We are sorry as well, Will Ehrenfeld, that the existence of the Korean Students Association (KSA) and its organization of a cultural show gave one of our classmates the perfect opportunity to allegedly carry out a racist act. This connects to the piece you wrote on April 7 entitled "Cliques" about your discomfort with groups that don't quite fit into the image of Tufts you have in mind. Let's think for a moment about what the Tufts community named in your "Stuff Tufts People Like" article looks like. For instance, in "Cliques" you stress that Tufts students want to belong to an oppressed group. Doesn't this formulation exclude those of us who are already members of oppressed groups? Or does it say something even more off base -- that we, minorities, especially covet our social distinction? Well, we think the Tufts you envision is the Tufts you experience as a straight-identified white male from Connecticut with self-identified mainstream, liberal political views.
You're probably right, Will. If the freshman hadn't come across this group of students, he probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to behave in such a completely harmful and embarrassing fashion. Does that mean we should, as you suggest, scrutinize the members of KSA for not being "average mainstream" people and gathering together in a space where they may encounter a drunk person? Is that the answer? Ban all non-average mainstream people from gathering so people are not given an opportunity to carry out racism? We don't think that really solves the problem, Will.
You may also be correct to say that had he encountered the Tufts Dance Collective, the outcome and campus reaction would have been different. But, as you warn in your article, we should avoid speculating as to what might have been "if only..." We should stick to what we know, what has been reported in our impartial Daily: an allegedly drunken freshman encountered a group of Korean and Korean-American students practicing for their cultural show. An altercation ensued, and according to multiple witnesses, the allegedly drunken student used the term "gay" in a derogatory way, initiated physical violence, spat on members of KSA, and topped it all off with death threats, the hotly contested racial slurs, and other racially charged comments.
You contest that this may not be a bias incident. Again, you are right. This incident would much more aptly be referred to as a hate crime. You can look to Chapter 265: Section 39 of the General Laws of Massachusetts to confirm this. You suggest that because you can assume this student didn't plan well in advance on ending his night with a racist attack against students, it doesn't count. The law begs to differ. Premeditation, according to the law, can occur in an instant. And to clarify, nowhere in Massachusetts law does it say the perpetrator must come away unscathed in order for the law to apply and his/her actions to be labeled assault, as self-defense is protected.
Trying to downplay events like this serves to perpetuate the idea that racism is over and therefore maintains racism as the status quo. Racism is defined by Michael Omi and Howard Winant in their groundbreaking racial theory text "Racial Formation in the United States" (1996) as "social projects which create or reproduce structures of domination based on essentialist categories of race." So, a racist event would be one that employs racial stereotypes, or essentialist views about race (for instance that all perceived Asians living in the United States are immigrants from China) to demean targets while promoting the assailant's racial superiority. We agree on many points, Will, another being that we should take note of the violent aspect of this event. In fact, when racism is manifested in a violent way, it should be the most alarming -- so alarming, in fact, that it necessitates a campus-wide response.
Finally, you suggest that we should not rush to call for this student's expulsion. As far as we know (and we are familiar with the goals of the rally to be held on Thursday), there have been no calls for his expulsion on the part of the organizers of the rally and the Facebook.com group. We have no knowledge of other groups that may exist that have this goal in mind. We feel that this instance reflects greater problems at Tufts that extend far beyond this one student. Your article is a perfect example of the problems we are referring to: We as a campus insist on ignoring racism and other forms of oppression. We downplay racial violence as something other than what it is in order to avoid undertaking the difficult task of transforming Tufts into a safe learning environment for all of its students. And yes, Will, this is a challenge that exists outside of the Tufts bubble.
We know that racism and heterosexism are all too common in the "real world," but we reject the notion that just because something is common, we shouldn't "get up in arms over" it. In fact, precisely because racism and heterosexism are all too common and people like you insist on downplaying their very harmful manifestations, we absolutely must get all up in arms. To desire to disassociate oneself from what has happened is, by way of distance, tacitly to condone biased violence, which then breeds an environment that fosters the potential for more unchecked violence against marginalized groups.
--
Sofia Nelson is a senior majoring in political science. Sara Robbins is a senior majoring in English.
Congratulations on once more becoming a central focus in an event that has nothing to do with you or the minority group you represent.
Does it worry you that your attention-grabbing might sometimes work against the causes you purportedly champion?A wise person knows to pick their fights, Sofia. Words you might do well to take to heart.
with the Daily's decision to publish Will's past articles.
But, please do not attribute emotions, such as hate, to me when I have never expressed them myself.
freshman who I believe committed this racist act. I do hate racism,
and I condemn any events and actions that I feel perpetuate or express
racism. That is what I set out to do in this op-ed, and that is what I
attempted to do at the rally.Sometimes I am overwhelmed with anger and I speak from that place.
