at least the other 98% of members of the white race weren't discriminated against because of their race." I'm sorry, that's not how people think. Let's not forget that there are many more white children than black children in poverty. True, white kids are in poverty at a lower RATE than black kids, but suffering doesn't happen in percentages. If you're one of those white kids, it doesn't matter to you that you represent a lower proportion of your race overall than the poor black kid next door. I'm sorry, I find it racist to suggest that's the case.

I am all for groups that celebrate our various cultures and diversity, I've been a member of several of these. I just think that black people take it too far when they become more racist than white people. Most black kids who get to Georgetown probably don't need affirmative action, and they certainly mostly aren't the truly oppressed black people who really need the help. Most of my black friends are richer than I am! Similarly treating all whites as if they're coddled, lucky people who never feel discriminated against is extremely racist. I may be white, but I'm much more than that and I really take offense at the assumptions you're making about me based on the assumption that I'm white.

Just because things seem cut and dry from your point of view doesn't mean they are to the rest of us. I think it's fascinating that black people are the ones who predominantly see the world these days in "black and white."

A former Editor in Chief, I echoes Pat's views, it is time for the Hoya to end the April Fools day issue. Humor is a fine line and best not undertaken when you have spent a semester sleep deprived.

As to the arguments on minority participation on the Hoya, two points.

1) RECRUIT -- it's easy as a Hoya editor to put out some cookies every August and wait for the Freshmen to stop by. Harder is to proactively seek out people, call them up over the summer, friend the incoming frosh on facebook. Hoya writers in the class of 2000 can attest to how aggressive the class of 1998 was in recruiting them to the Hoya (to the detriment of the Voice). Make a concerted effort to get recruit more diverse people to the paper.

2) ADMINISTRATION -- loosen up the pursestrings! It's the administration that will not allow the Hoya to pay anything to the vast majority of it's staffers. If you are a student who needs to work, how are you going to put in the hours to be a staff writer, let alone become an editor? If the Hoya could pay people, there would be a greater socio-economic diversity on the paper as well.

The Hoya is (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be insensitive to minority (LGBT/African American/Asian American/Feminist/etc.) interests -- it's the Hoya that needs to fix its image, not the other way around. When you boast you're Gtown's student newspaper, that's the burden you take.

John Keenan
COL 1998

White people are the most discriminated against of any race in this country. We all have to walk on egg shells and bite our tongues for fear of being called racists.

Call me a racist for saying this, please. I will love it.

Geraldine Ferraro had to resign from the Clinton campaign for verbalizing this.

If everybody is so hung up on equality of the races, let's start a White Students Association. Really, it's only fair. I truly want one, it will make me very happy. In what way would such a thing be offensive?

You can be proud of being what you are, I can be proud of being white.

To John Keenan--

I understand "recruiting," but why should the Hoya put any more effort into recruiting blacks than whites? If it is an ENTIRELY open process, and ANYONE is allowed to show interest, then isn't it pandering? Isn't it insulting to have the EIC knock on some black kid's door just to say "Uh, hey. We need some of 'you guys' on the Hoya, so wanna help us out?" I think THAT would be more racist than just having an entirely free and open process that is available to all students equally.

Why do black students need an extra invitation to become active in something that they OBVIOUS have a strong interest in. (And if they don't have a strong interest, then why are they parsing every single word of a "joke" issue?)

And finally, not for nothing, but the black population at Georgetown is not the most open or inclusive group in the world either. Any black student who would say "I don't feel comfortable becoming involved in ___ because of my race" should realize that there are a lot of white kids thinking "I don't feel comfortable approaching that group of black students to join ___ because, in general, they appear to socialize and participate in groups with other black students, and I'm not one of them."

This is all a two way street.

So, what would a white student association do? What would their mission statement be? Seriously asking here, because people throw out that "what if we had a white student association? What would people say then?" for shock value. But go ahead, if there are issues that you would like to work with as a group of white students, start an association to help with those problems.

What are the problems of white students at Georgetown? I'm asking this seriously, in what ways do you feel that you are not being represented or heard?

For one thing, affirmative action blatantly discriminates against whites.

To Ingrid,

"whites the most discriminated against"

This thread should not be about which group is the most discriminated against or suffers the most in society, because that can very well be subjective based on the experiences and situations you have encountered in your life. I just wanted to point out that the last time I checked most Congressmen and women, most Supreme Court Justices, most CEOs and the most Cabinet members are white. So if you feel discriminated against as a white person you should write a letter to them not put a comment on this thread, I am sure they will sympathize with you and that is how you can create change. Just like the students who felt they were being attacked by the Hoya with jokes about race, gender and religion then they protested the Hoya. This is not a contest based on whose been discriminated the most through out American history (if it was I doubt white Americans would win) but about stopping these stereotypes and prejudices that circulate around campus. You should be proud to be white but you shouldn't express it at the expense of others.

No, omigosh, you're totally right. The worst possible manifestation of discrimination is being personally insecure enough to feel like you're "walk on eggshells." Seriously, what other kinds of discrimination are there?!?!?! Or having such a stunted view of racial identity that you're incapable of beginning a constructive dialogue and, instead, project this frustration as something that other people are doing wrong. No way, Ingrid, I'm totes right there with you. Not to mention your writing is super ~edgy.~ Baiting people into calling you a racist?! MIND: BLOWN.

And yeah, to echo Jamee who is being way more diplomatic than a headcase like you deserves, this discrimination doesn't possibly manifest itself in other, more significant and morally relevant ways does it? The criminal justice system in this country isn't essentially set up, from start to finish, to punish non-whites, is it? The overwhelming majority of wealth in the industrialized and post-industrialized world isn't owned by whites is it? "Legitimate" channels of power and influence including legislatures, aren't overhwhelming white right?

