The Justice

Well said.

Originally posted by

LilB

Get used to it - racism and speech you don't like exist in the real world. For a bunch of liberals, Brandeis is awfully intolerant. It's called the 1st Amendment, and as long as it's not fighting words - which in this day and age begin and end with the "n-word" - no judge worth his salt will allow this case to proceed. Grow up, Brandeis.

This is a shocking response to the eruption into our collective consciousness--yet again--of what African-American students on this campus contend with in some form or another at every level of their existence, every day and every night. Especially remarkable, of course, on a campus whose mission is "social justice," at a university founded in the aftermath of and in direct response to human history's worst violence, which rose from casual racism to industrialized slaughter very quickly under the impact of the economic failure of post-WWI Germany. It's worth pausing to imagine the kinds of economic and thus social stresses to which global warming has already begun to subject many populations.

What is shocking is not that a person exists who cannot imagine himself or herself into the skin of another. What is shocking is that our university hasn't done more to make such a response to this critical situation impossible: not impossible to say (I believe in the First Amendment too), but impossible to feel or think in the first place. We're here to educate. People are not born with imagination or empathy, they are not born knowing the sociology and history of their country or their ethical responsibilities within those contexts. They have to be taught. Whatever our good intentions, we, the faculty, have not taught well. Mea culpa, mea culpa, as my Irish grandmother used to say--who could still remember the days when Irish babies were thrown out the top-floor windows of American orphanges.

Students have plenty to "get used to" in their transition to the hard realities of the working world and adult life. They shouldn't have to add racist derision and insult to death and taxes. And certainly, no student should be asked to get used to *more* pain and hardship than another. We have a big job ahead of us this summer, next year, for years to come. But we have a job now, too, all of us, teachers, students, administration, this week: to acknowledge that harm has been done. That can be very hard work: why so?

Mary Baine Campbell
Department of English and American Literature

I appreciate your post for one reason: At least you care. However, if you really cared about "pain" and sociological realities, then let's take a look at these things.

1) The editors of GRAVITY MAGAZINE were wrongfully accused of being racist, promoting racism, and breaking university policy. THE TRUTH is, the editors were not racist (in fact, they were satirizing racism and, in fact, the fake ad itself actually makes fun of the lazy, racist white person more than it makes fun of the obedient, exploited colored person). The fake ad did not promote racism; if anything, it started a discussion on campus which HELPED unify a race of people and strengthen their beliefs and open up a forum for these issues. Finally, there was no harrassment going on. If anything, the editors were harrassed (threatened, coerced to offer an apology, etc.).

2) Brandeis University claims that it wants to be open to all students, and yet it rebukes and closes many of its doors to those who have differeing opinions and methods of expression. The university also claims to care about feelings, but what about the feelings of the minority students who LIKED the fake ad (two of whom confided in me their opnions but said they were too scared or, WORSE, apathetic to speak them aloud). Imagine being at a school named after a CHAMPION of free speech and then being told that your speech is unacceptable.

3) YES, IT IS AN ISSUE OF FREE SPEECH. It's disgusting that so many think it is not; I mean, by definition, a fake ad is being torn apart because of what it SAYS (or READS, if we're being picky) and IMPLIES.

4) It is VERY hypocritical for professors who often use texts which include offensive language to say that GRAVITY acted in the wrong. Many professors have books written by slaveowners or sexist theorists or ignorant citizens of the world. Yet, we -- yes, I, too -- accept this, for I know that in order to study history, we have to examine those whose views are controversial, ignorant, or even go against our very belief system. Think of a philosophy class; many students come across materials that they find "wrong" or "misguided" or "offensive," but they at least appreciate them for their value.

5) The hypcocrisy continues with students who claim to be fans of Spike Lee, KNOWN to use racial and controversial works (satires, parodies, documentary-like programs) to rile up audiences and get them thinking. Take the movie BAMBOOZLED -- a film EXPONENTIALLY more controversial and "offensive" as the GRAVITY ad... most people who signed the resolution against GRAVITY would think that the movie was educational, thought-provoking, and important.

