I have previously written about the increasing monitoring and discipline of teachers for conduct in their private lives. In San Diego, three high school coaches and a volunteer teacher were suspended for wearing costumes with black face at a Halloween party. They were not doing a minstrel show but were going as the Jamaican bobsled team featured in “Cool Runnings.” The party was at the San Diego State University.
The punished individuals include the varsity head football coach, an assistant coach and a teacher at Serra High School will be suspended. Notably, a volunteer will also be suspended.
People can debate whether wearing makeup to look like a Jamaican bobsled time is racist. My concern is purely one of free of expression and association for teachers. This was not a criminal act. They were not participating in a KKK cross burning. They clearly do not believe that wearing black makeup is racist or wrong. They have a right to make such decisions in their private lives. Nevertheless, both the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League supported action to be taken against the teachers and coach.
I certainly understand why many find black face to be offensive and I am surprised that people continue to use it in costumes. However, free speech and association protects different values and expressions. Citizens are not required to satisfy majoritarian views on proper humor or, as the English call it, “fancy dress.”
Superintendent Cindy Marten took the group out for a public lashing, stating that “[t]hey send their apologies to any person or group of people they have offended and want to make it clear it was not their intention to offend anyone.” She called it a “critical teachable moment” but what does it teach about free speech and privacy for public teachers?
Lei-Chala Wilson, President of the NAACP’s San Diego Branch, praised the discipline and added “We found nothing funny when we saw that picture was posted.” The concern is that public teachers should not have to satisfy others in their private lives as to whether the public finds their jokes funny or their associations acceptable. I was struck how it was simply assumed that such private conduct off-hours are naturally the subject of public discipline and accountability.
What do you think?
Or the actual YouTube…..
http://youtu.be/EQ9UAbs3UfQ
“These people simply had black skins with NO such things.”
Randyjet,
Yeah and I guess that the real Jamaican Bobsled Team would run the bases wearing the sled.
As for your question about whether they tanned to do it, that probably wouldn’t be as offensive as the very act of putting on blackface itself. No regarding them vis-a-vis Jolson, to be sure they didn’t whiten their lips. They just acted lie fools with a bobsled. Also too, I think you forget that the reason the Jamaican Bobsled Team gain attention was the fact that they attempted a sport totally foreign to their land and achieved minor competence at it. They were followed because of the difficulty of the task they set for themselves. I didn’t feel they were funny at the time, I felt they were heroic in some small way. Finally, given their role as educators their actions did have consequences because it was done in public. To put it in another way would you think a teacher who publicly demonstrates as a Neo Nazi should face no consequences at work?
Finally, I’m Jewish. Yes it would and does offend me if someone would dress in the black garb of a Hasid, wear a fake beard and sidelocks (pais), talk in a Yiddush accent and wear a fake nose. I’m funny that way and have been ever since I first heard of the Shoah. Were I Black, given past and current history in this country I would take offense at these actions. As a Jew if someone calls me a Kike there would be trouble brewing. And no Jews don’t call each other Kikes when there is no one around. I understand that Italians do, knowing many Italians. Then again Italians were never murdered by the millions nor were they enslaved for hundreds of years. While Italians, Irish, Scots, Poles, Germans and French people faced prejudice on this continent, it did not compare in any way to what was faced by Native Americans, Blacks and Jews. One would also add Chinese to that mixture. To be oblivious to that past and continuing racism is insensitive……at the very least.
MS as for your dislike for putting on Jewish things, I guess you don’t like Mel Brooks much then. I think he is incredibly funny.
I love Mel Brooks and his only use of words like kike is done on a sophisticated level that goes above the level of many in the audience.
How about this…..
http://www.uproxx.com/sports/2013/10/halloween-baseball-officially-octobers-best-kind-baseball/
Randyjet,
About that mother. That does not rise to the level of child abuse, at least in the legal sense. However, she is already getting blowback from the neighbors, and it may very well have put her job at risk. For example, if she worked for me, she would be fired because I simply cannot afford to have somebody that insensitive and clueless working for me.
Hopefully, peer pressure will be enough to cause her some pause before she does something like that again.
Leif, somehow Black people are able to dress up for Halloween without using whiteface. For some reason some whites seem to be unable or unwilling to let go of blackface mockery. Any ideas as to why?
There isn’t a whole lot left to say after Juliet, Blouse, OS, Shady, Mike S, Po and Annie. I agree with the lot of them, especially Juliet, ” freedom to speak doesn’t mean a person is entitled to be free of the consequences.”
I ponder which is more insulting, the black face or the over-the-hill physiques supposedly representing some well-toned athletes.