But truly why does any of that matter when you feel like you're walking on eggshells?! That's simply unacceptable. Thank you dearly for bringing some much needed perspective to this discussion.

And honey, if you're not trying to be provocation and instead actually believe this, the sort of help and clarification you require will need to come from a psychiatrist, not this comment thread.

To the super insightful Problemitizer:

Look, kiddo, I think it's adorable you think that having decisive views means I haven't thought the issue through. But, some of us went through the "what is truth?" phase in high school and got to college sufficiently capable of critical, non-reductive and self-aware thought. Go figure.

I'm going to do my best to break down how I understand what you're saying but it's going to be difficult because 1. you make little sense and 2. When you are coherent, you're wrong.

To begin: It's actually impossible to "view" an experience through any "prism" but your own. The definitions of these words and their relationship to one another necessitate that a personal experience (viewing) be done, gasp, personally (through one's own prism).

This is not nitpicky, for two reasons. 1. It's a pretty accurate reflection of your tendency to conflate ironic turns of phrase with sound reasoning ("when you call out racism, you're actually being racist!" "I can fetishize multiculturalism so I'm totally not racist!") 2. You actually meant that I haven't considered this view from other perspectives but my own. And, hold on tight.....you're wrong.

I can't speak on Ben's behalf but the complete straw man of an argument you've so nobly taken on is utter bullshit. What the fuck does affirmative action have to do with the douchebag Hoya writer whose insensitivity is apparently the fault of black students for not befriending him? Nothing. It's a separate issue. And as I mentioned earlier, the comprehensive question of what constitutes racism is difficult to answer. But, and this would require that you actually go back and reread what I initially posted so I'm not holding my breath, condemning something for being racist is totally justified when it meets the basic and minimum definitions of racism.

And, in the Hoyas' articles' case, it completely did. It's obvious affirmative action makes you indignant. (I mean, there are tons of black kids at schools that got in because of affirmative action but there are NO white kids who got in because of legacy status, pricey SAT tutoring or parental leverage, right?! right?!) But, the kicker, for self-absorbed jackasses that seem to overrun this institution I love, is that it says so fucking much about how privileged you are as an individual when affirmative action is a pressing concern for you.

The relative prestige of private secondary institutions is not what compassionate, selfless activists refer to when speaking about racism. It's the injustice of our supposed justice system, it's about the fact that end drug users (read: Georgetown students) are never investigated or prosecuted for drug related crimes, only the minority dealers. It's about the fact that it's nigh on impossible to become a Senator unless you're white and born into wealth. It's about the fact that "professional" standards of conduct are determined by how white mean behave. It's about the fact that a transit officer can shoot and kill a man on a crowded platform in Oakland and be shielded by established authorities whose only purpose in existing is to prevent things like that from happening. So, excuse the sob stories, I mean I'm sure you would totally be in the Ivy League right now if not for the NAACP, right? Perspective is totally overrated anyway.

Which brings me to the most hilarious point in questions here. Again, it's really noble of you to see the beauty in different races. I bet you're also one of those Nice Guys (TM) who thinks a girl looks way more attractive in jeans and a t shirt, amirite?! Here's the thing, dumbass--fetishizing black racial identity is blatantly racist. Seeing another human being's racial identity and the formative place it has in personal development as a point of anthropological fascination is actually quite disgusting. Pretending like you're "down with it" is just embarrassing.

But you're totally an individual, right? You may be white and you might go to Georgetown but that doesn't mean you're a walking cliche, right?! I didn't make any assumptions about you. I made reasonable inferences about you, based namely on the fact that you're a student at Georgetown. The inference I made is that you're privileged. But, and here's the part where I need you to follow closely--being an undergraduate student at Georgetown University means that, *by definition*, you are privileged. You are going to graduate with a degree from a nationally recognized university. And, in the 21st century, that is still a base expectation for most white people and in many cases, the exception, for many black students.

I'm sorry you're a headcase that thinks black students are out to get you. Really, I am. I'm not black so I can't speak to whether there is some conspiracy but none of the well-adjusted, secure and confident white friends I knew and still know, from Georgetown, had that problem. Isolating the variables and accounting for differences in outcome, I can only reasonably conclude you are fucked up in the head.

Perspective. It's great.

What's that, you say? The Hoya is unfunny and racist?? STOP THE PRESSES

@Yes --

It's not a two way street. The Hoya -- fairly or unfairly -- has a perception of being inhospitable to minority students. Now, if the Hoya was just another publication like the Voice or the Independent, then so what. But the Hoya claims to be THE student newspaper.

If you want to be THE student newspaper, then you have to be empathetic to all the different communities that comprise Georgetown. If certain groups feel marginalized by the Hoya, then it's the Hoya's responsibility to find a solution -- not the marginalized group. Does this mean the Hoya has to do extra work -- yup, b/c that's your responsibility when you are THE campus newspaper. I don't think the Voice has to be receptive to right wing wackos and I don't think the Independent needs to care about the feelings of commie pinkos. But the Hoya does, b/c it is THE campus newspaper.

Your job as an editor is to put the best product out on campus. How can you think you are putting out a quality product when there is underrepresentation among big segments of the community? When a big chunk of people don't trust your coverage?

As for recruiting, I recruited a lot of students in my day and made a lot of people do things they didn't always want to do -- didn't matter what color they were, I wanted to empower people and get the best stuff in my paper or my page. I recruited Pat Hruby (who is white) into writing a weekly column -- he didn't always want to, but I knew the guy had talent (he now is a columnist for ESPN). Was it insulting that I banged down on Pat's door to write a column? Was it unfair that I gave him an opportunity that I didn't give everyone else? Please, I wanted to Pat on my page every week b/c I knew he was good for 16 inches of interesting copy.

