Responding to Racial Vandalism
In recent weeks, Native American art exhibits have been vandalized multiple times at the University of Illinois. The art exhibit was named “Beyond the Chief.” Students and faculty responded by protesting and starting an online petition. The text of the petition is pasted below. At this moment, it has 163 signatures. Chancellor Herman responded with strong words in an email sent to the entire campus community; it is pasted below. The Chancellor is sometimes criticized for responding to racism with strong words rather than strong actions.
I abhor anyone who would vandalize any art or expression of an idea for hatred of that idea. I especially abhor someone who did so for racial reasons, assuming we can infer that from the actions of the vandal(s). A friend asked me to sign the petition but I refused because I believe the petition goes too far in its demands and that it uses some instances of poor logic.
The vandalism could have been done by one solitary person. If this is so then it undercuts the argument that the vandalism symbolizes a wider antipathy toward Native Americans on campus. The petition extrapolates the vandalism to a wider base of students. I get the sense that the mind of the author has implicitly assigned the vandalism to many students on campus. In other words, even though only one or a small group of people was likely responsible for this act, they assume that the act was supported by a broad base of students or that the vandals were interchangeable with a number of other students. There is racism on this campus. I have never experienced it, but I have heard numerous stories of explicit and implicit racism. The white students on campus rarely suffer racism, so they do not understand the extent that it exists, especially white students (like myself) who grew up in the Chicago suburbs. They underestimate the amount of racism. The collection of minority students that are involved with this petition and with the protest overestimate the amount of racism on this campus. The truth lies somewhere between those two estimates. Racism should not exist at a place that claims enlightenment. I agree. But the vast majority of students would never consider vandalizing Native American artwork. Perhaps I am naively optimistic about my classmates, but that opinion is based on seven years of observation.
The petition makes a total of six demands, which can be read below. I generally do agree with showing a strong reaction to the vandalism. However, the petition goes too far in its demands. They wish for the University to issue a statement that will connect the vandalism “to racism on campus.” That is a broad phrase that cannot be supported. We don’t know how many people were involved or why the art was vandalized. Motivation is important here. If we did know the answers to those questions we would still not be able to make a credible connection to the broader base of white students on campus.
One paragraph in the petition complains that the University did not go far enough in its retirement of the Chief. That retirement was a major victory for the anti-Chief groups, yet they are not satisfied. They always seem to want more. They want to quash all support of the Chief. They object that “the Chief’s presence still remains throughout this institution.” This paragraph sounds a bit too much like the desire to control how people think and what people say, which I vehemently disagree with in any context. It might be a stretch, but I believe their true demand is for uniformity of thought on campus. Some people who strongly promote diversity of thought are secretly irritated and upset when they encounter opposing views. Homogeneity is the covert demand of some diversity advocates. I am careful to use the word “some” because I don’t believe that description applies to all or even most diversity advocates. I am a diversity advocate and have done a number of things on campus to promote it (Dialogues on Diversity Co-Chair, member of the MLK Jr. Committee, a couple of Daily Illini columns, etc.).
One of the demands reads, “Establish multiple course, cross-disciplinary graduation requirements and an annual employee training requirement that specifically engage issues of power and privilege, including racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and class inequalities.” This is a big demand. Issues of power and privilege? I actually agree that every undergraduate should be required to take one class that is set up as an open discussion about race and diversity. But the phrasing of this demand makes it sound like the objective of the class will be to teach all non-disabled, white men that they should feel guilty about their “power and privilege.” It sounds more destructive than constructive. I would support a constructive diversity class requirement.
I do agree with this demand, “Provide a monthly public report, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, that specifically documents hate crimes, sexual assaults, stereotyping, or any other acts of violence committed on the UIUC campus, along with actions taken to remedy the situation.” I think that sexual assault is an enormous problem on our campus, so I appreciate that they included that in their list. However, I am confused as to how it applies to their specific cause.