6) Finally, there is a strange belief that only a black producer ("producer" in this case to mean anyone who produces any kind of art or media) can satirize black issues, a Jewish producer Jewish issues, etc. This in itself is racism, i.e., that if a white person directed BAMBOOZLED, it wouldn't be OK. What a shame. What a shame.

7) This brings me to my last point: WE NEED "OFFENSIVE" MATERIAL. Martin Luther King was offensive to millions; so was Jimmy Carter and Abraham Lincoln; so are the nuns who are anti-death penalty and the nuns who are pro-death penalty; so are those for abortion and those against abortion; and the list goes on. But we NEED satire, from both sides; we NEED to continue this dialogue; and WE NEED TO PROTECT the rights and reputations of those who use humor, ESPEICALLY those whose humor is found to be easily misunderstood or taken out of context or portrayed as damaging to our society.

The more offensive, the MORE protection.

The ONLY exceptions are when a) A threat is made and B) A plan is made to attack and/or induce violence. People may claim that satire itself can fall into these categories BUT, if they make such a claim, then that would mean Spike Lee is even more guilty of threats and violence. However, I would fight and DIE for Spike Lee's right to mock me for being an uperclass white man, because I believe that that's his right.

Anything can be deemed offensive. SSIS is offensive to the religious extreme; THE BLOWFISH is offensive to hog knows how many; and theater often times crosses lines that would make even some of GRAVITY's editors blush.

Just a thought.

The editors of GRAVITY got their feelings hurt. They felt marginalized; hell, they felt unde rmore fire than anyone else in a VERY long time on this campus. They don't feel welcome. But for some reaosn that doesn't bother you.

As for you not wanting SAF money being spent on the controversial, then that would mean getting rid of ALL theater clubs; ALL humor publications; ALL newspapers (THE HOOT and THE JUSTICE often times print opinions which are hugely controversial); and ALL artistic clubs; and ALL religious clubs.

Our university FINANCIALLY SUPPORTS institutions (small, medium, and big) that 1) EXPLICITLY call homosexuality a sin, 2) Promote historical ignorance (i.e., the Bible), 3) Shun inter-faith relationships, and the list goes on.

HOWEVER, I am fine wioth that. Know why? Because, at least (well, before the SU got involved), satire was also allowed, and so was parody, and so was controversy from different, less popular organizations. In other words, it's OK for the big and powerful rto be offensive, but for some reason people (other than me) claim it's NOT ok for the small and unpopular to be offensive.

"Hypcorisy, thy name is you."

Originally posted by

DO NOT JUST GET OVER THIS - everyone matters.

This is not so much a matter of free speech vs hate speech or a matter of racism, real world discomforts, etc.... this is a matter of protecting our home and the people who live here. Brandeis is the home for so many of us and to have a large number of our community feel hurt, misunderstood, is unacceptable. The fact that we people are telling other students who feel marganinalized that their feelings should be surpressed because this is life and they need to grow up is purely insensitive. If you don't agree with the interpretations on the article...... can you not at least sympathize with your hurting peers? Another reason why this is not an issue of freedom of speech is because 1. it was already printed.... and 2. JR and anyone can continue to write whatever they want whenever they want but SAF money should not be going to any project that is so controversial. Imagine parents of students who were hurt showing up on graduation day to pick up this magazine and see that their money has gone to such BAD WRITING, BAD HUMOR, and BAD HUMAN INTENT.

One last thing..... for all those that keep saying that this is a learning experience for gravity like it has been for the justice and the hoot... ask urself how many people have to be the target ofpeople's learning process or lack of ignorance. Gravity knew about the HOOT and the JUSTICE and WBRS....why not think twice, ask for public opinion, administrative opinion??? COME ONE PEOPLE - THINK.

Yes, see, James makes sense! SSIS is offensive, yet we're all ok with that. Therefore, we should also be ok with GRAVITY.

There are a few others here I agree with, but James has said it very succinctly (which is impressive), to the point.