It wasn't insulting when I recruited Jeff Goldstein, or Matt Reilein or Jeff DeMartino or Jim Di Liberto -- they may all be white men who had an interest in newspapers but they can all tell you how I personally harassed them to join the Hoya. I wanted them b/c I saw they had a passion and I wanted them on my team.

I regret that I didn't recruit as many women or minorities as I should have -- in hindsight that was a mistake. Perhaps they would have been harder to find or would have needed more coaxing. But for the Hoya to have the attitude that they are so high and mighty that people should just come to them, with no effort on the part of the Hoya. Please.

Saying that you can't view anything through any prism but your own is like saying that Atticus Finch's suggestion that we "walk a mile in somebody else's shoes" is impossible because we don't own their shoes, or their feet for that matter. For someone who claims to have passed through the "what is truth" phase, you're being awfully reductionist here. Obviously I'm aware that nobody is capable of wholly separating themselves from themselves and possessing someone else's mind; my point is that you have to try to understand others' perspective and think about what it's like to be a white person in a more meaningful way than "there are lots of white congressmen" in order to truly have perspective. It's hilarious how condescending you're being by calling me "kiddo" and suggesting I'm spinning around in an epistemological self-referential cycle when you're the one who's bringing the discussion to that level by pretending that I mean something by "seeing through a prism" other than "trying to have empathy and understand where someone's coming from". If you really think it's impossible to even try to see something from someone else's perspective, that's just sad.

More hypocrisy from you: claiming that I'm reducing Ben's arguments to straw men, followed by you immediately reducing MY arguments to straw men, like claiming that my point is that "calling someone racist is racist." That's a gross oversimplification (or "straw man") of what I wrote. My essential point, that nobody has yet addressed, is below:

Treating all white people as if they are the same (as others have done above; "White people tend to be most CEO's and most congressmen and most supreme court justices etc etc etc") is essentially racist. My point is that just because I'm white doesn't mean I have it any better off than any black, on an individual basis. There are plenty of black people who are wealthier than I am. There are plenty of black people who are better connected than I am. There are plenty of impoverished white kids (more, in terms of gross number, than black kids) who don't have equal opportunity and are victims of our socioeconomic system. Saying that "white people don't have a right to complain about anything because most congressmen and justices are white" is a complete non sequitur!

THAT is my basic point. Many of the arguments that've been made here have insisted on lumping together all whites in a way I find offensive. I'm very sorry, but we don't suffer according to our race, we suffer as individuals. A poor, rural white male is more a victim of The System than a rich, urban black female. Ellie Gunderson should prove to you that environment matters more than innate race. Her accent proves that! What I object to is the claim of many on this page that not only "can" you not view something through someone else's prism, but that you shouldn't even bother to.

Regarding your comment on "the minimum definition of racism," again you continue to ignore the problematizing of racism and claim that it is simple to identify "minimum requirements." What are these minimum requirements? Please, post them coherently as you see them so that I can show you that they aren't that simple.

To address another point you make, I'm not in favor of legacy admittance, the SAT (which, I admit, is not race-blind for several reasons), or any of the other things you lump together with affirmative action. In fact, I can tell you that there is a stigma on campus for being a legacy kid. If your dad and your dad's dad went to Georgetown, the first thing anybody thinks is "Wow, he only got in because of his family." If you come from a really wealthy family, people think "Oh, he had all the advantages of going to a prep school and having his dad donate money etc etc." As someone who went to public school, didn't have an SAT tutor, didn't have any legacy status, didn't have anything going for me but my own achievements, I resent the fact that you assume that I'm anti-affirmative action and pro-legacy. You had no evidence of that before throwing that in my face.

Next, I think we have found some common ground. You say that the concerns of those who oppose racism are not about affirmative action hurting a few privileged white kids, but are about our justice system, barriers to blacks entering politics, etc. I COMPLETELY AGREE. I have always supported every non-racist effort to level the playing field between blacks, whites, and every other group. My belief that the criminal justice system is seriously screwed up and negatively affects blacks is one of my main reasons for opposing capital punishment and our so-called "war on drugs." You and I really agree on this.

But that's exactly my point: THOSE things are what we should be concerned about, not the Hoya's April Fool's edition -- which was insensitive and foolish, though I wouldn't call it racist. I'll join you on the barricades fighting for a fairer criminal justice system, fighting against this country's drug policy, fighting against predatory practices by military recruiters who target young blacks. But you have crossed a line when you try to compare the April Fool's edition to THOSE THINGS.

I don't get what you said about me "fetishizing attributes" as being racist. First of all, if you've ever read Toni Morrison you'd know that that's about half of what she does, fetishizing the sexual features of different races. Second of all, I never said that I do that, only that that's what the Hoya was doing. Third of all, I completely disagree with you that it's racist to talk about the differences in appearance between blacks and whites. I don't hear black people complaining about the "big black dick" stereotype. I didn't hear any black people objecting to Afro-Man's "Colt 45" or to Sir Mix-a-lot's "Baby Got Back." I don't hear black people in an uproar when they talk about white women. Whether it's Kanye West or "Undercover Brother" or Chris Rock or whoever else, blacks are constantly fetishizing white women (and Latina women and Asian women). So I just plain disagree with you that that behavior is racist. The "milk and coco puffs" thing was an unfortunate choice of words but it's a.) a JOKE, and clearly meant ironically (which, to translate for you means that the authors actually meant the opposite of what they were saying) and b.) no different than so much of what I hear in black culture.

About your statement that going to Georgetown means I'm privileged, I guess that means that every black person at Georgetown no longer has a right to complain about anything, either, right? If the fact that I'm a white person going to Georgetown undoes any other concerns or challenges that I have had and means that I don't have a right to complain about ANYTHING, the same goes for blacks. Please, your own hypocrisy is startling.