The anti-Chief and the pro-Chief movements have always gone too far. I don’t support either one. Neither group is ever satisfied. Neither can see the other side of the argument. Both make unreasonable and impractical demands. Racism cannot be destroyed by force. The issue is too delicate for force. Racism will be destroyed through the accumulating wisdom of each generation. Our generation might be the most racially tolerant generation in human history. Most societies do not have our diversity, and if they do, they do not celebrate it as the majority of us do.
——————————————————————————————
Here is a link to the petition so that you can sign it if you would like.
To: The Board of Trustees- University of Illinois (U of I); President Joseph B. White- U of I; Chancellor Richard Herman – U of I; National Collegiate Athletic Association c/o Bob Williams;
S.T.O.P. Nevada Street Vandalism at The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Over the past month, public artwork titled ÒBeyond the ChiefÓ by HOCK E AYE VI EDGAR HEAP OF BIRDS (Cheyenne-Arapaho) located on Nevada St. outside the Native American & Asian American Studies Program, and La Casa Cultural Latina has been repeatedly damaged. The intent of the exhibit is to meaningfully reflect on past and present issues impacting the Native American community. This is the third time in a month that this art exhibit has been vandalized. Not until the third vandalism was a public response or condemnation of the action issued by the UniversityÕs central administration stating that measures were being taken to find the culprits and insure that this type of action does not continue to happen. This behavior is intolerable and unethical for a University that claims a commitment to diversity and excellence.
Whereas the Native American House & Studies Program was targeted three times by vandalism to public artwork by Edward Heap of Birds titled ÒBeyond the ChiefÓ by HOCK E AYE VI EDGAR HEAP OF BIRDS (Cheyenne-Arapaho); whereas the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign continues to display pro-Chief paraphernalia-which was banned in 2007; whereas the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has not publicly condemned the vandalism and the racism that is pervasive on this campus we, the undersigned, petition the University of Illinois Central Administration and the Board of Trustees with the following demands:
1. The University administration shall issue a clear and unambiguous public statement condemning
the vandalism of the ‘Beyond the Chief’ exhibit, linking it to racism on campus.
2. The University will immediately institute a search for a new mascot for UIUC thereby making it
clear that the chief will never return.
3. The University will take immediate steps to acquire the public art ÒBeyond the ChiefÓ as a
permanent art exhibit.
This vandalism is the latest in a long line of racially explosive incidents for which the University has had little or no response. In the past three or four years different groups of students have been racially targeted: Mexicans were mocked at a “Tacos and Tequila” party where students dressed up as gardeners, and women in Òwife beatersÓ sported pseudo-pregnant bellies; African Americans were negatively depicted in a “Big Booty Hoes and Ghetto Bros” party, and there was even a threat against the life of a Native American student.
Contributing to the hostile racial climate is the lingering presence of Chief Illiniwek — a controversial figure. To some the ChiefÕs March 2007 retirement was initially considered to be a major step towards combating racism. However, the Chief was retired without any mention of its negative impact on the campus climate, especially for Native American and other marginalized students. For this reason both anti-Chief and pro-Chief supporters understand the decision to have been financial rather than moral. This incomplete ‘retirement’ contributes to an environment already tolerant of racist action. It is a disservice to the entire campus and community — including those who are Pro-Chief and hope for its return, and those students who want to move past the Chief controversy — that the ChiefÕs presence still remains throughout this institution.
Arguably, this relative inaction of the Upper Administration can lead students at the University to believe that racism is something to be managed indirectly and not condemned, and this moral ambiguity causes many to disengage in any meaningful scholarly or personal reflections.
Therefore, in addition we demand that the University do the following:
1. Provide a monthly public report, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, that
specifically documents hate crimes, sexual assaults, stereotyping, or any other acts of violence
committed on the UIUC campus, along with actions taken to remedy the situation.
2. Establish multiple course, cross-disciplinary graduation requirements and an annual employee
training requirement that specifically engage issues of power and privilege, including racism,
sexism, homophobia, ableism, and class inequalities.
3. We demand that the university embark upon an aggressive and public plan to recruit and retain
faculty, undergraduate, graduate students, and academic professionals from marginalized
populations.
It will be hard for the campus to move Òbeyond the chiefÓ until the University address the root of the problem: RACISM.