I like his post because it's short, simple, and true. Thank you James, and hopefully more people will agree with you (and me, hopefully).

Originally posted by

James Sanders

SAF money should go proportionally to whatever club needs them. If not, then clubs like SSIS should not get funding since giving out condoms clearly offends some religious groups.

Wow. I guess no matter what group on campus is being discriminated against, it will always come back to the "Jewish" crisis in America. Jimmy Carter - former President, Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- did this campus a great honor by agreeing to speak to students. And just because the Palestinian art display showed a different perspective rarely seen on this campus does not mean that it was blatantly anti-Semitic. Let it go already. The blatantly racist and inappropriate ad placed in Gravity magazine is the current issue at hand and nothing else. Enough is enough, some Brandeis GRADUATES as well as some current students, need to open their minds and think about the feelings of others for a change.

Originally posted by

Kenneth P. Price, Ph.D.

How typical of the Lefty mentality. Some unfortunate, undergraduate schmuck, whose good intentions outweigh his talent, writes a satire against racism; but, his satire is so obtuse that no one gets it - and, now, the poor guy is crucified, and "racism at Brandeis" becomes the new cause celebre,as Brandeis is libeled as a racist environment. Compare the outrage surrounding the publication of an avowedly satirical piece in an obscure student magazine with -likely-minimal readership, to the support of anti-Semitic activities organized by the radical Left on campus. I refer, naturally, to the hosting of the fraudulent scholar, Norman Finkelstein, thrown out of two universities and about to booted out of a third, whose claim to fame is as denigrator of the Holocaust, terrorizer of Holocaust survivors, falsifier of history and fellow-traveler of neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. And what academic purpose did it serve to invite anti-Israel agitator and falsifier of history, Jimmy Carter, to Brandeis to flack his book? The organizers and supporters of these two events were not shy to explain that they felt stifled by the "Jewish" atmosphere at Brandeis and got a thrill from infuriating, insulting and hurting the Jews and non-Jewish supporters of Israel on campus. What academic purpose was served by mounting an "art" exhibition that was little more than a paen to the murder of Jews and Arabs in Israel - conceived, naturally enough, by a Left-wing radical Israeli anti-Zionist grad student bent on introducing Israeli-style self-hate to America's premier "Jewish" university. I don't know how students at Brandeis, today, feel about Brandeis partnering with Palestinian Arab, Terror U. led by the "moderate" Arab president, Sari Nusseibah, appointed by the Capo di tutti Capi, Yassir Arafat to his position, a man arrested by Israeli authorities back in 1991 for providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein, while Iraq's missiles were falling on Israeli cities. While the disgraceful association of Brandeis with a Palestinian-Arab school-for-hate may emanate from the top, President Nusseibah reportedly a good friend of President Reinharz, the organization and production of hate-Israel rallies by students, who brag that their intentions are to hurt Jewish and other supporters of Israel on campus, take place with the blessings of the "human-rights" types on campus, whose mis-understanding of the first amendment to the U.S. constitution is scandalous. Why is it that the free-speech goons are up-in-arms over a forgettable, satirical piece of writing, that is said to be "hurtful" to Blacks on campus, while the same motley crew support and glorify in campus events that are not only hurtful to Jewish students on campus, but have the potential to lead to actual violence in the "real world" as they contribute, drop by drop, lecture by lecture, art exhibit by art exhibit, to an atmosphere among intellectuals and journalists of anti-Semitism, masquerading as anti-Israel critique. Can the Brandeis community distinguish between real, genocidal racism and sophomoric anti-racist humor gone awry? Or is it all about whose ox is gored? Let's make the new rules explicit, then. Any word, printed or spoken that any person of color (the Islamic Jihad against Muhammed cartoons is a topic for another time) PERCEIVES - regardless of intent - as "hurtful" will be quashed and the offending author will be pilloried, and, if possible, banished from school or job; while any words, or Nuremburg-style rallies, that not only hurt, but terrify Jews, are totally acceptable, because on college campuses, hate-speech against Jews or the Jewish state is acceptable, if not encouraged. Et tu Brandesi?
Kenneth P. Price, Ph.D. [Brandeis BA (magna cum laude w/honors in psychology) 1970]

I thought your undergrad was Bachelor of Jewish Education at Hebrew College? HaMaqom Yinachem Eschem....

