<p>It doesn’t change the fact that spray-painting a combined racial and homophobic slur on the side of a dormitory is hate speech or the fact that there is much more to be gleaned from the community’s reaction than the act itself…but, according to the news story below, the student who confessed to this act “is an African American and queer.”</p>
<p>[Slanderous</a> Graffiti Enrages Students, Draws Attention of Administration](<a href=“http://www.oberlinreview.org/article/slanderous-graffiti-enrages-students-draws-attenti/]Slanderous”>Slanderous Graffiti Enrages Students, Draws Attention of Administration – The Oberlin Review)</p>
<p>One, uh, Obie girl, College senior Kyla Moore, who helped organize the silent protest, claims that the graffiti underscores, “a larger context of daily infractions going on,” and that “it becomes part of a chorus of things going on.” She contends that, “regardless of who put it up there,” the graffiti is a way “for the campus to see the physical representation of things that have been going on amorphously for my entire four years here.” I don’t know about that. That argument’s sort of like a guy who killed his parents pleading for leniency because he’s an orphan. The only thing that she seems to be able to reference in terms of actions by others is something from within the community itself apparently designed to create outrage and sympathy. Frankly, it’s far more damaging because credibility is important and now there’s this contrived act of crying “Wolf!” that’s out there.</p>
<p>If it’s true about this student, I think it does matter who put the graffiti up there on Dascomb Hall and that the bigger story should be the hoax and that betrayal – or else the community is creating an incentive for people to proliferate these acts of self-inflicted hate that then discredit and minimalize the actual transgressions that should be brought to light and addressed. But how can those truly important things happen (a) if the campus is focused on bigger, more attention-getting actions, and (b) the credibility of those who complain about legitimate transgressions is immediately assailed because of so-called “allies” who either paint graffiti or happily gloss over the fact that it’s a hoax because it’s still a useful metaphor?</p>
<p>This isn’t the first time this sort of contrived outrage has been used at Oberlin to call attention to one person’s (perhaps shared) discontent over events and feelings that are far less spectacular and far less dramatic than the hoax that’s perpetrated. Apparently this happened with an Asian student who spray-painted a threatening ethnic message on the Memorial Arch, a controversial monument dedicated to the memory of members of the Oberlin community (missionaries and family members) who died in the Boxer Rebellion. That created several weeks’ of outrage before an Asian student came forward to confess that it was a cry for attention to point out the racism that she thought was inherent in the monument in that the monument ignores the thousands upon thousands of Chinese who were raped and/or killed…while glorifying the accomplishments of a handful of white people. That’s not to say that her points were not valid. Unfortunately, she created all sorts of other debates that detracted from her intended point (example: one feminist position was dismay that she stayed anonymous for so long because that ran contrary to their agenda point in which women should be empowered to act boldly, which is also a point with some validity that was now competing for attention with the protestor’s thesis) and, as you see from that example, forced people to retreat from the important point. Worse than the lost message is the discrediting this act serves on others who follow with valid grievances. Whatever short-term positive impact may be gained, the long-term effect inevitably runs counter to the hoaxster’s intent.</p>
<p>Integrity and credibility and trust are important. Indeed, where a constructive dialogue is sought, they are essential. They are difficult badges to earn. And earning them back is even more difficult – just ask Greg Mortenson. The discussion on race should continue and never stop. There’s never cause to rest on one’s laurels as **macmill **asserts. But the big transgression here deserves considerable attention because s/he has betrayed a community trust and inflicted grave wounds on that important conversation by putting her allies, the people she was presumably trying to assist, in that unfortunate hole of trying to regain those badges.</p>