We the undersigned support these 6 demands:
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
——————————————————————————————
Dear Campus Community:
The continuing assaults on the Native American public art displays along
Nevada Avenue are not only unlawful and malicious. They are also an
assault on the values and fabric of Illinois. In other words, our
university has also been vandalized.
This is unacceptable and I condemn these recent acts in the strongest
language.
I am confident we will catch the culprits responsible but there is other
work that also demands our full attention.
We need to begin thinking of these crimes differently. First, let us not
view this as happening to someone else. What threatens one member of our
community threatens all of us. We are all diminished in the wake of such
an act. Indeed, Illinois is diminished and that should concern our
community.
Secondly, let us remember what this university stands for. Illinois has
always stood for the respect and dignity of all people and thought. We are
the home of the widest interpretation of free speech and expression. We
are the home of spirited debate along the confines of respect and
civility. But we do not tolerate acts of intimidation, violence or hate.
Let me be clear. This is our very lifeblood. This is our DNA as a great
public university. When our foundation as an inclusive and welcoming
campus is threatened we need to unite as a community and collectively
stand as one voice in condemnation. We have done so in the past and we
will do so at this crucial moment.
Let us reaffirm our commitment to making Illinois a safe, tolerant, and
inclusive environment for everyone.
Richard Herman
Chancellor
——————————————————————————————
Comment by Megan on 7 May 2009 at 2:48 pm:
“I do agree with this demand, “Provide a monthly public report, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, that specifically documents hate crimes, sexual assaults, stereotyping, or any other acts of violence committed on the UIUC campus, along with actions taken to remedy the situation.” I think that sexual assault is an enormous problem on our campus, so I appreciate that they included that in their list. However, I am confused as to how it applies to their specific cause.”
———-
1. It is important to note that race and gender are inextricably linked, therefore any discussion of one, must encompass the other (similar to discussions surrounding class). The sexual assault of a women of color is not just a sexual assault based on her gender but also her race…you simply can’t separate the two. Our identities are much more complex and interconnected, therefore it is important that sexual assault is discussed in any discussion surrounding racism.
2. While I think your discussion is largely valid and interesting, I do find it problematic that you say, “The collection of minority students that are involved with this petition and with the protest overestimate the amount of racism on this campus.”
The reason this is problematic is because you are a white male. Due to your status in society, it is impossible for you to speak on behalf of the experiences of minorities or women. Similarly, I am not capable of deciding how much racism occurs in our society because I am a white female. Since neither of us have experienced racism in this capacity, it is problematic that you or I guesstimate the degree and amount of racism on our campus. We should not silence the voices and experiences of any individual based on our outsider assumptions. Also, most people in our country find Jim Crow racism absolutely absurd and punishable, however, racism still exists and it is much more difficult to isolate and understand due to the “color blind racism” that persists, which may be why you think minorities overestimate the racism they have experiences.
Comment by Tim on 7 May 2009 at 5:24 pm:
Billy,
I have to say, this is your best post yet. I disagree with some portions of it, but I think you really hit the nail on the head in other areas, especially with respect to their demands for future course requirements.
If every discussion about the Chief and racism went as well as this post, we’d be making forward progress instead of dealing with petty acts with big implications, like these vandals.
Megan,
Your suggestion that one is incapable of understanding racism, sexism, or any other type of discrimination is complete and utter nonsense. I’m 1/4 Mexican, and I didn’t even know this until I was 20 years old. Does that give me a better perspective on ethnicity because I happen to have Mexican blood? Am I allowed to “guesstimate the degree and amount” to which Mexicans are trivialized based on their ethnicity or nationality?
Of course not. Such a suggestion is preposterous. The reality is, precisely as Billy explains, that these issues are far overblown at both extremes.
If there’s one thing about this petition that I agree with, however, it’s that the retirement of the Chief, for the majority of the University community’s members, has NOTHING to do with any moral issue and everything to do with the incentives of complying with the NCAA. And if it is universal acceptance of the idea that the Chief is “immoral,” that they seek, I’m sorry to inform them and other that they are wasting their time; one of the things that makes this nation great is that we embrace differing moral systems, not one person’s moral absolute.
