Recent Developments at WashU

Colleges and Universities A-Z Washington University in St. Louis
1

<p>As I'm sure that most current students are aware of what has transpired this past week, this post is aimed mainly at prospective students or alumni who may not be aware of the events that have taken place on campus.</p>

<p>Recently, a group of SAE pledges took one or more photographs of a group of black students without their consent. One of the pledges then proceeded to recite a song whose lyrics contained a derogatory term commonly used against black individuals, while still in the black students' presence. Initial reports on this incident sparked controversy among the WashU community, and unfortunately lead to the formation of what many students described as an environment in which they did not feel welcome. Students have admitted that after the incident, they have not felt safe as a member of this community. Obviously, it would not be fair to judge an entire student body on the isolated actions of a few individuals, but many feel as though this is indicative of a larger problem at WashU - although the administration prizes diversity, seemingly few steps have been taken to protect and foster said diversity.</p>

<p>The facebook event: "Dear Chancellor Wrighton: The Video Campaign" has been created to help those effected by both this and prior incidents share their personal experiences and advocate for change within the system. While I would like to assure every prospective student that such events will never manifest themselves at WashU ever again and that steps will be taken to ensure change, I simply cannot do that with certainty. As this is an important issue when determining where to spend some of the most important years of your lives, I felt the need to share both the incidents and their consequences of the past week.</p>

2

<p>This entire thing was completely blown out of proportion. StudLife’s fact-reporting on this incident was shameful and misleading. As later accounts of what actually happened were heard, it became clear that StudLife’s initial article was terrible journalism.</p>

<p>This all began when a student who was far too sensitive was offended by something completely innocuous–basically the word “■■■■■” completely in context with the rest of a rap song’s lyrics. The intentions of the SAE pledge may have been unclear at the time, but he apologized immediately and made it clear that his intentions were not malicious. One student’s misinterpretation of a situation caused all of this. Now people who read the StudLife article or heard about the incident from a friend of a friend and are too foolish to find a legitimate source are acting on an impulse and making a scene because they think there are intense racial issues at Wash U. It’s all a bunch of garbage. Shows how quickly things can get out of hand with bad reporting and social media.</p>

<p>Much more accurate article: [Washington</a> University?s SAE Suspended for Alleged Racial Slurs - BroBible.com](<a href=“http://www.brobible.com/college/article/washington-university-fraternity-racial-slurs]Washington”>http://www.brobible.com/college/article/washington-university-fraternity-racial-slurs)</p>

<p>People have really been going at it in the StudLife comments section. Everyone obviously is entitled to their own opinion and I have obviously already made mine known. I think this comment sums things up perfectly:</p>

<p>

</p>

3

<p>Who are you to say that those hurt by these individuals’ actions are far too sensitive? You don’t get to be the person who decides whether the actions were completely innocuous or not. Comments like this are part of the reason that some people on campus feel that their feelings and opinions are being silenced and are not welcome. You can’t just say that anyone who is offended must not know the real story, or that the pledge’s intentions weren’t malicious and therefore everything is completely ok. Fact is, people were hurt by this event, to the point where they don’t feel safe in this community.</p>

4

<p>I’m certainly not trying to be short-sighted or offend anyone, but I think if you read any of the articles or information that came to light after facts were checked and other people’s accounts were actually taken, you’ll see that the student clearly reacted to something he thought happened but did not. This incident literally had nothing at all to do with race. The student was offended by the word ■■■■■ in a rap song. In a day and age where that’s part of our popular culture, I’d say this student’s response was an ovarreaction. If it’s your peraonal belief that the word ■■■■■ is offensive and shouldn’t be used in rap, that’s one thing and you should protest it. Bit this whole thing targeted SAE unfairly and it’s just a continuation of Wash U smacking down Greek life, as they’ve had a habit of doing for quite a while now. StudLife should be ashamed for its terrible, sensationalist article. The comments on the updated article seem to indicate pretty clearly that people now realize this whole thing is a joke. Obviously if students are offended by these events, we as a community cannot just ignore them. But my point is that this whole thing started with a big misunderstanding disseminated by StudLife.</p>

5

<p>Well, as the situation did involve black students being offended at a racial slur, I do claim that it does have something to do with race. Just because a term in prevalent in today’s culture does not mean that it is not offensive. I see the term “■■■” everywhere, yet I am completely justified in taking offense from it, even if the user had no intentions of being homophobic. I agree that StudLife had some sensationalist journalism, which contributed to some of the initial rage, yet even now, when people know practically the whole story, plenty of individuals are still hurt.</p>

6

<p>I don’t see much of a connection between “■■■” and “■■■■■” in this case. “■■■” is not a word that is used in popular culture; in this country, it is only seen as a derogatory term. “■■■■■,” on the other hand, is commonly used by black people as a term of endearment and it has lost much of its racial meaning. Note that the word “■■■■■” has been made popular almost exclusively by black people. It’s used in TONS of rap songs, not to mention common speech for some people. The song was “B<em>tches Ain’t S</em>*t” by Dr. Dre (I’ll try not to swear because I know the mods don’t like it). If anything, the song should be 1000x more offensive to women than it should be to black people. The student in Bear’s Den heard the word “■■■■■” in a non-racially charged, rap lyric context and was offended. If the student is offended by the word “■■■■■” in general, he is within his rights to protest its use in American pop culture. It is totally inappropriate, however, to throw SAE under the bus for actions that were not malicious. If, on the other hand, the student was merely offended by the fact that a white student used the word, that is a ridiculous double-standard. Clearly, the way this incident is being handled is more incendiary and racially-charged than the incident itself.</p>

