More racism at the UCs

From former FMF intern and blogger Kat

When I received an email from the UC regents and president Yudolf declaring that the racist events happening on UCSD campus were deplorable, I have to admit I was somewhat surprised. There is some controversy regarding the way he is running the UCs according to a business model rather than as an educational institution and the effect this has both quality of student education and the recent fee hikes. My skepticism came from wondering if this expression of outrage was true, or if it had more to do with concern that if the statement was not made, there would be a yet another backlash against administrators. I was also skeptical about whether or not speaking out against the acts via email would correspond to REAL action.

Several events have occurred since that have highlighted the importance of speaking out against racism and homophobia (and every other ism out there, though what has happened in this last week refers specifically to those isms.)

Friday, February 26th: the LGBTQ resource center at UC Davis was vandalized, with derogatory language written all over the door (full article available HERE)

Monday, March 1: A drawing of a noose was found in one of the UC Santa Cruz bathrooms on the door, with the words "San Diego" and "lynch" on either side of the door (full article available HERE)

Monday March 1: A pillowcase fashioned like a KKK hood was found on a statue on top of the school library (full article available HERE)

The campus situation is very tense. In conversations I've had with other students, I hear people express that they are afraid; and with lynch symbols, KKK symbols, and in some cases death threats posted on doors of individual students--they are absolutely justified in feeling this fear.

If we do not rebuke the racist acts, racists feel more empowered, more emboldened to commit more racist acts; this is something that we've already seen occur, as a "ghetto" party, already racist in nature, has somehow escalated to a KKK hat and outright death threats. It is our duty to use our freedom of speech to contradict the racism, to not allow it to stand unopposed in the public sphere.

Enacting policies to counter these acts is absolutely necessary--but so is the public denouncement of these acts as racist so as to dissuade others from pursuing the same racist forms of action.

This Thursday March 4 is the UC-wide day of action to protest the fee hikes--you can bet we'll be protesting the recent hateful actions as well.

photo credit: * Michael * at flickr.com

What we can learn from UCSD

This is a great post from Kat.

The events that have taken place at UC San Diego have been atrocious. Kat’s first hand account of what has happened is a real privilege for us to read. It is important as feminists that we continue to understand why these events happen, and what we can do to prevent them. This is not just an isolated incident, but evidence of oppression still common to women and people of color today.

In the words of our UCSD's VOX & Choices affiliate leaders:
"This is flat-out intimidation and HATE at work.

While this situation targets black students, it is NOT just a black issue. The undercurrents of violence are ones that can be felt by ALL PEOPLE.

Ending one oppression means ending ALL oppressions. The battles against sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, ableism, and so on, cannot be fought individually. They are all intrinsically connected, all a part of the same struggle."

In 1997, civil rights and women's rights leaders lost the battle to save affirmative action in California and Proposition 209 was passed. Since then the state's public university system has become more and more intolerant and hostile towards people of color and women.
Racism still persists. The hateful actions taken by students at UCSD highlight the structural racism in the UC system. On top of harvesting an environment where these events can happen, the campus also lacks a diverse student population. According to the Examiner, San Diego enrolled the fewest number black freshmen last fall and black students make up about 1.6% of the student body, which is comprised of about 23,000 students. These numbers are what need to change in order for these events to stop happening.

Losing Affirmative Action was devastating to California and its future, our future. We need to hold public institutions accountable for creating equal opportunity and ensuring a diverse, safe, vibrant campus communities. If UCSD -- and all UC's -- made serious commitments to creating rich diverse learning environments, these events could have been avoided.

Students at UCSD, women's rights and civil rights student groups and a broad coalition of other student groups, have engineered walk-outs, sit-ins, and other actions to condemn these actions and demand real systemic change to create long-term diversity plans and guarantee an end to the hostile environment at UCSD and campuses across the state.

Student leaders statewide are taking solidarity actions -- walk-outs and demonstrations -- with our sisters and brothers at UCSD to demand a statewide inventory of campus diversity -- or more importantly, a lack thereof in student, staff, and faculty populations and policies.

As a student not to far from UCSD this behavior worries me…I will continue to follow what is happening and stay in contact with Kat and affiliates.

You can read UCSD’s black student unions statement and list of demands here.