I’m sorry, but this is BS.
First of all, the Freedom of Speech articulated in the First Amendment has never been an absolute right. As a lawyer, surely you knew that already, Turley.
Second, I’ll even concede that the 1st Amendment allows a white person to go around and insult every single person of color he or she comes across until their heart is content, whether those insults are verbal or come in the form of dressing up in a costume that mocks people of color. However, when said white person is called out for doing so don’t try to play the “Political Correctness” card as if we all didn’t know that what they were doing was offensive.
Of course it’s offensive to dress up in costumes that mock other cultures. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Moreover, it’s intellectual dishonest and an insult to our collective intelligence to act as if the culture that is being disrespected by said white person is somehow to blame for calling the offensiveness to our attention. Isn’t that textbook “blaming the victim”? If not, then are you advocating that whites should be able to mock people of color whenever they want and people of color have no recourse and should just shut up and take it?
Don’t get me wrong, this is America so by all means, dress up like whoever you want, say whatever you want, call people of color whatever names you want. It is your 1st Amendment right to do so. But understand that there are consequences for your actions.
Juliet, I see that you missed or forgot the FACT that the teachers DID get suspended, and I assume lost pay. Then YOU have no objection to that penalty by the government and go further to say that the teachers actions have consequences. Most people would take your remarks to be supportive of taking their pay for their private activities apart from their teaching duties. I was referring to your simply saying that I was using a straw dog argument. You refuse to say specifically what that is and simply think that all you have to do is to say it is so, and MAGIC it is. I think that YOU need to do better.
We are NOT talking about others calling these teachers out for their costumes, we ARE talking about them suffering loss of pay and negative consequences and governmental actions against them. I can care less if all the people in the world object to this, since you have the right to object to their costumes. THAT is not the point. It is the governmental actions against them that is the problem, NOT your condemnation of them.
It’s an employer disciplining employees. The fact that the employer is a school isn’t really the issue. They weren’t arrested or charged with a crime. They weren’t sent off to Obama’s FEMA camps, so the penalty they suffered as a result of being giant douchebags is fairly minimal. Any other time, you folks screaming about freedom of speech would be bitching about the employees and saying if they don’t like the rules, they can find other jobs.
The Janitor,
That was well put. It is one thing to want these clowns criminally sanctioned which no one decrying their actions has called for. It is quite another to defend their activities as merely harmless fun with no slight or insult intended.
The Jamaica Ski Team idea was not just some innocent fun with no content to it. What they were trying to find was some way to be offensive but have deniability. In their abject apologies and expressions of regrets they seem to have realized they went to far. That they accepted their suspensions with no protest is quite telling and suggests they have the self awareness that they had gone to far.
Beyond that though I think there is some conflating going on regarding just what free speech is. The famous analogy of not crying fire in a crowded theater certainly speaks to that. The more important concept though that you put across is the clever game of bigotry being played out via the concept of “playing the race card”. What it effectively does is De-legitimize any protest of racist conduct. It presupposes the notion that America is now a post racial society where racism is still not a fact of life. Now of course there are those who use the argument that all racial protest is phony because Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton seem to have benefited from decrying racism. Quickly forgotten is how many White people, for how long and even now do the same kind of profiteering and how much protest there would be if they were held out as representative of all White America. If that were the case then one would merely have to point to the Aryan Nation and say there is White America, but the protestations would be hot and heavy against such unfair judgments of an entire group of people.
However, we have even here seen commenters throwing up Sharpton, Jackson and Wright as proof that racism is a phony issue. Blackface has always been seen as a ridiculing of Black people by everyone. One would have to be extremely ignorant to deny this, or mightily disingenuous. As for the consequences these people “suffered”, no one is putting them in Jail, nor are they even being fired. Thus my question as to whether a business would have the right to take action against employees for such behavior and its companion question of was this seemly behavior for school teachers that merited nothing at all? It offends me personally that racists play the “free speech” card when they want to deny Black people their right to be offended.
That is the PC of conservatives. To wit: we’ll screw you, but you’re not allowed to respond.
Juliet, You need to back up your strawman arguments with fact, not just calling names. For instance, you think that some governmental action is warranted against these teachers, but fail to say how much. Is losing one day off, a week off, a month, or even losing their jobs an acceptable consequence? How about Angela Davis? I found it very offensive that she was in the CPUSA, but I don’t think that she should lose her job for her political beliefs. There is no freedom to be free from being offended in our
Constitution. In fact, any attempt to put muscle or consequences behind such “offenses” in anathema to it. It is too bad that so many here think that it is acceptable to void our rights in favor of their pet peeves.
