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

"White Flour?!"

The Anti-Racist Action (ARA) Network got creative and staged a counter-protest dressed as clowns at an attempted VNN Vanguard Nazi/ KKK rally in Nashville, Tennessee. To the each of the Nazi's shouts of "White Power!", the ARA had crafted witty and hilarious responses like, "White Flour?" and then they ran around in circles, throwing flour and spelling out "WHITE FLOUR" with signs. To another "White Power!" chant, the women ARA members said "oooh, now we understand... Wife Power!" and then they hoisted up the male particpants into their arms and ran around singing out, "WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER!"

What makes this demonstration so awesome, is ARA peacefully made their opponents look so foolish. Their humor and creativity makes the hate and discrimination intended to be perpetuated by the Nazi/KKK rally seem so futile and pathetic. Innovative thinking and planning keeps activist demonstrations and counter demonstrations fresh and exciting. The ARA brought a new perspective to old racist ideologies and they received more web and media attention than most Nazi/KKK rallies ever do.

Photo courtesy of flickr.com/mel b.

Sotomayor, Suits, Sexism

Cross-posted with Princeton University's Equal Writes blog.

I can't wait for the day when an accomplished, powerful woman appears is made completely irrelevant by the contents of her brain and of her résumé.

I thus find Robin Givhan's article in the Washington Post yesterday - in which she accused the SCOTUS nominee of exhibiting little obvious femininity and of dressing "in the manner of a 1980s lady power broker" - disturbing. Not only do I believe Sotomayor's fashion choices were completely unobjectionable, I'm left wondering why Givhan even cares.

The justice's ensembles reflect her awareness of the climate of her hearing. Racism and sexism - from implications that her Puerto Rican heritage would hinder her ability to make decisions to bogus controversy over her involvement in the Belizean Grove - were obvious players in the questioning and surrounding media speculation, but Sotomayor remained calm and unshaken. Aware of our nation's ever-present biases against Latinos and against women (and especially against Latina women), she was careful not to let her demeanor or statements give the committee any reason to doubt her level-headedness or her "fidelity to the law."

It makes sense, then, that she chose "simple and bold" colors and "virtually no visible jewelry." I'm not alarmed that she wore "sheer black pantyhose." I understand why her nails gave "no hint of the cherry-red manicure that she has, on occasion, worn." In Givhan's own words, she was trying to "leave [her] gender at the door" and let the hearing focus on her accomplishments, knowledge, and experience.

If she "embraced that period in fashion when femininity had no place in the executive suite," as Givhan asserted, she was being careful not to offend the Senators of the Judiciary Committee (of which 17 out of the 19 members are white males) who haven't yet come to terms with the possibility of an assertive, intelligent Latina woman.

But aside from this article's unwarranted criticism of her fashion choices, I'm concerned with why the criticism is being doled out in the first place. Women should wear whatever they want, period. Whether or not Sotomayor chose to abide by what Givhan calls the "new gospel of women's power dressing" that encourages wearing accessories, ditching the pantyhose, and favoring sheath dresses over shoulder-padded suits, her fashion sense has nothing to do with how she's going to perform on the bench.

Givhan's article thus elevates a superficial and should-be unimportant issue: the clothes that a strong and intelligent woman just happens to be wearing.

Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/talkradionews.

"Bleu, Blanc, & Rouge” All Over

The cosmetic company L'Oreal was found guilty of racial discrimination by the The French High Court for its all-white recruitment policy for its Garnier shampoo sales teams. Earlier this year, L'Oreal was accused of whitening Beyonce Knowles' skin in an advertisement for the company's make-up line.
A fax sent out by a division (called Districom) of the recruitment agency Adecco that hired the models for the campaign read that the model should be BBR — “bleu, blanc, rouge” — which are the colors of the the French flag. This term is commonly used in the French modeling world as code for white French people born to white French parents, which would in effect exclude anyone of an ethnic minorities.

L'Oreal's defense in this case was that Garnier wanted to exclude ethnic minorities because consumers would be less likely to buy its shampoo from ethnic models in French shops.

The Paris Appeal Court fined both L'Oreal and Adecco £25,500 (or about $40,649) and ordered them to pay the same again to SOS Racisme, an anti-racist campaign group in France, who have been fighting the case for three years.

I am glad that people are starting to look at how companies market products, especially to women, in a new, more critically-aware way. I remember in 2006 when Italy banned models with a body mass index of less than 18 in response to their concern about the "too-thin" models that it was sending down the runways. Unfortunately, it took the death of Ana Carolina Reston, a Brazilian model, to get the attention of designers and people in the fashion world to take note.

As consumers and citizens, we have the power to fight back against big companies who think that they can do whatever they want at the expense of whoever might get in their way. I applaud groups like SOS Racisme and the French government's action to not stand for such blatant discrimination. This case sends the message to other companies considering committing such overt acts of discrimination for business gains, that consumers do not find this acceptable.

When I see products or companies that market in a discriminatory way, I use my power as a consumer to not buy their products and to tell my friends about the way that a certain company markets. Consumerism has significant influence over big businesses and is a powerful way to make a statement.

If you see acts of discrimination in marketing, let these companies know that as a consumer, you will not support such companies who discriminate against anyone. This can be done through taking your business somewhere else, writing a letter directly to the company, or even just tell your friends about it.

A fellow FMF intern posted a similar article on discriminatory ad campaigns about Burger King. Check out her post to get more information about standing up against businesses that tote discriminatory messages.

Palmetto Pride?

I often struggle with my relationship with dear South Carolina. As both a University of South Carolina alumni and a feminist activist it was never hard to find reasons to fight in the Palmetto state. So it comes as no surprise to hear of former chairman of the state elections commission, Rusty DePass, racist comments about First Lady Michelle Obama.

Clearly in jest, you say? Silly me. How could I have missed the hilarity of your ignorance.

Sadly, comments much like the ones from ol' Rusty can easily be heard in South Carolina. There is so much to fight against that I am often torn between the need to stay and fight back and the refreshing sigh of relief to finally be in an area that "gets it."

There are many great organizations in South Carolina and across the South that are working to fight back against long standing hatred and ignorance. I can only hope that one day the Rusty Depasses of the world will be the exception and not the norm.