"Post-Racial" America and "ghetto" parties

Guest post from former intern and blogger Kat

This morning I received an email saying that on the 7th floor of Geisel Library--the school library for UCSD--a noose was found with the intent to terrorize African-American students.

The story does not begin here; this is only the latest development in a series of blatantly racist speech acts committed against the African American student body on campus.

Back to the beginning.

Last Friday, February 19th, my morning started with a text message calling for action that read, "EMERGENCY!!! Everyone meet at Library walk at 9am! Wear BLACK! ENOUGH is ENOUGH! WAKE UP AND GO! WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER! Spread this now!! Details later."

I'm a super-senior at UCSD. Because of the recent anti-UC fee hikes protests I thought this probably had something to do with that. (The University of California recently increased tuition 32% essentially forcing students from low-income families to withdraw from school.) But because of university-wide emails I'd gotten recently about a "Compton cookout" party that asked people to come dressed in stereotypical “black attire”-- I wasn’t entirely sure. Compton is a low income largely (minority---African American or Latino might be a better word choice but I’m not familiar with the city or area in San Diego, I had thought that the students were imitating the city of Compton in south central Los Angeles) neighborhood of San Diego.

The protest was not about fee hikes. According to NBC News, the invitation encouraged women to come dressed as “ghetto chicks,” which the invite explained, “Ghetto chicks usually have gold teeth, start fights and drama, and wear cheap clothes." All students were asked to dress "ghetto"

(I found out later that day that the party invitation also said something to the effect that it was "being held in honor of black history month." “In honor of black history month” Are you kidding me??)

There is so much wrong with that party it's hard to know where to start--but its pretty easy to start with IT IS RACIST. It's racist because it reifies a homogenized, stereotypical image of African Americans as poor and "gangster". It’s racist because it blatantly mocks the communal, historical struggle against racism as well as the lives that were lost and destroyed in the efforts to overcome this struggle. It refuses to acknowledge individual personalities; the dreams that each individual has for their future and for the future of their children to be treated as equals in US society. The party was SEXIST because it (explain reason here, something similar to how you explained why its racist in your opinion) The event was CLASSIST because it makes fun of poverty without taking into account how people actually struggle. (It feeds into that "protestant work ethic" ideology that people are poor because they don't work when poor people REALLY DO work so hard to get by, much harder than members of the privileged classes.)

I wish I had taken notes or at least pictures--but more importantly, as I'm looking through the news coverage of the event, I'm becoming angry because much of what the news is saying is JUST. PLAIN. WRONG. Luckily someone posted a series of youtube videos that document what happpened.

The first thing I noticed when I arrived on campus was that the group of students gathered together on Library Walk were mostly African American or Chican@/Latin@. The reason why this stuck out is because the UCSD student body is mostly White or Asian--less than 2% of the student body is African American, while approximately 10% of the student body is Chican@/Latin@ (according to the statistics I found for 2002--couldn't find anything more recent.) Due to this population imbalance, the campus most of the time seems like one big white place--thus, seeing so many people of color together was very much out of the norm. (It really shouldn't be. At the same time, it was really depressing that there weren't more White or Asian people there--injustice to some is an injustice to all.)

There were also camera teams; everyone in the group was dressed in black; they chanted "Real Pain! Real Action!" Some were holding each other, hugging while tears streamed down their faces.

The Chancellor and Vice Chancellor stood in front of the crowd, faces somber. With news cameras in their faces, they began speaking with many of us in the back wondering what was being said because they were so quiet. Quietly addressing the news cameras rather than directing their comments to the student present made me wonder about the power dimensions shown in this instance. Not only were the voices "legitimated" by news cameras recording the voices of white, upper class women who represented the official USCD stance, but because we couldn't hear what they were saying, we couldn't shout out disapproval or approval. It reminded me of anthropological erasure: sometimes (in classical anthropology especially) ethnographers don't pay attention to certain voices within a society, and in writing up an account of events, they eventually produce a skewed articulation of what happened.

What happened at this time was that African-American students told the chancellor about a video that appeared the previous night around 11pm on SRTV--UCSD's Student-Run Television station--in which members of the Koala (a student-run "newspaper" on campus) defended the Compton cookout. SRTV doesn't keep tapes of live shows--so there is, as of yet, no video that shows what happened but students who were watching SRTV Thursday night saw students say "you N*** should be grateful, this party was held in your honor." (I found out later that day that the party invitation also said something to the effect that it was "being held in honor of black history month." “In honor of black history month” are you kidding me??)