Randyjet:
1. I didn’t make a straw man argument. Please point out where you think I did.
2. I didn’t call you a name. Please point out where you think I did.
3. I never called for government action against the teachers. Please point out where you think I did.
Other people might let you get away with this nonsense, but I won’t. You can either make an argument, and do it without logical fallacy, or you’ll be ignored.
Again, improve.
OS As for the mother should she be fired from her job? Maybe she should go to jail for child abuse? Just what can or should the state do about this?
I recall that the Soviet Union was a free country too. Only they had laws against hate speech, slandering the state, promoting social disorder, etc.. Just how far can you use governmental power in regulating speech and press?
If I understand your point Ranjet, there is nothing one can say to offend you so much so you’d want someone, somewhere to put a stop to it? Are you saying that as a citizen, I have no duty not to offend your sensibilities by attacking your god, your parents, your ethnicity, your background, your children…That your only choice if I were to indulge in such behavior is just to bear it?
Are you saying that as a citizen, I have no duty not to offend your sensibilities by attacking your god, your parents, your ethnicity, your background, your children…That your only choice if I were to indulge in such behavior is just to bear it?
PO I see that you must be new here or take strong exception to Prof. Turley and his views on blasphemy laws. In FACT I nor anybody else has NO duty to avoid offending others. In FACT free speech to be exercised is contrary to the very notion that you put forward. Now if you wish to talk about MANNERS, then you have a point. It is not a matter of law or legal sanctions. We have libel and slander laws that are perfectly adequate to address those concerns.
As an American you have the right to reply to those who offend you, so you do NOT have to take it. In fact in this latest blog, with the defense attorney and the prosecutor, going at it, I think the defense attorney replied in an excellent manner to deflate the prosecutor. As for offending religion, I am an atheist, and I most certainly wish to offend the religious in their stupidity. I loved the NOZE Society at Baylor who in the homecoming parade had as their float, a headless John the Baptist. I laughed my head off at that one. Baylor is a Baptist University by the way.
‘OS As for the mother should she be fired from her job? Maybe she should go to jail for child abuse? Just what can or should the state do about this?”
Randyjet,
The mother committed no crime and as I said in my first comment I don’t believe in hate crime’s laws. However, do you think that this mother wasn’t making a racist statement. If she worked for a prominent local business with a significant Black clientele, mightn’t her boss fire her because her stand could hurt the business? I’m Jewish and we recently had a story about a Party Store chain that wouldn’t carry party supplies for Channukah, do you think I would ever go to that store? If I had a Black child at that school do you think I would be comfortable with my child going there and would I be wrong for feeling that way.
We have had kids at the local high school dress as masters and slaves, complete with blackface, probably every year since I went to high school there in the ’80s. Of course, the mascot is a Rebel and they use the confederate flag on their athletic uniforms and gear.
Tacky. Rude. Obnoxious.
Otteray Scribe:
wow, some people will never learn.
Blouise:
That stuff still goes on in some respects even today.
I used to do work for a black contractor who was worth god only knows how much money but he drove around in a white pickup and wore a t-shirt. We went to a bank one day and he needed to cash a check and the clerk asked him for 2 or 3 forms of ID. I asked him about it and he said it happened all the time. He probably could have bought the bank.
At times like that, I just shake my head and wonder what the hell white people are thinking.
Has anyone seen the news stories about the woman in Virginia who dressed her seven year old son in a KKK costume? The child is too small to understand the implications of what he was doing. However, if these are the values his mother is teaching him, he is definitely not going to be prepared to get along well in a diverse heterogeneous society as a teen and as an adult.
Here is a link to the news story, with pictures.
http://dcist.com/2013/11/virginia_mother_defends_dressing_so.php
“Has anyone seen the news stories about the woman in Virginia who dressed her seven year old son in a KKK costume?”
But as Leif said “it’s only a Halloween costume” and this child’s costume was merely to present that past history of the South……yeah that’s the ticket.
Shady: there is nothing “funny” about a Cool Runnings costume. It is not intended to be “funny.” It is intended to be a costume. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of dressing up in a costume for Halloween?
Before this discussion goes too far off the rails on whether “PC” is a political value or something else, let’s focus on some realities. The whole idea of being “politically correct” is a misnomer at best and a deliberate attempt by racists and bigots to find a way to vilify attempts at being respectful at worst.