Also, I never said that blacks are out to get me. I have always been a supporter of equal rights for everyone (as a Jew, let me tell you, I come from the most persecuted minority group in the history of the world so I understand that "injustice anywhere is a threat to injustice everywhere" -- that's an MLK quote for ya ;)). My only point has been that black people, on this website, have been much more racist than white people. Some of them refuse to admit that plenty of white people face hardships, too. Some of them insist on lumping all white people together. Tell me, why are you spending so much effort trying to discredit me when my only point is that you shouldn't treat white people as if they're one monolithic, ultra-privileged group who are all out to get black people? And that sometimes black people are counter-productive? I started writing in objection to the anti-white rhetoric I've been reading, not to attack blacks.

And lastly, I have to say I'm disappointed at how condescending your response to me was. I'm saddened that you choose not to understand my arguments and that your only conclusion is that I must be "fucked up in the head." That makes me really, really sad, because it forces me to accept that you may be beyond reaching. You clearly aren't interested in having your assumptions challenged, which is why you are constantly mischaracterizing and simplifying what I write so that you can more easily reject and ignore it. I have to hope that people like you are a dying breed, because otherwise a real dialogue will remain impossible because as soon as someone wants to start a debate they'll be called "kiddo," "racist," and "fucked up in the head."

Sorry, I meant "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Sorry about that misquote.

Emma,

The NBC blog that mentioned this controversy actually seemed to say that it didn't think there was anything racist about the Hoya's joke issue. They joke that the Hoya should've known this would happen, but say that it's so over-the-top that it's clearly a joke and "kind of works."

I couldn't find any articles about this in the Washington Times. Can you post a link to that?

The City Paper, similarly, never said that the Hoya was racist in what it said, just that "April Fool's issues are more trouble than they're worth."

So far no news sources have called the Hoya racist, and in fact no news sources have covered this except in their online blogs.

“I was saying that you're not even trying to see what it's like to be a white person.”

This is just precious. Do you think it’s even *possible* for someone to go to this school full-time and NOT have some idea what it’s like to be a white person, even if that person isn’t white? The answer is no.

“You argument that it is "more easy to get a college degree if you are a white person" is also irrelevant, because my point is that generalizations like that keep you from having empathy for the individuals those generalizations don't describe.

You should really look up the meaning of the word “irrelevant.” That’s not the first time you’ve misused it. Do you mean it’s invalid? They’re not synonyms.

It’s not a generalization. It’s recognition of social trends that are sustained by really durable institutions. It’s also not an oversimplification. Yeah, obviously what enables someone to get a college degree depends on the person but, on a societal level, when a significantly higher percentage of one racial group and/or social class achieves that distinction you have one of two conclusions you can draw. 1. The non-achieving racial and/or social group is inherently less intelligent or 2. There is no viable equality of opportunity. I choose to go with option two.

Does this cover every single fucking permutation of the intersections of race, class and gender?! NO. OMG, DO I LOSE?! But does it analyze and present the issue in a manner such that public policy can effectively remedy it? YES! I WIN!
Unlike the physical sciences, exceptions don’t disprove trends in the social sciences. That’s why they’re trends, not laws.

“Yes, on average that statement is true, but there are lots of white kids who have a harder time getting into college than lots of black kids. I'm not talking about affirmative action, I'm talking about a rich suburban black kid versus a poor rural white kid. Again, my point is that you are lumping all whites and all blacks together and ignoring the fact that there are tens of millions of exceptions that prove the rule. Why can't you accept this simple fact? (And yes, it is a fact.)

No. See above.

"Nolo contendere about my "fetishizing" double-standard argument? I'll take that as a win."

HUZZAH! We should evaluate complex, dynamic and sociologically-informed phenomena like race relations in the same way we do high-school debate tournaments!! Take as many wins off dropped arguments as you need to feel better, buddy.

“And lastly, nowhere did I try to get into a pissing contest about which minority group is most persecuted, I'm offended you even suggested that. All I said is that I have a sensitivity to persecution because of my background. The fact that I come from the most persecuted group in history (which was not meant as a controversial assertion) had nothing to do with my argument, it's completely tangential to the point I *was* making, but way to go yet again taking a minor tangential detail, making an inference and using that to discredit a position I never even tried to take.”

The same person who thinks labeling Jewish people the most persecuted group in history, as though suffering among different groups on such a scale is even a coherent, measurable thing, also seems to believe that a student newspaper printing a series of flagrantly racist and misogynistic articles is somehow a lynchpin for discussing issues that are related *only* insofar as they deal with race. Shocking. And totally, totally problemitizing. Unless you’re mildly aware of a world outside this campus. Then, you're all good.

“With your sign-off you're just proving my point that dialogue with the likes of you is impossible, because you admit that you don't care what others think. “

I don’t care what dumb, misinformed people think. There’s a difference.

“You're just interested in ad hominem attacks, repeating the same tired talking points, and telling people that you don't care enough about the dialogue to constructively and politely explain why you disagree.”

When you consistently cite your personal experiences as the basis for your beliefs, ad hominem attacks are actually quite justified. Maybe the reason why you don’t hear members of the black community discuss the issues you keep accusing them of ignoring is because you’re a self-absorbed know-it-all student at Georgetown. Think about it.

Also, while this has been fun (but not real) you should really be doing your reading. I expect nothing less than the same poorly strung together thoughts you’ve managed thus far, but I do think I am going to stop caring……………now.

Given by what many in this thread (i.e. "Re:" and "Jan")have written, I am honestly thinking that I might have accidentally attended a university rife with KKK members. who are you people?!?

I think it is just HILARIOUS that you are so afraid to be called racist, yet every thing that has come out of your mouths eeks of racism.

You think that a "white student alliance", a white supremacy group is OK, or even a good thing?!? Don't you see that you DONT NEED an alliance because EVERY INSTITUTION OF POWER IS YOUR ALLIANCE!!!!

