I have been entrenched in a campus controversy over the past month. My friend and I started a lively discussion regarding a MySpace group that assumed a harsh racial tone against a certain group of students at the University of Michigan-Flint campus.The group, entitled "2nd Floor UCEN (University Center) -- We're Takin' It Back!" was moderated by UM-Flint student Josh Jenkins and populated by several of his friends, all of whom were members of the Kappa Sigma fraternity. The second floor of the UCEN sports the Loving Cultural Lounge, and is predominantly black, although it is open to everyone. The online community featured a picture of Damon Wayans and referred to our campus as a "damn inner-city pity group."
We first discovered this website over a weekend in mid-February, and by the time we returned to classes on Monday night, news had already spread throughout campus and people were outraged, but at the wrong target: the Kappa Sigma fraternity. So began a debacle, with the fraternity on damage control as the protagonist in the story, Jenkins himself, attempted to explain his actions (apparently he's biracial, so that makes blaming blacks for theft and leaving chairs greasy and messy perfectly acceptable). He stood behind the First Amendment (which does protect him, but hardly applies to his situation) and refused comment when a reporter from The Flint Journal contacted him.
Meanwhile, being the former Assistant Editor of the campus bi-weekly, The Michigan Times, I co-wrote a special editorial with another editorial staff member preaching accountability to Jenkins and deflecting blame from his organization, who had shouldered most of the blame. They did the right thing by taking responsibility for, and denouncing its member's actions (though it shouldn't have had to) and severing ties with Jenkins. The organization posted a formal apology in a subsequent M-Times.
The situation was buzzworthy for several weeks following the initial conflict, but it was reignited this past week. The Journal's story was published in its Sunday edition, raising awareness of the issue. Tuesday, the campus hosted a discussion about racism and hate (although allegedly without much of an answer, as it relied on religion rather than actions to achieve results). Thursday, however, the specific issue was formally addressed by the campus community in an open forum, Word On Da Street: MySpace and Freedom of Speech: Satire or Mockery, that incorporated many of the main players in the initial controversy, and showcased how evidence of hate on campus affected those students who utilized the second floor of the UCEN.
As I walked into the panel, I immediately received a call-out from Jonathan Ettinger, a member of the College Libertarians/antagonist to everyone who took it upon himself to blame the College Democrats for two of its members (myself being one) bringing the event to administrators. His rant was unintelligible as I was on the wrong side of the public address system walking into the debate, but I heard my specific name mentioned, and being tied to bringing the brouhaha to campus in the first place.
I took a seat and held my peace alongside my friend who found the posting. He continued on several more rants, and the issue of satire was brought into the discussion. I asked my friend for a pen and paper and wrote down some bullet points so I could give a proper response to Mr. Ettinger, who has a habit of disagreeing with everyone but himself.
I finally motioned for the emcee (whose name I did not catch, regrettably) that I had something to say, explaining that I was one of the students who started the debate. I introduced myself as such, and immediately contradicted Ettinger's allegations. The organization that I am a part of had nothing to do with bringing the event to campus. Jenkins and his friends started the group on their own, we merely kept the discussion online by providing a dissenting view. Someone else took it upon themselves to bring the issue to administrators, which began the larger controversy.
Furthermore, I stated, the notion of satire was ridiculous. Satirists do not actually believe what they directly say. For instance, Stephen Colbert is not an arrogant Republican commentator. He pretends to be in an attempt to mock arrogant Republican commentators. Carlos Mencia pokes fun at different races as a way of noting the absurdity of stereotypes.
As members of peer networking site Facebook.com, we noticed that Jenkins was recently a member of the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) who, among other things, feel that we should not celebrate Martin Luther King day until federal documents about the civil rights leader are unsealed and support reparations against whites for damage done during the race riots of the 1960s. He actually believes this stuff. This is not satire. I felt ashamed that I let such a person into my house before (long story). This call-out was particularly awkward, as I am not a confrontational person and Jenkins himself was present at the event, as well as other members who were part of the online group.
Ettinger immediately countered my comment by asking why I chose not to attach my name to the M-Times editorial. I simply stated, "Because it was an editorial." For the uninitiated, editorials usually do not have bylines.
Unfortunately, being a ridiculously busy college student, I had to duck out of the panel discussion early to meet a class group for a project and missed Jenkins' explanation of his actions, and innumerable instances of Ettinger disagreeing with everyone in the world.
I strongly back up the last point I made before leaving, however. While we may not have been directly responsible for bringing the event onto campus, I am very glad it did make it to campus because this is the first time during my lengthy career at UM-Flint that anyone organized an event to explain the importance of the Loving Cultural Lounge and the emotional toll of racism on campus.
This is not the first time during my academic career that the lounge was a hot topic of discussion (and furthermore, not the first time that the controversy has been related to myself or a close friend -- again, long story), and at this rate it likely will not be the last. Race is a heated issue by nature.
I came from a community that was not diverse at all. Less than one percent of its population is black, and in high school many students who were black were forced to leave due to intimidation and mockery. During my freshman year, a group of juniors and seniors organized what was known as the "Carhartt Clan," inspired by the Ku Klux Klan, who sported the brown work jackets and Confederate flags. This group of students was responsible for the intimidation of many blacks and as a result the school and community became far less diverse. Witnessing this firsthand as an adolescent, it was alarming that in a well-educated crowd like UM-Flint, such ignorance would still exist.
One incredible aspect of UM-Flint is its diversity. There are so many varying opinions and thoughts, butting heads on many topics is a given. I am just incredibly pleased that such a diverse group of students were able to speak their voice about this particular incident. It was cathartic for many, even if it did not provide any clear answers or a resolution.
Posts