When I do so I acknowledge that, as I did at the rally. I have a
right to be angry and to express that anger. Obviously I put my
opinion out there knowing that it will be attacked and scrutinized.
their identity. In fact I hope that both Will and I can be given a
space in which our identities are empowered. Our use of Will's
identity in the op-ed, which he has offered up to us in his columns,
was only to shed some light on the lens through which Will experiences
Tufts, just as my identity sheds a light on the lens through which I
experience Tufts. This is not to say one's lens invalidates one's
thoughts or prevents one from speaking on certain issues.I know straight, white men who discuss racism and heterosexism
thoughtfully and constructively because they attempt to understand
these systems beyond their personal experience. They chose to engage
in this process because they are invested in social justice and in
being allies against racism and heterosexism. I know many people from
minority backgrounds who I feel do not discuss racism and heterosexism
thoughtfully or constructively. Our contention in this article is that
Will did not attempt to approach a discussion of this hate crime in a
thoughtful and constructive manner. Obviously, many people disagree
with that contention.
I don't know about you, but my vision of a hate crim e doesn't involve the assailant wanting to engage in performance art with the people he hates. The freshman only seems to develop animosity toward the KSA members after they turn him away. Given his inebriated state, this turn of events strikes me as a Kindergarden-esque, “Well fine then, I don't care if you don't want to let me play with you. You're fat and smelly and dumb and your game is stupid anyway.” In other words, this suggests something quite different than a racially motivated attack. This motive rivals a racially-based one in its immaturity, but his agitation really seems to stem primarily from an interaction he had with these particular people rather than his hatred of them due to a group to which they belong.This isn't to say the latter motive wasn't present at all.. it very well could have been. But we don't know (and we definitely don't know for sure) the extent to which it reigned over the freshman's actions. It's irresponsible and a rush to judgment to presume him guilty without compelling evidence.Now, the threats and verbal attacks the Freshman engaged in were clearly reprehensible and embodied biases, and he should be punished for them as anyone else who makes such threats and attacks should. Furthermore, the goal of stopping such verbal threats and derision is a goal very worthy of rallying around, and I completely support the rally to the extent that it is about that.But the outrage directed at *this* incident is more than a bit inflated given the events that happened here and the (unfortunately) relative high frequency at which similar verbal assaults deriding minority groups are hurled on this campus and in the world. This has the end result of focusing the collective ire of many students who've experienced many bias incidents upon a single student who perhaps committed one of them. The freshman doesn't deserve to be a placeholder for everyone who's ever committed a bias incident at Tufts.Have a rally most definitely, but you squander the opportunity by making it in response to one incident and one perpetrator rather than about the larger and all-too-frequently occurring issue. I'm sure some realize the larger purpose, but the outrage about this incident detracts from a what otherwise is a very constructive statement of unity against bias.
If a man and a woman are fighting and the man calls the woman a “b -- -h”. Does that make the altercation a "hate crim e"? Maybe. There isn't enough information. It depends upon if the assault occurred *because* the woman was a woman. If the woman is a random person the man doesn't know, there's a decent chance the answer is yes. If the man is a boyfriend who just found out he was cheated on, there's a pretty good chance the answer is no -- saying “b- --h” doesn't change his motive. In either case, if the woman started the fight and the man only began to fight back, it becomes much harder to argue that it's a hate c rime.
----
Ok, so I've tried to delay posting on this topic because I know it's going to completely derail my attempts to get work done, but who really goes to school to learn these days anyway? I want to say before anything else how much respect I have for Will and Devin for standing up and saying what they said. I sincerely hope I don't detract from the atmosphere of mutual respect that Devin does such a good job of summoning in his comments.Of all the comments I've read on this issue, the one that has left me most dumbfounded is “I think it's time for a race requirement in peace and justice studies.” There are no words. I sincerely hope that no one from outside Tufts – especially if they are a potential student – deems that line of thinking to be representative of the Tufts student body. People need to check the extent to which their emotions are overriding reason.More to the point though, I think understandably, people so are emotionally invested – if not in this issue particularly, then in their set of experiences with bias – that they see this as a black and white issue when no altercation really is. Will, as he made as clear as possible while remaining within the Daily's space restrictions, is not attempting to pretend the events that occurred are acceptable. I'm disappointed that people can't stand a levelheaded discussion about Will's attempts to make sense of the incident when the fact of the matter is no one really understands how and why these events happened (or even precisely what events happened).I'm not suggesting Will couldn't have made his points less controversially; there are definitely a few areas where I don't think what me meant was said as artfully as it should have been. I think a particularly large part of the problem here is that he seems chained to the name of his column. This column is clearly about idiosyncrasies in how the Tufts population reacts to certain events and interacts with one another. To suggest that people “enjoy” reacting in this way is (unintentionally, I believe) offensive and moreover, not actually the point that Will spends his column proving.