The Associated Students president pulled the plug on the show, and a note was found in the station that read, "Compton Lynching." That is not only really racist, but it’s a death threat. Students expressed to the Chancellor concern about their safety and a desire to find a copy of the video so as to identify the perpetrators to take punitive actions against them. Students also rightly expressed frustration that their student fees were helping fund and support the Koala, a student-run organization.

The Chancellor hedged on getting a room to show the video--so students chanted, "multipurpose room!"

While the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor ran off to supply a room, an African-American freshman woman took up the bullhorn and told the crowd how in the few months that she'd been at UCSD, she'd already had her car broken into, racist statements made against her--and if this was what happened on campus in just a few months, how could she encourage her little brother to go to college?

After about 20 minutes of waiting, we (were marched by the Chancellor?) marched across library walk, some people with drums and a conch shell to attract attention--we seemed to be led to a secluded area of campus that most students don’t know about. It seemed as though the direction was intentional to keep the grievances quiet so that other people wouldn't find out about what had happened.

We moved again, this time to the fourth floor of the Main food area on campus--Price Center. It was surprising that the room could fit everyone; but at the same time depressing that not more students had come to speak out against the racism that happened.

The Black Student Union presented a list of demands for the University, including: the suspension of the students involved in the racist acts; a permanent task force dedicated to hiring African American faculty and engaging in more outreach efforts to help African-American students in the community; that the University make efforts to increase the amount of African American undergraduate and graduate students as well as PhD candidates; return of the Kumeyaay tribe's burial lands; that the University staff the currently vacant position of coordinator of the African-American studies program; that starting 2011, freshman applications be regarded holistically rather than comprehensively--among other demands.

There was also an awkward moment when the Vice Chancellor tried to rally the students to cheer with her; but it seemed fake and paternalistic. All morning the Vice Chancellor had made statements opposing student’s views.

After all the demands had been read and summarily checked off (by who?) (some were checked off as, "yes," others, "maybe,") time was set aside so that students could gather together as a community, support each other, and talk about what had happened,

To see the events for yourself, check out the YouTube playlist (Unfortunately I don't know who took the videos and can't give them credit).

Developments:

• Someone tried having a "compton cookout part deux", to justify the racism using the argument that if, as a society, people are racist against everyone, one racist party shouldn't matter. (Obviously this is a problematic argument.)
• On the Black Student Union (BSU) facebook group asking that students support the BSU's demands, many students express outrage that black students DARE make such demands. In regards to the "safe spaces" demand, one person wrote something akin to "They should have safe spaces, that way we know where they are; that's what they told us in training" (i.e. If they have a safe space, they could all be gathered together and it would be easier to kill them all.)
• Wednesday, February 24th: a teach-in/teach out, which many students who attended said was very successful, apart from one teacher's speech that called for everyone to "support their brothers" (Really, was it that hard to add the words, "and sisters"?)
  
• Today, Friday February 26, all UCSD students received an email saying that there was a noose found hanging on the 7th floor of the school library. This is a state of emergency.
  

photo credit: Claudio.Núñez on flickr.com

How cute!... or not

This is an ad for Quartz counter tops that was posted on Sociological Images, a website that critically analyzes images that we are exposed to but don't necessarily realize have deeper meanings. This magazine ad for instance, just shows a young girl trying on her mother's high heels in the bathroom. Underneath it states, "Who knew the little moments would quietly steal the show. Harmonizing Beautifully With Life". The ad seems harmless until you then think about what the ad is implying:

1. By trying on heels, the girl is trying to be like her mother or more adult. Heels are something a woman wears when she wants to be attractive or sexy. By trying on the heels, the girl is sexualizing herself.

2. The girl is dressed in white and everything surrounding her is pristine. The heels are in the only thing in the picture that are black. While represents innocence while black represents corruption. In this case, the corruption is the preemptive maturation of the girl.

