University of Colorado-Boulder Tells Students Not To Dress As Cowboys, Indians, or Other “Offensive” Outfits

hallocostumes005Students at the University of Colorado at Boulder have been told this year that some standard costumes are now deemed “offensive” and are unacceptable. This includes costumes as cowboys, indians and anything involving a sombrero. Once again, I am concerned that these rules based on tolerance values are intruding into the speech rights of students and wrongly assumes that all such outfits are derogatory to a particular race or culture.

There is no explanation why dressing as a cowboy is now offensive. However, I also fail to see how the university can declare outfits as indians or including sombreros are now deemed to be offensive. Both are part of a shared history in this country. I have had kids who dressed as little indians for Halloween. My kids love the Indian culture and wanted to engage in harmless play acting.

Why not prohibit Viking outfits as offensive to those of Norse bloodlines or animal outfits as objectifying wild animals for sensitive environmentalists?

Also declared unacceptable are any outfits depicting “white trash” or “over-sexualized” outfits like dressing as a geisha. There remains a part of university faculties and student bodies who insist on shaping conduct and choices of students according to their notion of ideal behavior. It becomes a slippery slope as any objection from any student or professor is deemed sufficient to show it is indeed offensive. The student code includes this provision:

Abusive Conduct. Unwelcome conduct by an individual(s) that is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, hostile or offensive. The determination of whether an environment is “hostile” must be based on all of the circumstances. These circumstances could include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, and whether it is threatening or humiliating. Simple teasing, offhand comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to abusive conduct.

If someone now holds a Cowboy and Indian themed Halloween party, would’t it be viewed as offensive to a reasonable person in light of the university warning? After all, the code lists a premeditated act as an aggravator for discipline:

“Aggravating Factor. Any circumstances accompanying the commission of misconduct that adds to its seriousness. Examples may include the use of violence or force, violation of a trust or duty, premeditation of an incident, the existence of a previous conduct violation, and elements of hate and bias.”

My point is that there is a value to allowing people to express themselves and to accept that we live in a society of different views and values. The alternative is the slippery slope displayed in Colorado as we add more and more things deemed offensive until we are left with princess outfits (subject to objections that they foster female stereotypes) and ghost outfits (subject to those who view it as an insult to religious sensibilities).

Christina Gonzales, the dean of students, is not saying that students will be charged with improper conduct. However, if the school deems such outfits to be offensive, it is hard to see how the students are expected to know where the line is drawn.

I understand her warning that “Making the choice to dress up as someone from another culture, either with the intention of being humorous or without the intention of being disrespectful, can lead to inaccurate and hurtful portrayals of other people’s cultures.”  Here is the original letter which raises valid points for students to consider.

 

I can understand the warning but the scope of what is deemed offensive is troubling in my view. While this letter does not suggest disciplinary action, my concern is the direction of such standards given the equally broad standards for disciplinary action for hostile, disrespectful, or insensitive speech on some campuses.

The warning includes “negative representations of cultures as being associated with poverty (“ghetto” or “white trash/hillbilly”), crime or sex work” is not acceptable. One spokesman said cowboy costumes are one such example that constitutes a “crude stereotype.” It reflects the same concern that I have previously addressed in the loss of free speech rights in the name of tolerance and pluralism.

The objections to all Native American costumes appear to have reached retailers. One leading costume site adds the following statement to its costumes:

I understand that many may disagree with my concerns on this story and, again, I understand that the university is trying to encourage more respectful outfits on campus. I agree with that warning. However, if outfits like Indians and cowboys are considered offensive, should they be subject to the enforcement of the student code for offensive conduct?

Source: Yahoo

61 thoughts on “University of Colorado-Boulder Tells Students Not To Dress As Cowboys, Indians, or Other “Offensive” Outfits”

  1. I believe that is just about the so much vital data in my situation. Exactly what joyful mastering your document. On the other hand should paying attention in very few typical challenges, Your website flavour is definitely superb, your posts is due to fact outstanding : Debbie. Superior method, many thanks

  2. Y’all ought to dress up as Chip who is the mascot for the sport teams there.

    Google on Images Chip Univ of Colorado Boulder and you will see a good set of photos of Chip.

  3. Mommas don’t let your baby’s grow up to be cowboys….. Make em become…. Politically Correct to ……

  4. A university. Attended by adults. With a dress code which covers nothing whatsoever to do with university business, unless of course it were Miskatonic U.

    Dress up however you like. Make them come for you so you can then sue sue sue the nonsense out of these frightened children posing as administrators.

  5. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words Halloween costumes can never hurt me.

  6. The irony….

    HumpinDog 1, October 26, 2013 at 7:50 am

    PEOPLE WHO WRITE IN ALL CAPS ON BLOGS ARE IDJITS.

  7. “Inexplicable?” It was explained in detail. Do your homework, children. There will be a pop quiz next time.

  8. OS, this one seems to illustrate the point…
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6wIeegKKmg&w=420&h=315]

  9. TG,
    You would be in double trouble, because Cap’n Zach is usually armed to the teeth. You wouldn’t happen to have an appropriate video to insert right about here would you?

  10. Once you start down this road, where does it stop? I doubt there are many costumes that couldn’t be construed as offensive to someone — so, apparently, where it stops is a ban on wearing costumes whatsoever.

    But, then, what is a costume? Like some other commenters, one of my various jobs is as an actual, working cowboy. Does that mean I can’t wear my work clothes on Halloween?

    I also dress as a pirate for fun and profit (historical re-enactor). Talk about a non-PC historical profession, which apparently doesn’t get specifically “banned” by this letter. This makes sense how…?

    I see the point of trying to limit insensitive displays, I really do — but this is really badly done…

  11. this is a bunch of raw mountain oysters!!!!! its the elites way of rewriting history. these costumes were not offensive for hundreds of years and now suddenly they are? GIVE ME A BLEEPING BREAK!! its all about rewriting history anyone remember the story about the texas company who publishes the history books for schools being told to leave out the history of slavery and anything that doesnt involve making any race non caucasian look like saviors instead of the truth..

    its bad enough they have been rewriting history for hundreds of years and leaving out and putting in what they feel makes it good to them. at least back then they hid it.. now its being done outright… and this is coming from a black woman who has traced her family history and is both african and native american….

  12. traveling limey,
    A Marine does follow orders but all of the Marines I know, they are very moral in all of their dealings with people. Secondly, lawyers don’t convict anyone. The jury or judges convict them. The lawyers present evidence and arguments in a controlled process to attempt to provide the judge or jury enough evidence to decide if a conviction is required.

  13. Dressing as a Marine would be more offensive to Americans because you know they are going to do exactly as their Comander in Chief tells them, be it the NDA Act or drone strikes in America. Can’t you lawyers convict ‘typical politicians’ for destroying our way of life? In Back To The Future they banned lawyers but forgot about judges & politicians (failed lawyers most of them).

  14. Being Italian I was always deeply offended by toga parties. Can I seek some compensation for my trauma?

  15. Elaine, I think the harmless toga parties evolved into the racially themed frat parties.

Comments are closed.