Your white privilege means you have never had to have an alliance, and groups like BSA and NAACP exist because racist people (like you) have made it necessary to create alternative networks in order to survive with dignity and strive for racial justice.

I am white, and thoroughly ashamed of people like you who claim that criticism of white supremacy is the same thing as racism. Especially abhored by claims that racism doesn't exist (i.e. last year's Hoya edition written by a white man in response to Jena 6)!!

Maybe if you took off your rosy glasses of white-privilege, you might realize that you (white person)are where you are today because racism has benefited you.

So, to you who deny racism is an issue for people of color:

Get a real education. Apparently you haven't been able do it at Georgetown - you are influenced by too many people who think like you.

"Is this the KKK?",

I don't think anybody here has said that racism is not an issue for black people. Can you quote someone saying that?

I also don't think that anybody has said that white people don't benefit from the fact that they're white.

I think what "Re: Stop Diluting" is saying is that just because you're white doesn't mean that you're on easy street. Assuming that all white people have it made is just ignorant. Yes, theoretically a poor white trash white person benefits from being white, but they still have it worse in some ways than a rich black person. Is that what you're saying, "Re: Stop Diluting"?

"KKK", I think you just haven't been reading that closely.

"I think what "Re: Stop Diluting" is saying is that just because you're white doesn't mean that you're on easy street. Assuming that all white people have it made is just ignorant."

Maybe you can or someone else can explain where anyone has said this?

From the grave, I just want to say I didn't find this funny. And I'm the original chocolate-vanilla swirl, you ofays...

I understand, Jan. But humor--good fun--must be tempered with common sense AND seasoned with talent. The April Fools issue had neither.
So please kind some perspective, Jan. (Even tho I've endured "crackers," myself.) I'm glad you are learning something at the school I helped build figuratively, and my brothers and sisters, from slaves to laborers post Civil War, built literally.

Yours in Christ,

Pat Healy, SJ
(deceased)

It has also come to my attention that one Sir Jonathan Swift has recently written a completely bigoted and unacceptable commentary on baby-eating! I refer, dear sirs and madams, to one "A MODEST PROPOSAL"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

We must stand up, as a human race, against such abominable ideas, and show that we as a community will not tolerate baby-eating! We do not respect the publishing of such maltreatment of the infantile by their more fully-developed oppressors!

I suggest we track down this one "Jonathan Swift" and have a sit in inside of his writing quarters!

Tally ho, good chaps! Onward, against infant-prejudice! FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

Outraged --

The narrative here is starting to make sense, thanks. And you write well BTW, even if I think the implicit comparison you made between Swift and the Hoya was unfounded (Swift's satire was brilliant, the Hoya's was not).

I would say your defense of the piece (not that you agree with it, but your intellectual defense of it) reveals how ingrown racial insensitivity is in our society, even today. If the reason to take on the SCU is b/c they are promoting a "radical" version of diversity (remember satire is to be used against those you disagree with) then the "Westen" character should promote some kind of radical, absurd scheme like Swift does in Modest. There is nothing radical or absurd about interracial relationships in 2009 (I hope). Likewise, many of the comments in these threads in defending the Hoya have bemoaned the self-segregation of the Georgetown community. To want to see an increase in interracial dating (and one would assume sexual activity) on campus does not make one someone who "would fetishize interracial appearance, and more broadly, interracial relations." Rather, it makes someone who wants to see some tangible progress in race relations in the 21st century.

Since the idea of interracial sex is not in and of itself absurd (as opposed to the idea of eating Irish Children), it's hard to see the language describing interracial sex as being funny. Nor is it easy to see the humor in the final line about biracial children getting into college.

The idea also that the minority community is some kind of impossibly insular community to interact with (or attract Hoya writers from) is similarly absurd -- a recent president of the NAACP is a white female and Kesten leads the largest, most diverse groups on campus. So while it might be hard, it certainly does not appear to be impossible.

Maybe it would have worked as satire if "Westen" was promoting some convoluted hookup quota system (BIG MAYBE). Then the joke would be, there goes SCU trying to overly socially engineer every aspect of campus life, not interracial dating in and of itself.

John Keenan,

I think the absurdity threshold is met because while interracial dating in and of itself is in no way absurd, the idea of a commission promoting more interracial dating as a policy is pretty funny. What the Hoya was making fun of here was the habit of the SCU and other groups of pushing incredibly invasive and over-the-top proposals.

More background on the SCU: Their policy proposals included adding two social-justice oriented classes to the core curriculum to promote empathy and racial understanding, and mandating a 25% quota for minority students on each freshman dorm floor. (Since freshman assignments are random, I'm not sure this would have had an impact.) Last year the LGBTQ commission, which was sort of last year's SCU, discussed proposals including giving preferential housing treatment to students who attend LGBTQ sensitivity training. There's been a pretty strong student backlash, in the Student Senate and elsewhere, centered around the belief that the SCU and other groups are being invasive.

Many have seen the SCU and similar groups as trying to force racial harmony down people's throats with inappropriate proposals that go too far in stamping their agenda on people's private and academic lives. So, while interracial dating is nothing to laugh about, the article served to parody how the SCU, according to some, wants to run your life and tell you who to date.

Lastly, I thank you for using the term "racial insensitivity." I completely agree that some amount of racial insensitivity is present in the Hoya. I also don't think it's particularly funny, unless you know Brian Kesten personally pretty well (which I do, that wonderful white Jew from Montgomery County, MD whose parents work at Georgetown... I love the kid, I do, but I have to admit he's ripe for parody).

But, does this racial insensitivity cross the line into racism? I don't think so. If anyone who was offended is still reading this, can you please post a critical reading of the April Fool's edition that makes the argument for why it's racist and not just stupidly insensitive?

Well considering Brian is not Jewish I feel that you might want to retract your statement about knowing him well.