3. The girl is white which is significant because once again whiteness = purity. If it was to be a black girl in the ad, it would come across completely differently because black women are normally associated with promiscuousness and impurity. If a black girl were to be trying on heels, people would automatically associate the image with looseness opposed to the white girl trying on heels which is associated with young innocence.

4. The shoes are extremely expensive Christian Louboutin heels as identified by the signature red sole. By revealing the brand, the company is making a class statement because only someone of a higher class would be able to afford these shoes and therefore this countertop.

It is hard to believe so much can be said in such a simple one page ad, but the point of marketing is to send a subconscious message to viewers.

Black History Month soliloquy

It's February, a busy time. This month brings us Groundhog Day, Valentine's Day, Chinese New Year, and President's Day. It's also Black History Month, a time to celebrate the many activists, artists, and leaders who fought deeply entrenched discrimination and won rights and liberties for people of color.

A couple years ago, my campus feminist group had dozens of programs planned throughout the year, but nothing for Black History Month. That bothered me, so I decided I could plan activities for the month as an ally. We assembled a panel on women in the civil rights movement, worked with the campus radio station to dedicate a segment to women of color artists, assembled a poster display on Shirley Chisholm, and put table tents in the dining hall spotlighting Carol Mosely-Braun, Dorothy Dandridge, and singer Marian Anderson.

It wasn't flashy, but I was still glad to contribute to Women's Initiative, build ties with campus groups and offices, and raise a little awareness on campus about the accomplishments of American women who had broken racial barriers and risen to the top of their fields. Working with WI gave me an opportunity to give back to the campus community, and gave me small but significant responsibilities I wouldn't have gotten at my job or from my classes. It was my first taste of feminist leadership, and I got hooked.

The point of this was to say Black History Month is great, and feminists around the country can and are contributing to BHM celebrations, whatever their backgrounds. And of course, it's awesome to celebrate women's accomplishments all year long.

Every day is a good day to celebrate groundbreaking leaders like Claudette Colvin, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Shirley Chisholm. We are deeply indebted to these brave women, who protested unjust laws and policies, and slung sledgehammers into political glass ceilings. Every day is a good day to celebrate the authors and poets and singers and academics and artists who dreamed of a better society and stood up for their beliefs through their work and their activism.

When you're organizing around progressive issues, it is easy to feel isolated and ignored, and sometimes we get discouraged. This is what the status quo wants. Black History Month and the programs celebrating our rich American history remind us we are not alone, but instead stand on the shoulders of generations of movers and shakers.

We'd love to hear how your feminist groups are commemorating Black History Month! If you want to bounce ideas or brag about your group, comment below or drop us a line at campusteam@feminist.org :D

This article was featured in our February 2010 monthly Choices eZine. Sign up for our alerts to stay up-to-date with the latest feminist news and to receive the monthly eZine.

But What Will I Do Without My Daily Dose of Racist Biggotry?

Oh, if only this sign were true and CNN talk show host Lou Dobbs was like an imaginary friend (and like most imaginary friends, we could have given up on his existence when we started pre-school and started making real friends.)

Unfortunately, that reality will never be, but we have a close second for Utopia: Yesterday, Lou Dobbs abruptly announced that, starting today, he will no longer be hosting Lou Dobbs Tonight, vaguely citing the pursuit of "new opportunities" as his rational.

So, as an early holiday gift to all those feminists out there, grab some popcorn, sit back and watch the premature resignation happen all over again.








Yes, I understand that this level of schadenfreude may be a hit to my karma, but I do not stand alone in thinking Dobbs' tactlessness on "illegal" (always Mexican) immigrants shouldn't land him a place in equality's Hall of Fame.

Just ask Geraldo Rivera, who described Dobbs to the Huffington Post as "a man who was an accomplished journalist, and who left to start his own venture in the digital media… and then came back to CNN, and nobody was watching his program. He discovered that one of the ways he could get people to watch was to make of the image of a young Latino trying to get into this country a profoundly negative icon. Lou Dobbs is almost single-handedly responsible for creating, for being the architect of the young-Latino-as-scapegoat for everything that ails this country."

Anyone who is feeling abandoned by Dobbs and looking for counseling, leave a comment. I'm sure FMLAs will start a support group to get through this loss.