Thanks, Billy. I’d write about this issue myself, but I’m not sure that I could come anywhere near your “balance” on this topic.
Comment by Evan on 7 May 2009 at 6:09 pm:
It’s funny that these are the people who wish to stop everyone from making sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about many different types of groups and causes, yet they are always willing to quickly ascribe nasty traits to a group of 40,000 people based on the actions of a handful of people (or even just individuals).
Who’s surprised that Herman felt the need to send a massmail to everyone all but agreeing with this group? If he feels the need to send out a massmail for this, he should probably send one out every day. Whoever did these disgusting things should be punished; however, let’s not act like these people are representative of anyone but themselves / a small minority. They’re certainly not representative of the campus I attended.
These lists of “demands” are always entertaining. They always lack an incredible amount of focus, always ending up as a potpourri of causes.
Comment by Megan on 8 May 2009 at 9:07 am:
Tim,
While I too agree with Billy throughout most of the article, I still maintain my position and think your example of being 1/4 Mexican is “preposterous.”
I don’t think there is any argument that an African American has a much better grip on the realities of the racism or discrimination that they experience as compared to myself, a white person. Individual experience is very important and while I can be sympathetic and offer support as an ally against racism and discrimination, I cannot personally speak on my personal experiences of racial discrimination due to my majority race status.
There’s a big difference between being 1/4 Mexican versus someone who is African American or identifies as Mexican (I am 1/2 Jewish but I would never say I can speak from that experience because I do not identify nor participate in Jewish cultural or religious activities).
Comment by Tim on 8 May 2009 at 12:11 pm:
What is defined as the bounds of Mexican, Jewish, or some other cultural or religious activities is in itself a distinction that should not exist.
If one had to experience everything to have a well-reasoned opinion on it, you probably wouldn’t have a right to vote. Without a single woman in Congress at any level in 1920, you could absolutely forget about the nineteenth amendment.
The degree to which people are offended by racism is hardly relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the actual harm caused by it, and this can be measured.
Going up to someone and saying, “You’re not black, so you could never know what it’s like to be black in America” is just as racist as saying, “Hey honky, kiss my ass.” We just tolerate your form of racism more readily because it’s less direct, but let’s not kid ourselves–soft racism is still racism.
Comment by Megan on 8 May 2009 at 1:40 pm:
You clearly don’t understand my argument and I am insulted that you said I am making any type of racist remark because I don’t believe I know what it is like to experience racism in the same capacity as a minority.
Your argument is bizarre and your discussion of soft racism (also known as color blind racism) doesn’t fit this discussion. I am very aware that color blind racism is still racism and it is very problematic (as I said previously), but as someone who studies, reads, and engages in the topic of color blind racism, I am not going to engage in this anymore because we aren’t discussing the same issues.
I never said you weren’t allowed to hold an opinion if you haven’t experienced something…I simply said we shouldn’t discredit or minimize the experiences of minorities if we have never walked for a minute in their shoes.
Comment by Christine on 8 May 2009 at 2:30 pm:
“Due to your status in society, it is impossible for you to speak on behalf of the experiences of minorities or women.”
“I never said you weren’t allowed to hold an opinion if you haven’t experienced something”
No, you said that we should completely discredit any and all opinions from persons who have not experienced the “thing” they are talking about. Jeezeroo, with that logic, no one should really listen to anyone about…………anything?
Comment by Tim on 9 May 2009 at 8:39 pm:
Like I said before, if I have to walk a mile in the shoes of someone with a vagina to understand that women have been and continue to be trivialized throughout the world for this fact, then men have no hope of assisting in finding equitable solutions to this problem.
Suggesting that your vagina gives you more qualification to discuss this issue simply adds to the problem. The reality as that it has no relevance at all to this discussion. Your ownership of such a body gives no additional support for your empirical judgment over that of another person who lacks such a body.
In asserting so, you become part of the problem, not the solution.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 10 May 2009 at 12:24 am:
Tim, you’re wrong.