As a response to your other comments...it is racist when you say that the only places you see black people are in the sociology classes and the basketball court. It is racist when you say that the homeless people add "color" and diversity to the campus. It is racist when you insinuate that the people only get in to Georgetown because of the fact that they are minorities....would you like me to continue?

Also I think the thing that you don't understand about diversity proposals is that their goal in to bring people out of their comfort zone so that they have the opportunity to really learn from each other. Most of the white people at this school do not choose to step out of that comfort zone willingly and so these proposals are brought up as incentives and methods of getting people from different communities together that important dialogue can happen. On the other hand minority groups are constantly forces to step outside of their comfort zone, whether it be in their classes, in their jobs, or groups that are considered majority groups. This all comes with the territory of being a minority. However, considering that a decade or two whites will no longer be the majority, this is something that whites need to do the really become effective members of our society. You learn more in college from your interactions and relationships than in many cases your classes so all these proposals are trying to do is to make sure that this education that you receive here is a holistic one...since when did that become a bad thing?

Brian is, in fact, a non-practicing Jew. Check your facts, go ask him -- maybe YOU'RE the one who doesn't know him well.

Regarding your other comments, the Hoya nowhere said that "homeless people add color" or that "the only place we see black people are on the bball court" or that "black people only get into college because of their race." Nowhere did they say those things.

Those are only racist statements if they're meant in earnest. For example, if I sarcastically say "wow, you're smart," I'm not actually saying that you're smart. If I say, "The following doesn't make any sense at all and is totally 100% wrong: black people only get into college because of their race. That's a stupid statement, of course it's not true!" then my statement isn't racist. Quoting it out of context, of course, you could say that I said "black people only get into college because of their race," but that wouldn't be accurately quoting what I said. Similarly, unless the people at the Hoya actually mean to say that homeless people add color and that black people only get into college because of their race (which isn't even what they fake-said -- they just said it's easier) then they're not being any more racist than black people who throw the term "nigga" around.

You may not think the jokes are funny (I think they're insensitive), but that doesn't change the fact that you'd have to be an idiot not to understand that the Hoya meant them as jokes. The definition of irony is "saying one thing but meaning the opposite." If they ironically say "homeless people add color," then by definition they're trying to undermine that statement. That's the definition of irony. Of course you may think it's in poor taste, but it's not racist.

You have to want to see racism in the Hoya's April Fool's edition in order to actually see it.

I'm all for diversity programs, I wholeheartedly support them. You and I will disagree about some specific ones, like linking LGBTQ training to your housing pick, or adding an entire course requirement around racial sensitivity. I completely understand and support the goal, I just don't think tha those are good ways to achieve them and I think they're over the top to boot. Please, don't claim that just because I disagree with some diversity proposals that I am against their basic goal or don't understand what they're for.

It is never the burden of the underrepresented to educate the majority. Let's please remove responsibility from "the blacks," NAACP, BSA, the Fire, and every other place where more than one black student may gather. No one can help what they didn't know when they got to Georgetown--EVERYONE is responsible for what they learn when they get there. If deconstructing racism is not one of them: shame on Georgetown, and shame on its students.

There is no need for a White Students Association because Georgetown effectively functions as one. White students at Georgetown (or any group that functions as a majority anywhere) generally don't see themselves as a race--they see their culutral norms and behaviors as the default and everyone else as a variation of that. If you need an example, please see all the discussions above regarding the need for students of color to join "mainstream" groups instead of those based on identity.

Further, please remember that while obviously the BSA and NAACP are attended largely by students of color, they are NOT closed to white students--last year the president of the NAACP was a white female, and as an undergraduate at Georgetown, I -- a white student-- attended BSA meetings regularly. Both organizations are focused on strengthening the undergraduate experience at GU for students of color (and certainly, for all of us)--it's important that students of ALL races participate meaningfully in that discussion. I especially encourage students who don't understand why students of color "just don't get involved" in The Hoya, NSO, or The Corp to attend--it is an invaluable experience to realize the impact of standing as the stark minority. That being said, let me be clear: I am NOT encouraing crashing a BSA meeting to "see what the black students think"-- I'm encouraing students to actively seek out relationships they might not have made otherwise, to listen and discuss this and other important campus issues in inclusive environments, and to stop residing in the passivity of current campus racial politics.

Former Hoya Staffer,

Georgetown teaches us many methods of critical analysis, and it also teaches us that definitions like "racism" are much more problematic than pop culture would like us to admit.

For that reason, I don't see what's wrong with asking someone who finds the Hoya racist to provide examples for discussion, which so far has not cogently happened. The only examples provided (misquotations of the Hoya) have been deconstructed and shown to probably not be racist. At any rate, I find it troubling that you're trying to clamp down on a discussion of the issue itself by saying that Georgetown should teach us not to have to discuss whether or not something is racist and to accept it as given. I'm not blindly denying that the Hoya could be racist, and I admit that it was at minimum very racially insensitive, I'm just trying to understand what it is, specifically, that people are calling "racist."

MLK would also heavily disagree with your statement that it is "never the burden of the underrepresented to educate the majority." He saw that as very much their burden -- fair or not -- and wrote/spoke about it often. At any rate, we're not talking about the minority educating the majority, we're talking about a discussion of whether or not the Hoya's joke issue actually was racist.

I agree with everything else you wrote, though.

Insensitivity Makes April Fools' Issue a Bad Joke

By Linksys RangePlus WRT110 Wireless Router

I am a proud member of the wireless router community at Georgetown. In the past, I appreciated The Hoya’s coverage of important issues ranging from campus security to the endowment. Even coverage of technology-related issues has improved. However, the March 31 joke issue of The Hoya was tasteless, disturbing and, above all, not funny.