Bardwell, I'm Calling Your Bluff

As I am sure many of you have heard by now, an interracial couple in Louisiana was denied a marriage license. Apparently, for justice of the peace Keith Bardwell, the ruling in Loving v. Virginia means nothing.

Outside of how disturbing it is to think this level of racism still exists today, what is even more upsetting is the ‘reasoning’ behind this decision.

Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says that he is not racist and in facts performs many ceremonies for black couples. However, he claims to have denied Beth Humphrey and Terrence McCay the right to marry for “the children’s sake.”

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves…In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer." Bardwell asserts that offspring of interracial relationships are neither accepted by the black community nor the white community and thus are faced with an identity crisis and lack of belonging (the situation Bardwell, apparently, is working to avoid.)

First of all, what child doesn’t experience some sort of identity crisis along the way? Whether it is about your racial identity, your sexual identity, political identity, or anything else, most people experience some sort of identity crisis during their lifetime; it’s how we shape and discover who we are.

Secondly, you may have "piles" of black friends, but that doesn't mean you're not racist. Bardwell's actions in the case are clearly racially motivated; he is denying this couple the right to marry because of their race. It's a little concerning that Bardwell doesn't see how racist this actually is.

Finally, and most importantly, here is my question to Mr. Bardwell: Do you do background checks on all of the couples you marry? If his goal is to prevent children from growing up in difficult situations, then perhaps he should consider this option in order to be most effective.

There are far worse situations children can be in other than growing up with interracial parents and with a ‘mixed’ racial identity. What about growing up in an abusive household? Does Bardwell screen for that? Does he ask about family history with alcoholism or drug abuse? And how about finances, does he double check to make sure the couple will be able to afford a family?

The reason there is not background check is because it's not the state's business! People will marry who they want to marry, whether Keith Bardwell feels their relationship is appropriate or not. I don't know where he found the audacity to think he had more power than the Supreme Court to deny this couple a marriage license, or why he thought that his opinion actually mattered when it came to the raising of their children—potential children, if and when they choose to have them (which I’m sure he would have something to say about if he could)—but he got it wrong; it's comforting knowing that people like Bardwell can't get away with actions like these. Bardwell may choose to live forty years in the past, but the majority of this nation does not.

Melanie Oudin becomes "America's Sweetheart"

The popularity of Melanie Oudin, a 17 year old professional tennis player from Marietta, GA, has skyrocketed this past week. Oudin, ranked 70th in the world, shocked US Open fans with her consecutive victories over Russian all-stars Elena Dementieva (4), Maria Sharapova (29), and Nadia Petrova (13). She will play Caroline Wozniacki (9) of Denmark tonight.

As a tennis fan, I have been totally energized by Oudin's performance. It's always exciting to see an underdog win and it has been a long time since a young American woman made an impact in a sport that has lately been dominated by Russians and Eastern Europeans (alas, tennis gets me a bit nationalist). I love Venus and Serena Williams, but they are often the only American women in the top 50 and they are aging (by tennis standards, that is). I am happy to see a new generation emerge. In fact, Oudin is the youngest woman to make it to the US Open quarterfinals since Serena Williams made it in 1999.

The media coverage of Oudin quickly began to irk me, however, especially when compared to the general attitude of sports reporters towards Venus and Serena Williams. With constant allusions to being "All-American" and "America's Sweetheart," Oudin is no longer just praised for being a remarkable athlete but for being blonde, small, and cute. Intern Katy at Jezebel has been doing a wonderful job unpacking this phenomenom, covering the story with an initial post and following up today with a more in-depth analysis of the race and class issues at play.

I urge you to read both pieces, as Katy and the Jezebel commenters hit the nail right on the head: Oudin is being celebrated as "America's sweetheart" because she is young, blonde, and WHITE. The Williams sisters rose to prominence with a remarkable story: raised in a low income neighborhood in Compton, CA, they became not only the most successful black female tennis players in history, but two of the most success female players ever. Yet despite (or because of) their success, they are often accused of being arrogant, selfish, petty, emotional, or any number of unflattering adjectives. They have never been referred to as sweethearts. The comparison between their experience and that of Oudin this past week is pretty telling.

I will still root for Oudin this week and relish her victories. Maybe we will even see a Melanie Oudin-Serena Williams final at the Open next week. That would be truly All-American.

Image via mrlaugh