There is absolutely nothing political about what has come to be known as “politically correct.” It is about respect for others who may be different. There are three key elements to helpful communication, based on extensive research going back decades. The three key elements are (1) empathy for the feelings of others, (2) genuineness (another word for being honest), and (3) respect. The moment you tell someone they “ought not” to feel the way they feel, you are disrespecting them. If a black person says that the rebel flag or blackface is offensive, then take it to the bank. If “in your face” performances like this current episode was done innocently and without realizing how offensive it might be, then the costumed ones are completely clueless and insensitive. Perhaps some sensitivity training might be in order to clue them in. If it was done knowingly that others would be offended, then I am not sure the suspension was enough.
Let me put it another way. I am about as pale-faced as anyone with a Celtic and northern European heritage can get. And I found it offensive.
“The whole idea of being “politically correct” is a misnomer at best and a deliberate attempt by racists and bigots to find a way to vilify attempts at being respectful at worst.”
OS,
Amen to that and to the rest of your comment.
Annie, I suggest you look at the black face used by Al Jolson, and what these folks were using. I think even somebody as clueless as you can see the difference. Then we have the problem of what should happen if these teachers had used a tanning salon and darkener instead of make-up. Would that be acceptable? Or do we have to close all tanning salons because it offends black folks?
This reminds me of the objections some people have to teaching Huck Finn in schools because of the word Nigger Jim. When the KKK had some intelligent people in it when it was first published. the KKK objected to the book because it showed whites in a very negative light and blacks in a positive one. I am astounded to see that some people nowadays are agreeing with the KKK in trying to ban the book., and the KKK is so stupid as to miss the whole point of the book. I see that we cannot cure or educate stupid out of people and that we will always have such folks around. We do not have to cater to them though.
“Annie, I suggest you look at the black face used by Al Jolson, and what these folks were using. I think even somebody as clueless as you can see the difference.”
Randyjet,
I guess I must be clueless too because I don’t see the difference, The question still is what is so funny about wearing Blackface to Whites. The answer is, as it always has been to specifically caricature Black people. Al Jolson used to sing in an accent that mocked Black people. Were these teachers imitating a Jamaican accent? I bet they were “Mon”.
In the late 60’s I spent 3 months on the road with a jazz/blues band. Me (female/white), keyboardist (male/white) and 3 black men (guitar/sax/drums). The keyboardist and I never had a problem finding lodgings or a place to eat but the black guys spent many a night in the car and ate take-out we brought them. Finding a bathroom they would be allowed to use was a huge challenge in certain towns.
They even had a book, I can’t remember its name, that listed the towns “colored” folk should avoid driving through.
In the late 60’s I was in my early 20’s and I remember that trip very well. We were minstrels and well understood that “blackface” was the way white people created a stereotyped caricature of a black person in order to pander to a white audience.
Given my experience, the fantastic music we created during that tour that fed my soul and the reality of racism that sickened my soul … never, in a million years would I use blackface.
Too PC? I don’t the f*ck care. There’s a price to be paid for cultural ignorance as those party goers at San Diego State University just learned. Stop whining about it, wash off the make-up and voila, every bathroom door will be open to you.
Grow up or get a life. Preferably BOTH.
“The only thing perpetuating the idea that dark-skin-tone costume makeup is inherently per se offensive is the across-the-board insistence by progressives that it continue to be deemed per se offensive.”
That is pretty similar to Justice Brown’s insistence that segregation had no inherent meaning of Black inferiority but that blacks themselves chose to put that interpretation on it.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-black-faces-white-people
Again, why is there is a history of whites dressing up in blackface. What is so funny about being black? Do explain..
The only thing perpetuating the idea that dark-skin-tone costume makeup is inherently per se offensive is the across-the-board insistence by progressives that it continue to be deemed per se offensive.
The annual pony show of local news stories shaming oblivious white people who dress up for Halloween as a black person should clearly demonstrate that the idea that dark-skin-tone costume makeup is inherently offensive is not even on the radar of most modern Americans. These people are not racists; they’re just dressing up.
The only racism is the prescriptive racism that the left has decided to unilaterally assign to those who are unfortunately unaware of their meticulously constructed race-based world view.
“The only racism is the prescriptive racism that the left has decided to unilaterally assign to those who are unfortunately unaware of their meticulously constructed race-based world view.”
Leif,
If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you in Mississippi cheap. In fact though more than 50% of the White males in Mississippi do believe that and probably would buy the bridge, so never mind I’ve got loads of customers.
The blackface makeup has long been associated with racism. Why would intelligent reasonable people choose to take that history and throw it in the faces of African Americans of today, for the purpose of costuming for a Halloween event? It was extremely poor judgment and in incredibly bad taste. Educators should know better. It would make me wonder if I would want my grandchildren under their tutelage.