It appears that The Hoya finds it much easier to target marginalized and minority groups as the butts of incredibly negative jokes, but has difficulty going as hard on itself and majority groups. There is no excuse for the stereotypes, discrimination and mockery that the distasteful humor was based on. This issue was an insult to any sane person’s sensibilities, but was particularly offensive to black, Asian, Latino, Muslim, Jewish and LGBTQ students, as well as to wireless routers.

By all means, I appreciate the sarcastic elements of The Hoya that were used to point out the lack of wireless connectivity at Georgetown. But other parts of the issue were disturbing — they were not funny and moderately imbecilic. The article that is igniting the most outrage within the router community is “UIS Promises: GU Wireless by Year 2030” (The Hoya, March 31, 2009, A1). At no point is it ever appropriate to refer to wireless networks as “so hard to fucking install.” Worse, the article makes it seem as if wireless connectivity isn’t worthwhile, by sarcastically quoting Georgetown President John J. DeGioia as saying that “Georgetown students will be happy to see that their tuition money is finally going toward something worthwhile.”

I understand that Tuesday’s issue was an April Fools’ issue, but this article reads like a dial-up advertisement. The piece, credited to a “Me Diadapter,” was an affront to problems that have yet to be taken seriously on this campus and the people that work to affect positive change at Georgetown. The article is indicative of the attitude that some Georgetown students have toward wireless connectivity: one of apathy and, more disturbingly, of mockery and futility. The obvious mockery of media adapters and the many devices which make up the Student Commission for Connectivity shows a disregard for technology initiatives. What one thinks of SCC or media adapters is irrelevant. Some respect should be shown to someone who is working tirelessly for wi-fi.

Even more offensive is the joking attitude to technology taken in this piece, particularly with regards to anti-virus software, the Office Depot Six and standards of usefulness that code wireless internet as not as fast as directly-connected internet. Assumptions already abound that wireless routers are only at Georgetown and similarly prestigious schools only to look good in admissions pamphlets — why add to this nonsensical perception?

The issue’s mockery of Georgetown’s own Office Depot Six controversy in 2007 shows that The Hoya has not learned from the qualms raised by Georgetown UIS and the router community at that time. Normative standards of connectivity negatively affect the perception and self-esteem of wireless routers. Routers which have only two-hundred square feet of range are often socialized to think that their wired peers are more attractive than them because of their ability to connect to any computer, given a long enough cord. This article insinuated and perpetuated this connectivist and archaic sentiment.

The issue may have been somewhat humorous if The Hoya had actually acknowledged and given due coverage to connectivity issues on campus and beyond — but it doesn’t. So the humor doesn’t work, in this instance.

The mocking attitude toward technology is also reflected in the mock news brief “Student Accidentally Listens to Georgetown Radio” (The Hoya, March 31, 2009, A4). Many technological devices at this school feel uncomfortable and unwelcome at Georgetown not only because it is a predominantly technologically sluggish institution, but also because there is a tangible disregard of the devices’ wants or needs, mostly reflected by our peers.

I appeal to all Georgetown students to take these sentiments at face value. From my experiences, I can say with complete confidence that the majority of technological devices at this university do not feel like they are part of the Georgetown community. It is manifested in academic life, social life and the under-representation of actually functional technology in “mainstream” organizations and extracurricular activities. The distasteful humor of The Hoya’s April Fools’ issue does nothing to reconcile these issues in the least. Now we know that instead of ignoring the elephant in the room, it will not only be acknowledged — but also made fun of.

Linksys RangePlus WRT110 Wireless Router is a wireless router in the Intercultural Center and media relations officer for the Georgetown chapter of the NAAWR.

Irony [ahy-ruh-nee] (noun): the ad at the top of my screen instructs invites me to "find out who's waiting to meet you at Interracial Romance."

Curious:

Have you actually read the whole issue...it does in fact say word for word that these "social burdens{aka homeless people) add color and diversity to Georgetown" (G8-9).

Disturbed...
The issue is a joke. Therefore quoting things from it out of context like they are meant to be serious is not only a waste of time, but also disingenuous.

And from what I've seen, I agree with "curious." It seems to me that regarding this issue properly as a joke would deal with (almost all the) questions of racism. The Hoya obviously didn't literally mean the statements that were wrote in it. The Hoya was trying to satirize the people who actually think that way by making absurd statements- like about the milk and cocoa puffs. If you are legitimately offended by that, first of all I'm sorry, and second of all, I think you need to step back and realize how absolutely, utterly ridiculous that statement is, and therefore could not have been meant seriously.

And then you should do that for the rest of the issue that you were offended by.

I think that the biggest lesson is that The Hoya should leave comedy to the Georgetown Heckler. The annual April Fools' issue is always terribly base and disgusting. Try to stick to journalism. It is not as if the Washington Post and New York Times print joke issues. The real joke is The Hoya itself.

As for Curious' comment about Brian, he was raised Jewish but he saved as is currently a Christian. Please do not insult me.

I quoted the paper because Curious claimed that these things were not said.

This was not satire...and if that is what they were trying to do they failed miserably...what was the point they were trying to prove with the Interracial article or the article about Cuddler or the graph about mothers on campus...

This was not satire...just a crude attempt to make fun of people through crude jokes...

Disturbed,

You claim that I insulted you by pointing out that there's something you didn't know about Brian... which is exactly what you did first. Also, Brian may have been 'saved' (a much more bigoted than anything in the Hoya because it implies that followers of non-evangelical Christian religion are unsaved and doomed), but you can't stop being a Jew. Once you're a Jew, you're always a Jew. The Jewish people are a race, and Judaism is their religion. Jewishness doesn't work like Christianity; it's got a genetic basis in addition to its religious one, and is passed down from mother to son. So again, my statement is true, Brian is Jewish. (Similar to how a lapsed Catholic is still, according to the rules of the Church, a Catholic. Or in the same way that Elvis was a Jew because his mother was Jewish. Or in the same way that Obama is black because he's got African ancestry.) Mind, I think this is an entirely irrelevant conversation, but since you are trying to use it to discredit me I feel compelled to respond.