Comment by Teresa on 10 May 2009 at 4:39 pm:
A few comments:
Racism is defined by social scientists as not just stereotyping, but stereotyping + power (see B.D. Tatum 1996).
What is interesting about this blog and some of the comments, is that by the logic circulated, you argue that you can be white and experience racism in the same way as a person of color is illogical and sad. It is as if I should be able to describe walking on the moon, just as well as Neil Armstrong, or what its like to swim with sharks, because i watched shark week on the discovery channel. Would you tell a baker what its like to bake a cake- having never done it? Or presume to know what it feels like to get bitten by a dog having never experienced it yourself?
What is more disturbing, is not that people feel they can comment about racism having never experienced it, but that their comments, (Billy, Tim) are more valid than an African American’s or a Mexican American’s, or someone who has experienced malicious treatment because of their skin color or culture. This logic is an example of privilege and entitlement.
Tim, this comment is completely illogical and unsound. “Going up to someone and saying, “You’re not black, so you could never know what it’s like to be black in America” is just as racist as saying, “Hey honky, kiss my ass.” And Billy, I hope you can articulate why Tim is wrong since you began this discussion among your peers.
Billy, this following comment is why i choose not to engage in conversations with you. You could have constructively engaged the arguments made in the petition, which was in fact a collective work. (I am not the sole author, the online petition just needed a name.)
Instead you decided to engage in assumptions, which you will not find in the actual petition: You write, “I get the sense that the mind of the author has implicitly assigned the vandalism to many students on campus. In other words, even though only one or a small group of people was likely responsible for this act, they assume that the act was supported by a broad base of students or that the vandals were interchangeable with a number of other students.”
The petition does not blame except the University Administration for its tepid response to racism. It says that both pro-Chief and anti-Chief students are harmed.
For a different administrative approach to incidents of racism see the response by President James Wright at Dartmouth College:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~presoff/speeches/2006/112006.html
He takes it as a matter or principle that when someone is offended, they are offended.
Finally, all this is not to say that white people, men, and other privileged people are not impacted by oppressions, racism specifically. The skewed nature of your moral compass is evidence of this.
A lot of white students, faculty, and staff have signed the petition, in solidarity with students of color on campus.
Comment by let's get rid of all comments then on 10 May 2009 at 5:46 pm:
If no one can comment on anything and be taken seriously unless they have experienced firsthand what they’re commenting on, they why bother with commenting at all?
Comment by Teresa on 10 May 2009 at 6:45 pm:
we all have the right to comment. a wise person knows when they are the best person to speak on an issue, and when they are not.
i think a comment based on experience has infinitely more value than one that is not.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 10 May 2009 at 7:16 pm:
Teresa,
You wrote, “Billy, this following comment is why i choose not to engage in conversations with you. You could have constructively engaged the arguments made in the petition, which was in fact a collective work.”
This statement troubles me. I wrote what I hope is a thoughtful and point-by-point critique of the petition. I did not make destructive comments. I did not say I know what it feels like to be discriminated against. The entire point of my essay was to make constructive criticism of a movement that I regard as right in many ways – your movement. You barely responded to my arguments not constructive, and yet they are undeniably constructive. It seems to chose not to respond to the panoply of arguments I laid out simply because I made one assumption, which was merely an attempt to look behind the mask of the author(s).
I am disappointed that you will not respond to my challenge of your petition for what I see as weak reasons.
Comment by Teresa on 10 May 2009 at 8:31 pm:
I’m not going to do your work for you. This peice is poorly written and researched. (even journalists and fiction writers do research.) Your analysis is not based in the history of the UIUC campus, NAH, and Native American Studies, nor in any social science theory or use of evidence. It is simply what you think, and that is not enough. The burden of proof is on you.
I’ve done my research- you can read my dissertation when its done.
Your analysis is based on an “ifs”, “if it is one person”, “if racism is what i think”. Have you spoken to the campus police? Do you know what they think on the matter? whether it is by one person or multiple people?