"This is not about freedom of speech." [You're kidding me, right? HELLO! OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH! The whole controversy has to do with writing that is deemed "offensive" to many. By definition, it an issue of free speech and free expression. (Speech includes the written, as we all know.)]

"The Gravity Magazine has printed this already. No one is restricting them. They were free to continue distributing the magazine after they were told by the BBSO president that this was extremely ignorant and offensive." [Um, the Student Union DID, INDEED restrict them by DEMANDING they use censorship inj the future, threatening them, ruining their reputations, and implying that if they do now do what they are told their magazine will not be funded which, in effect, RESTRICTS their ability to promote their humor! Also, according to the SU's laws, clubs cannot be de-chartered NOR lose funding for reasons such as offensiveness, by the way.]

"They were free to publish and WE, the community, are free to respond. This is what freedom of speach is about." [Yes, but while this is true, it does not preclude the issue from being about freedom of speech; if anything, it PROVES that it IS an issue of freedom of speech! HELLO!]

"De-chartering does not mean that they can't publish. Just not with your money and does not mean that a club cannot come back with a new editorial board and come back for chartering." [So, in other words, they would have to have a NEW editorial board; this is called prior censorship, you know, that thing that EVEN THE ENGLISH MONARCHS AGREED WAS A BAD THING hundreds of years ago. Also, by ILLEGALLY stripping away their money (again, this is done in CONTRAVENTION to exisiting laws and by-laws of the student government), they ARE restricting speech and silencing a community and BREAKING the very rules that the student government had made regarding clubs!]

"Furthermore, our focus is not de-chartering" [then why did you do it?!?!?] "but addressing community standards" [isn't free speech, open-mindedness and respect for differeing viewpoints a community standard???] "and cultural education in and out of the classroom," [i.e., satire, which is what GRAVITY was using, HELLO!] "whether it be through cultural sensitivity training for media outlets on campus, diversity training at Orientation, proposals for USEMS etc. This OUR Community." [Yes, it is OUR community, meaning we should NOT be subject to sensitivity training; sensitivity training, if provided, should include being sensitive to those with different points of view and to those whose mode and use of expression are unique. Also, trying to prevent future controversial episodes is... yes, that's right... PRIOR CENSORSHIP, THE RESTRICITON OF FREE SPEECH.]

"I have no doubt that the editorial board of Gravity thought they were being funny but they were told before that they were offensive and could have stopped the distribution." [So? Just because they could have stopped it doesn't mean they should have. I mean, they're not idiots; this is duh stuff. they distributed it because it was not threatening and not illegal.] "If your point has failed and you fail to see the hurt that people feel then you do not and should represent the Brandeis community, through an official club." [Um, then that would mean that all religious clubs, all theatrical clubs, all artistic clubs, and all other media clubs should also not represent 'deis and, on that note, that YOU should have never represented 'deis, since your opinion has hurt, threatened, confused, wrongfully accused, and embarrassed many of your constituents; you have caused UNBELIEVABLE pain in our community!] "Think about what would happen outside of Brandeis if people were to read this." [Some would be offended, some would stop reading it, some wouldf laugh, and others wouldn't even know about it. In the real world, actually, this kind of fake ad would get a shitload of money! The most offensive programming often gets the highest veiwership, ad revenue, and appreciation in the so-called real world. So yes, GRAVITY is actually ahead of the game on that one!] "This is where your money goes to and for the type of hurt that has been caused its not worth it." [The type of hurt? Again, see my earlier point; hurt happens all the time, with various publications, and with various institutions (i.e., the student union).]