Also, Disturbed, Thick Skinned had it right. The whole point of my post, which it sounds like you never read, was that simply writing "homeless people add color" doesn't mean that that's what you're actually SAYING. Again, I provide the example of sarcasm by saying "Wow, you're soooo smart." I may have literally said "you are so smart," but what I actually said, what I meant, was "You're not smart." That's irony. You have to reeeally want to see racism in the Hoya to take everything that they wrote in an issue that specifically calls itself the JOKE ISSUE, and assume that everything in it is serious. Again, I agree it's insensitive, but it is NOT racist. Your use of that term cheapens real incidents of racism.

Regarding this:

"This was not satire...and if that is what they were trying to do they failed miserably..."

I agree that it failed miserably, but it WAS a sorry attempt at satire. Let's look at the facts: It was published on April Fool's Day; it is called "the Joke Issue"; it has a disclaimer on the front page saying "this is a joke issue"; the Hoya staff has repeatedly said that it was a joke issue and that they were trying for satire; the articles in it are clearly not meant to be factual (Dr. DeGioia getting an erection from Pamela Anderson to try to raise Georgetown's "endow"ment? JTIII to coach the women's bball team?). Put 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 together. You tell me, is it likely that the authors really meant what they were saying?

Do you really think that the students at the Hoya actually believe everything in the joke issue literally? Do you really think they believe that "homeless people add color"? If you do, then you also think that they believe that white people should have babies with black people to make their babies more attractive. Not only would this, if anything, be pro-black, but is that really what you're claiming they believe? To quote Seth Meyers, "Really?"

I know lots of people in the Hoya (just like I know lots of people in NAACP and I know most of the people in SCU), and I can tell you that they were trying (and failed miserably) to be funny.

To answer your question of "what were they trying to say with the interracial dating article," the simple answer has already been said a few times over in these comments by other people. The Hoya was making fun of the SCU's recommendations, which some consider invasive, and poking fun at Brian Kesten, who over his time here has, according to some, gotten more and more radical (or at least more open about it). The interracial dating thing was joking that if the SCU is going to tell us where we can live freshman year and what classes we can take, next they're going to be telling us who to date. THAT is the joke. I agree, not all that well delivered, but I think that reading, which has been shared by multiple people in these comments, is completely plausible. I find it much more plausible than the argument that the Hoya is filled with people who actually believe that (to take it literally) we should combine milk and cocoa puffs to create babies. Which argument do YOU think sounds more likely?

So again, please provide a real argument for why the Hoya is racist, and not just racially insensitive and unfunny (two claims with which I agree).

Has ANYONE here heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution?

A newspaper has the right to publish whatever variety of garbage it wants to--racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semetic, you name it. (If the Hoya had published slanderous articles, obscenity, or hate speech that would necessarily lead to immanent lawless action (the Brandenburg v. Ohio), it would be another story.)

You have every right not to read the newspaper.

Welcome to America.

Thank you for the law lesson, professor. No one is suggesting they weren't allowed to print it. However, you may have forgotten that the 1st amendment also allows people to be outraged at what a newspaper chooses to print and to express that outrage using the very same right to free speech in the 1st amendment. Funny how that works, right? So, please, get off your high legal horse.

Thank you for the law lesson, professor. No one is suggesting they weren't allowed to print it. However, you may have forgotten that the 1st amendment also allows people to be outraged at what a newspaper chooses to print and to express that outrage using the very same right to free speech in the 1st amendment. Funny how that works, right? So, please, get off your high legal horse.

Funniest issue of the Hoya by far, thank god I got a copy before every one of you self righteous assholes got rid of them the day after. I never discuss my views on stuff like this because there is absolutely no point to describing basic shit to people like you, all of you, so I just laugh. I laugh at how hilarious those articles were, I laugh at how offensive they were, I laugh at all the energy everyone wastes on all of this shit when in fact none of you are ever going to get anywhere by flapping your gums. You are not going to change a god damn thing.

I'm guessing the Hoya is disabled comments for the time being, seeing as this conversation has largely died out?

Apparently not. My mistake.

After looking over the April Fools' edition once again, it has struck me that perhaps the most troublesome pieces in it are the two “chill the fuck out” introductions (”In This Issue,” page 1 and “No Offense,” page 2). The tone of these is insulting and didactic - basically telling the reader that if they find anything in the paper offensive, they have a stick/rod/baton up their ass. The result is that anyone who was offended by the content is now doubly angry - for the original offense, and for the subsequent insult.

If the Hoya wants to publish satire - whether viciously racist (ie. “We Need More Interracial Loving”) or quite genuinely clever (ie. “Working for Corp Classified as Alternative Lifestyle) - they should at least have the guts to do so without preceding it with childish “disclaimers” that only serve to increase the divide between the paper and a large portion of its readership.

To those who are offended:

If we agree that ethnicity & race, class, gender, sexual behavior & sexual identity, religion, politics, violence, and physical appearance (and all of the social constructs relating thereto) have no place in the world of humor, then what is left? What, precisely, is a legitimate subject of humor and mockery? Should humor consist only of making puns?

Let me put it another way. To all those who are offended, I challenge you to post a comment here that is both (a) very humorous and (b) not offensive in any way to anyone.

Yours very sincerely,
Mrs. Wallis W. Simpson

To all of you who found these obviously satirical pieces offensive:

Please find the nearest, tallest building and jump the hell off. You'd be giving the world a break--there's a surplus of pompous, humorless idiots blathering their opinions.

To those who don't take offense: Debating fools is a waste of time. Just direct these idiots to the nearest tall building.