But that’s besides the point. My point, as i stated earlier, is not to blame. The petition doesn’t blame students, which you don’t seem to get, or read. Please re-read the petition. It asks the administration to take leadership. The petition doesn’t hypothesize as to the culprit. I don’t know if its a student. But UIUC administrators do not only serve as leaders to only the students, but also to the community, and the state as the flagship institution. (read the link on my previous post on President Wright)
As for your misguided notion that we really want uniformity, again where is your proof? Because I think the Chief is a damaging symbol? If you want to understand why people think this, read more. Read more social scientific research on this matter and similar situations (Carol Spindel 2000; Williamson 2003; Young & Braziel 2006; and there are countless others, many of whom are white).
But again, you want me to justify this petition. Why don’t you justify, with valid evidence, and not solely opinion, why what you think about racism is right? By what rational do you get to decide how much, or how little, racism exists on campus? That’s your privilege and you just don’t get it. And it really upsets me that you keep approaching me and others in this manner.
And again, you position yourself as being able to decide the impact and pervasiveness of racism on campus, but you don’t experience it, so why do you think you can say? And why do you tell those who do experience it, and experience it constantly that they are wrong? What authority do you have?- Your whiteness? your privilege? your sense of entitlement.
You don’t understand, but you say that because you’ve participated in MLK celebrations, and Dialogues on Difference 5 years ago, somehow, you know what’s up. your argument is the same as Tim’s, you just do a better job of hiding it.
You accuse me of generalization, but i don’t call out “white students” in the petition as you call out the authors as “minority students” although you have no idea who is associated with the petition. You assume that no white people are involved, not the authors of the petition or those who sign it. You didn’t go to the “rally” not “protest” or the forum, so you don’t know. But yet you’re disappointed that I don’t constructively engage your argument?
Why don’t you read the following legal scholars, and get back to me with a constructive argument.
Brown, Kevin
1992-1993 “Do African-Americans Need Immersion Schools?: The Paradoxes Created by Legal Conceptualization of Race and Public Education.” Iowa Law Review v.78:813-881.
Freeman, Alan David
[1995] “Legitimizing Racial Discrimination Through Antidiscrimination Law: A Critical Review of Supreme Court Doctrine” in Critical race theory: the key writings that formed the movement. New York: New Press, Distributed by W.W. Norton & Co.
Lopez, Gerardo R.
2003 “The (Racially Neutral) Politics of Education: A Critical Race Theory Perspective.” Educational Administration Quarterly. vol.39, no.1 February, pp. 68-94.
Duncan, Garrett Albert
2005 “Critical Race Ethnography in Education: Narrative, inequality and the problem of epistemology.” Race Ethnicity and Education, vol.8, no.1, March:93-114.
These two specifically deal with racism at UIUC:
Iverson, Susan VanDeventer
2007 “Camouflaging Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of University Diversity Policies.” In Education Administration Quarterly, vol.43, no.5: 586-611.
Smith, William A., Allen, Walter R., and Lynette L. Danley
2008 “Assume the Position…You Fit the Description”: Psychosocial Experiences and Racial Battle Fatigue Among African American Male College Students.” American Behavioral Scientist. Vol.51. no.4. December: 551-578
i’m done.
Comment by Commentator on 10 May 2009 at 8:39 pm:
New thought–unless you write a dissertation about a certain “experience” or have “experienced” that same “experience,” you have no right to have your opinion taken remotely seriously, but you do have the right to express outrage at those trying to express opinions on the matter.
Your listing of various papers and citations reminds me of the bar scene in Good Will Hunting where the Harvard student spouts off various works to make the uneducated construction worker feel like a second-class citizen. My question–when are you going to come up with any thoughts of your own?
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 10 May 2009 at 9:53 pm:
Teresa,
I guess I just wish we could have a good debate on the issue without you getting so angry and insulting me numerous times. You seem to think that disagreement with you is prima facie unreasonable and I believe that attitude toward open debate has been thrust onto you by a PhD program and a department with no intellectual diversity. The Anthropology Department abhors intellectual diversity. There is great value in seeing the reasonableness of an opponent’s logic and it’s sad to me that they have robbed you of that ability. I know that you once owned it.