<p>For those who may be unfamiliar with what happened:</p>

<p>A bunch of black students were sitting at a table in the underclassmen dining hall, Bear’s Den. Some white students came over and seemed to take a picture of them when in fact they were taking a picture of a student behind the table where they were sitting. This can clearly be seen in the picture posted with the StudLife article. One or more of the black students were confused as to why they had just randomly had their picture taken. They confronted the white students, who explained that the focus of the picture was standing behind the black students.</p>

<p>Later, the same group of white students returned to that area of Bear’s Den and one of the SAE pledges performed a slam poetry rendition of the Dr. Dre song. It was not specifically addressed to the black students. Upon hearing the word “■■■■■,” one of the black students threw a bottle at the student who was rapping. One of the white students suggested the performance should stop and even came back later for a formal apology. The situation should have been defused then and there, right?</p>

<p>This was succeeded by a veritable s**t-storm in which a sensationalist StudLife article falsely claimed that a group of white students had used the N-word to target a group of black students. What a load of crap! Now, I don’t know how exactly the article came into being. In my opinion, if the black student had acted reasonably, he would have realized that the incident was not racially charged and SAE had no malicious intent. Did he, still offended, seek out StudLife personnel and tell them about the incident? Maybe, but my guess is that StudLife writers were on hand and witnessed the event. In any event, the article was published. The facts were poorly misrepresented and StudLife rushed to put out the article before anything could be defended or explained. StudLife deserves most, if not all of the blame for what happened. They try so hard to be relevant on campus but a lot of the stuff they publish is garbage.</p>

<p>So now we have SAE suspended for an incident that clearly did not mean to offend anyone. We have a big controversy among Wash U students about how prevalent race relations are on campus. And for the record, I think the scope of this controversy is exaggerated simply due to the attention this issue received online. I have not heard so much as a single person mention SAE or anything else about this incident. Maybe it’s a different atmosphere on the South 40, but I have not heard any discussions on campus. As I have said numerous times, this whole thing was completely blown out of proportion. StudLife should be ashamed for their terrible journalism and I honestly think it is entirely fair to say this student overreacted. I’m not saying he isn’t allowed to be offended by certain things, but there was clearly no malicious intent. I don’t know this student and I’m not him. Maybe after all was said and done, he wasn’t offended anymore and StudLife took over anyway. Or maybe he was still offended and StudLife reported on it because it seemed to be a racial issue. Regardless, whoever was responsible for writing/editing/publishing this article should be ashamed and, quite frankly, should be kicked out of StudLife. News of the incident made its way onto Huffington Post and other media outlets where it got widespread attention and brought unnecessary bad publicity to Wash U.</p>

<p>Now, if as a result of this incident people are suddenly coming out of the woodwork to say they’ve been hurt by hateful behavior on campus, that’s a significant issue and it’s certainly one that should be dealt with. But I think it’s unfair that this particular incident should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back because this incident was completely ridiculous.</p>

<p>For what it’s worth, I’m Jewish and I hear antisemitic remarks all the time (not on campus, but elsewhere). Sure they offend me, but I don’t feel the need to make a big deal about it. I think the comedian Steve Hughes said it pretty well: “Since when did sticks and stones may break my bones stop being relevant?” Sometimes things offend us but we’re all adults here. Just grow up and deal with it.</p>

7

<p>

I actually wouldn’t put the blame on StudLife. I put it on WashU Confessions (the facebook page) for running a confession that night claiming that a “hate crime” had occurred.</p>

<p>That’s what started the storm (because no one would talk about what happened and just called SAE a bunch of racists) - AND several students approached StudLife. IMO, the only inflammatory thing StudLife did was the title of the article, which they changed rather quickly to be more ‘an investigation is happening.’</p>

<p>If the administration had not jumped and sent that email, national news sites wouldn’t have been all over it. Long story short, Sharon Stahl should’ve held her tongue for a day.</p>

<p>Ryan - I get that some students were offended by the situation and I fully agree that a dialog should be opened up on campus (about not just racial issues, but gender & sexuality as well). However, you’ve got to admit that the reaction of several people/groups have been way over the top.</p>

<p>Ie, ABS had NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER essentially ordering the administration to “suspend both the primary students directly involved in the incident and those that specifically gave the directive for the task of concern.” That’s just ridiculous.</p>

<p>Edit/Clarification: the SL headline was “Developing story: Pledge incident targets black students” and they’ve let that stay on their facebook page. That’s just dumb. They changed it on their website - I don’t get why they left a factually incorrect headline on facebook. StudLife does have a handful of idiots on staff. (But several non-idiots too, to be fair)</p>

8

<p>I have read all the post. I live on the South40. I eat in the Bears Den all the time.
I think Ryan’s comment “to the point where they don’t feel safe in this community” is way out there. You can say that students were offended but there was no threat or danger here. Several of my close friends from my dorm are black and they feel this has been blown out of proportion. I asked them if they have ever felt unsafe on campus - all three said no.</p>

<p>Ryan, I know you have been a big WashU supporter on this site.</p>

9

<p>Pointless thread is pointless.</p>