"If you are a student leader at Brandeis then you must realize that our campus has entrusted you with being the face of integrity, passion, dedication and service to provide for this community. Instead of making this an issue of freedom of speech make this an issue of WHAT OUR COMMUNITY STANDS FOR" [which, by the way, IS freedom of speech! DUH! Oh, and that's right, NOT BREAKING THE LAWS AND BYLAWS OF THE STUDENT GOVERNMENT BY ILLEGALLY DE-CHARTERING A CLUB WITH NO DUE PROCESS AND ZERO EVIDENCE OF OFFICIAL WRONGDOING!]

Originally posted by

Adam Tornheim

The author clearly meant the advertisement as a satire, and while his taste and effectiveness at humor could be questioned, his intent cannot. This was not meant to be offensive and controversial and inflammatory, but to show how ridiculous stereotypes are. My question is this: If Dave Chappelle had said something along the same lines of this 'advertisement', would there still have been an outcry? Similarly, if I sing all the words to DMX song, am I a racist?

I couldn't agree more with this. This was clearly a satire and I'm amazed that people didn't see this as the obvious attack on racism that it was. May not have been executed very well, but... still pretty obvious. The mention of the 3/5 deal really clinched it.

Originally posted by

Miss Anonymous

For starters, to the editor of the advertisement- KARMA is a motha, my friend. You will get yours. Ok, BlackJerry was a joke, eh? Fine. Jokes are meant to be funny- upon reading this advertisement, I didn't understand what to make of it. Can I get angry if I don't understand the joke? NO. You know why? Because, it wasn't funny. Isn't funny now, nor will it be years later. Suppose the black community or a great portion of the minorities were to make an advertisement in our little ICC newsletter, huh? An ad that had Hitler driving a jew around in a trunk with a gas chamber. A nice little ad, that would talk about car insurance or real estate- Save a buck, a catchy slogan- might sell millions...that would be funny, don't you agree?

Think long and hard before the next time you ( general public I'm directing this to) decide to pick at any ethnic group to display them as idiots for enjoyment.

While I understand you don't think it was funny, I did. I thought it was amusing, if in bad taste. I think your Hitler car ad would also be amusing. These things are a matter of opinion, but lets take it as it is - it was a joke. They didn't say anything atrocious and the 3/5 reference to history made it that much funnier. People will always make fun of other people's (and their own) races. Chris Rock does it, Robin Williams does caricatures (which in case you didn't know are stereotypes) and countless other standup comics do. Whether or not you thought THIS joke was funny, you can't deny that these things exist, nor can you deny that they are not meant to be harmful.

A lot worse things have and will be said about other races/ethnicities. What about white people? Plenty of people, including the comedians mentioned above, make fun of them. I am aware of the reasons for this and I don't take offense to it - I know they are jokes and I know the difference between a joke and an attack.

Everyone here needs to lighten up. I get offended all the time by what people say. I'm not Jewish and everyone thinks I am, so I hear a lot of things here like "I'd never date someone who wasn't Jewish." It sucks, but they mean that - that is NOT a joke. This was, and there's a difference.

I found the ad to be funny, insightful and not racist at all. In fact, it was highlighting the ridiculousness of racism (such as the 3/5 rule). Gravity is a satirical magazine not meant to make any truthful or politically correct statements. They should be able to write as they please and if certain students find Gravity's content to be inappropriate they can choose not to read the magazine. As for me, I'll continue reading Gravity becuase I find it entertaining. Just as an individual publication has the right to free pree, the individual reader has the right to STOP READING if he or she doesn't like it.

I found the ad to be funny, insightful and not racist at all. In fact, it was highlighting the ridiculousness of racism (such as the 3/5 rule). Gravity is a satirical magazine not meant to make any truthful or politically correct statements. They should be able to write as they please and if certain students find Gravity's content to be inappropriate they can choose not to read the magazine. As for me, I'll continue reading Gravity becuase I find it entertaining. Just as an individual publication has the right to free pree, the individual reader has the right to STOP READING if he or she doesn't like it. If the magazine loses popularity (which I doubt it will) it would eventually disband. Fortunately, such decions are not and should not be in the hands of over-zealous "watchdogs" who jump at the slightest written provocation.