Billy
Comment by Teresa on 10 May 2009 at 10:39 pm:
Billy,
You are ridiculous. No matter how I try to respond, even though you have insulted me first, in your assumptions on this blog, you are unsatidified. How would you like me to engage you? i’ve tried.
-Teresa
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 11 May 2009 at 10:16 am:
I thought your last response was a good one. I’m just baffled by your argument that I shouldn’t even speak about this issue because of my skin color??? Is that your argument? I’m not even sure. I’ve been an active participant and observer of this campus for seven years. I don’t claim any expertise beyond that. I’m sorry that Urbanagora is not a peer reviewed journal with proper citations to academic scholarship. It’s true that my essay was simply the product of my opinions. I never advertised it as anything more. I think I advertised it explicitly as my reasons for not signing the petition, even though I generally favor the side of people who condemn vandalism of campus art for racially motivated reasons. However, the language of the petition is merely opinion as well. So, if you believe whole-heartedly in your criticism of my essay, then you ought to have just as poignant a criticism of the petition. It cites to no authority. It cites to no statistics. It is opinion. I have no problem with that, but apparently you do. You ought to also insult the petition as “poorly written and researched.”
Regarding this whole business of my “whiteness” and my “privilege,” I explicitly said in the essay, “The white students on campus rarely suffer racism, so they do not understand the extent that it exists, especially white students (like myself) who grew up in the Chicago suburbs. They underestimate the amount of racism.” I believe this statement comports with your criticism, which makes me curious as to why you’ve criticized me in this way.
I agree that I should not have assumed that the authors behind the petition were “minority students.” That is a generalization that does not make sense.
Comment by JayBandit on 12 May 2009 at 11:50 am:
I’d bet that the vast majority of those that authored the petition are white middle-class kids…just a good hunch.
Comment by The "I can't believe people actually think like this" voice of common sense on 12 May 2009 at 2:51 pm:
Personally, I find it extremely difficult to take this petition seriously unless it can be shown that it was written exclusively by Native Americans who have been affected by the vandalism, and who have specific remedies in mind. The thought that anyone without their particular “experience” could even consider believing that his or her opinion on the matter should have been given any weight whatsoever in the drafting of this petition is mind-boggling. The effects of racism are different depending on the affected group; the fact that you did not consider this in writing a petition in response to racism against Native Americans is baffling. You should be ashamed. (Note that The “I can’t believe people actually think like this” voice of common sense will not provide citations, because, well, can you really cite to common sense?)
Comment by Tim on 13 May 2009 at 12:45 pm:
Damn, Billy. It’s getting a little rough in here. I better put my hip waders on the next time I click on over to Urbanagora.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 13 May 2009 at 6:31 pm:
Tim, hahahaha…that’s just the way we do it. We’re rough and tumble pretend intellectuals.
Comment by JAL on 15 May 2009 at 11:45 am:
Well, the majority of UIUC students ARE white middle-class kids. The silent majority doesn’t care for or against the Chief. The only people making a big deal are the protestors and the vandals.
Comment by JAL on 15 May 2009 at 11:48 am:
Also, Nevada Street is really ugly. That’s the real issue here. When are they going to tear down those ugly houses and put up glass towers?
If the campus environment is truly racist, they would keep the ethnic studies programs in those ugly houses and not build gleaming glass towers.
All this lip service towards “finding a new mascot” is cheap talk by the administration and perpetuates the grievance community, which of course is the goal.
Comment by Tim on 16 May 2009 at 1:48 am:
Nobody cares about Urbana at all. That’s why it’s ugly.
Comment by PB on 28 May 2009 at 11:24 am:
I’d bet that the vast majority of those that authored the petition are white middle-class kids…just a good hunch.
Comment by Joshua on 28 May 2009 at 12:20 pm:
PB, The majority of U of I students are white middle-class kids. Does their income or ethnicity necessarily undermine the force or reason of their ideas? I don’t think this sort of criticism advances a productive, intellectually honest debate. But I’m a white middle classer, so please disregard this comment ;)
Comment by concerned observer on 28 May 2009 at 5:37 pm:
“Does their income or ethnicity necessarily undermine the force or reason of their ideas?”
Apparently, yes, according to Teresa.